As for the best riposte to the (right-wing and faux-contrarian) attacks on the Lancet study, I would recommend these two blogs written pseudonymously by experts in the field:
http://healthvsmedicine.blogspot.com/2006/10/old-death-in-new-iraq.html http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2006/10/the_lancet_paper_on_the_iraq_w.php#more
On 10/12/06, Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Questions about this survey and the previous by Lancet,
> http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
> http://www.casi.org.uk/analysis/2004/msg00477.html
>
> http://burkeophilia.blogspot.com/2006/10/new-report-on-deaths-in-iraq-new-study.html
>
> Iraq Body Count vs. MediaLens,
> http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/2.1.php
>
> Questions about economist Marc Herald's study of Afghan casualties,
> http://www.cursor.org/stories/noncounters.htm
> . William M. Arkin, "Civilian Casualties and the Air War," Washington
> Post [October 21, 2001].(Arkin has worked for Greenpeace, Human Rights
> Watch and the leftist think tank IPS)
> http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html
>
> On 10/12/06, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> > The Lancet has posted the study showing 650,000 excess deaths as a
> > result of the U.S. invasion: <http://www.thelancet.com/journals/
> > lancet/article/PIIS0140673606694919/fulltext>.
> >
> > I await Michael Pugliese's effort to discredit this methodologically
> > orthodox study, published in one of the world's leading medical
> > journals.
> >
> > Doug
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
> --
> Michael Pugliese
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20061013/ee9cd940/attachment.htm>