On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:14 PM, www.leninology. blogspot.com wrote:
>> I await Michael Pugliese's effort to discredit this methodologically
>> orthodox study, published in one of the world's leading medical
>> journals.
>
> Didn't you see Bush's speech? The report isn't credible. General
> Casey said so. The Iraqi government
> said so. What else do you need to hear?
I'm surprised at the wide coverage the study has gotten in the U.S., where the media usually like to ignore such stuff. The "refutations" have been unusually pathetic, amounting to nothing more than, "Can't be true!" The first blog link Pug posted <http:// burkeophilia.blogspot.com/2006/10/new-report-on-deaths-in-iraq-new- study.html>, repulsively named after Burke, was the most detailed I've seen, but it was still pathetic. "Why were the confidence intervals so large?" Gee, somewhere between half a mil and a mil - isn't that a comforting range?
Anyone listening to Rush? What's that gasbag saying?
Doug