BBC: Lancet study on Iraq credible, advised top UK government scientist

I’ve been skeptical myself about the incredibly high figures for mortality in Iraq since the invasion quoted by the Lancet study — they are after all several times higher than other sources — but the BBC has obtained (through a freedom of information request) a formerly confidential report from the UK’s top government scientist who said the methodology used in the Lancet article is credible:

The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt.

Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.

But the Ministry of Defence’s chief scientific adviser said the survey’s methods were “close to best practice” and the study design was “robust”.

Another expert agreed the method was “tried and tested”.

The Iraq government asks the country’s hospitals to report the number of victims of terrorism or military action.

Critics say the system was not started until well after the invasion and requires over-pressed hospital staff not only to report daily, but also to distinguish between victims of terrorism and of crime.

The Lancet medical journal published its peer-reviewed survey last October.

It was conducted by the John Hopkins School of Public Health and compared mortality rates before and after the invasion by surveying 47 randomly chosen areas across 16 provinces in Iraq.

The researchers spoke to nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people.

In nearly 92% of cases family members produced death certificates to support their answers. The survey estimated that 601,000 deaths were the result of violence, mostly gunfire.

Shortly after the publication of the survey in October last year Tony Blair’s official spokesperson said the Lancet’s figure was not anywhere near accurate.

He said the survey had used an extrapolation technique, from a relatively small sample from an area of Iraq that was not representative of the country as a whole.

President Bush said: “I don’t consider it a credible report.”

But a memo by the MoD’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, on 13 October, states: “The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to “best practice” in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq.”

While this is not necessarily conclusive about the Lancet study, it is pretty damning about the mendacity of Tony Blair’s cabinet. But then again we knew that already. Here is another BBC analysis, dated October 2006, that looks at the competing estimates of Iraqi deaths.

0 thoughts on “BBC: Lancet study on Iraq credible, advised top UK government scientist”

  1. Based on the year I was there, mostly spent tracking death tolls, I still don’t think the Lancet study is credible. Also, the folks at Iraqbodycount, who don’t strike me as apologists for the occupation were pretty forcefully in their skepticism over the study:
    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

    they estimate around 66,000, my guess it’s about twice that. While I think journalists/health officials may be missing half or even two thirds of the casualties — they aren’t missing 90%. This means there was an average of over 500 people dying a day across three years of war… including during that first year when violence was at a very low level. The rates may well be that now, but not in 2003.

    Perhaps the methodology is sound, but the number doesn’t make sense. Not compared to what people observed there for the last four years.

  2. What people seem to ignore is that there is no alternative estimate. Neither the US nor the UK would have trouble paying for one, but they ‘don’t do body counts’ of course. Iraqbodycount is a record of deaths confirmed by multiple sources – to take that as an estimate of the total misunderstands the concept – it’s not a total, it’s an absolute bare minimum designed to concusively disprove any lower estimates. If their figure were the total, that would mean that every violent death was reported in more than one source – hardly likely in place like occupied Iraq. For a total, there is no other figure than the Lancet’s. If you dispute it, that’s just placing hope above judgement unless you have an alternative. Which you don’t.

  3. You don’t have to necessarily present a conclusive alternative figure to realize that the Lancet figure just doesn’t make sense — not according to the rate of deaths being reported there by morgues, police, observation, etc… Where are all these missing bodies?

  4. Iraq Body Count is a database of deaths reported in the media. It’s a passive study (it relies on information flowing to the researcher) and it provides, by definition, a total number of those killed that has been reported in the media.

    The Johns Hopkins study was a statistical report using an established methodology (no precedents were set) that was used in other theatres of war – with no objections. The number they come up with may be unbelievable, the number will also be wrong (within margins), but the approach suggests that the numbers killed since the US/UK invasion far exceed the numbers reported in the media.

    Given the number of bodies turning up each morning, it’s no criticism of the media to say that they can’t report them all.

    But perhaps they’ll get ten per cent?

  5. The media reports what the hospitals and the police find. Are the hospitals and police missing 90% of the bodies? That’s a lot of bodies lying about.

    I already posted a link to this, but I’ll just briefly quote what Hamit Dardagan et al. said has to be true for the Lancet study to be right:

    – On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
    – Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
    – Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
    Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *