Comments Posted By xii
Displaying 1 To 3 Of 3 Comments
"I shouldn’t have to jump up and down and shout about “grossly misleading findings†or professional misconduct, should I? This subject is a big deal."
I very much agree that it's a big deal. What I'm interested in knowing is whether you, as a professional in this field, think that this study's results are likely too high. And, how likely, and how much too high. In other words, is the study worthless? And, since it's likely that this kind of study has been done before on other subjects, are they also worthless?
Comment Posted By xii On 12.10.2006 @ 13:11
DrSteve, the location of each cluster was also randomly selected, no? The reason for the contiguity was legit -- "By confirming the survey to a cluster of houses close to one another it was felt the benign purpose of the survey would spread quickly by word of mouth among households, thus lessening the risk to the interviewers." But even if we grant your concern as a given, does that invalidate the study's findings? Are you saying that the method used here likely resulted in grossly misleading findings?
Comment Posted By xii On 12.10.2006 @ 11:43
I'm waiting for one statistical expert to tell me that the methodology of this study is bad. Somebody step up, or shut the hell up.
My understanding is that the point of the study is NOT to state an exact number of people killed. The point is simply to get a comparison of death rates before the war and after. From that you can say whether things have gotten better or worse. If worse, how much worse. Again, why is this methodology bad?
Even if the timing of the release of the study is politically motivated -- and I'd like to see proof of that, too -- when did conservatives turn into such wimps about political debate prior to an election? Or should we disregard everything that comes out of any member of the Bush administration's mouth as politically motivated as well?
Comment Posted By xii On 12.10.2006 @ 10:23
