February 11, 2007
The Number: 654,965
When Johns Hopkins epidemiologists set out to study the war in Iraq, they did not anticipate that their findings would be so disturbing, or so controversial.
Dale Keiger in Johns Hopkins Magazine:
In April of last year, Gilbert H. Burnham and Leslie F. Roberts, A&S '92 (PhD), began finalizing plans for some new epidemiology. There was nothing notable in that; Burnham and Roberts, at the time both researchers at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health, were epidemiologists. What was notable was the subject. They would not be studying the spread of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, or incidence of cholera in Bangladeshi villages. They meant to conduct epidemiological research on the war in Iraq. They would treat the war as a public health catastrophe, and apply epidemiological methods to answer a question essential to an occupying power with the legal obligation to protect the occupied: What had happened to the Iraqi people after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion?
Their efforts produced a mortality study, their second in two years, published last October in The Lancet, Britain's premier medical journal. The study produced a number: 654,965. This was the researchers' estimate of probable "excess mortality" since the 2003 invasion — Iraqis now dead who would not be dead were it not for the war. The number was a product of the study, not its central point. But it commanded attention because it was appallingly, stupefyingly large. It was beyond anyone's previous worst imagining. It was just plain hard to believe, and in the weeks following its publication, it became an oddity of science: a single number so loud, in effect, it overwhelmed the conclusions of the research that produced it.
More here. [Thanks to Asad Raza.]
Posted by Abbas Raza at 12:03 PM | Permalink






Comments
Abbasi, thanks for posting this. It's a monumental study which appears to have been brushed under the rug. I hope your post will spark a broader recognition of the atrocities that continue.
Keep up teh good work.
Posted by: ga | Feb 11, 2007 9:48:33 PM
It IS a monumental study, and one that President Bush brushed aside by claiming that the study lacked credibility.
But the methodology is sound. It is the same methodology that Les Roberts used to produce a groundbreaking report on war-related deaths in DRC for the International Rescue Committee, at great personal risk to himself and his research team.
We all know that the US military and government claims: "we do not do body counts" --of civilians, that is.
It is important that others do.
For anyone interested, the Canadian-based Human Security Report will soon be publishing a global study of what epidemiologists call "excess deaths", which refers to indirect war deaths (starvation, disease, etc.) that would not, in peacetime, had had fatal results.
For more information, See:
http://www.humansecuritycentre.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=115
KB
Posted by: KB | Feb 11, 2007 10:30:52 PM
Thanks for posting this. There certainly seem to be methodological problems with the study, but even assuming that the "main-street" problem caused an 4x over-estimate, the number remains atrocious. Its immediate dissmissal by the majority of society shows a moral cowardness not seen since Vietnam. I often see my fellow Americans post that Iraqis "have it coming" or "deserve what they get." My stomache churns everytime, and I end up feeling vaguely guilty that I've been unable to convince them otherwise.
Posted by: Cyrus | Feb 12, 2007 4:12:40 PM
Post a comment