April 24, 2006
On your website, the page Casualties of War, about the Iraqi casualties, reads: "We have not set up a database for these numbers, rather we direct you Iraq Body Count."
Underneath the IBC counter, there is this line: "British Medical Journal Lancet estimates 100,000 civilians killed."
The link to this line is an article on the BBC NEWS website, date Friday, 29 October, 2004.
I wonder if Antiwar.com would be interested in making a few changes on its page 'Casualties of War', considering the following.
Body Count simply records the Iraqi civilians deaths reported in the
English language media with an online website. On the IBC website, you
may read: "It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will
go unreported by the media."
On 29 October 2004, the British
medical journal The Lancet published 'Mortality before and after the
2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey’:
conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or
more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted
for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces
accounted for most violent deaths. (Interpretation)This study reads:
Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. (Findings)
Source: Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey, The Lancet, Published online October 29,2004
researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to
violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by
Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women
and children... Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be
caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those
deaths were due to air strikes and artillery." ('Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion', October 28, 2004) The Financial Times, on November 19, 2004 wrote:
survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method
has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern
Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health
Organisation said the Iraq study 'is very much in the league that the
other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they
are incompetent'". (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,'
Financial Times, November 19, 2004)The Chronicle of Higher Education on January 27, 2005 wrote
has used, and consistently uses, the best possible methodology,’ says
Bradley A. Woodruff, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. Indeed, the United Nations and the
State Department have cited mortality numbers compiled by Mr. Roberts
on previous conflicts as fact -- and have acted on those results. (...)
Mr. Roberts has studied mortality caused by war since 1992, having done
surveys in locations including Bosnia, Congo, and Rwanda. His three
surveys in Congo for the International Rescue Committee, a
nongovernmental humanitarian organization, in which he used methods
akin to those of his Iraq study, received a great deal of attention.
'Tony Blair and Colin Powell have quoted those results time and time
again without any question as to the precision or validity,’ he says." (Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005)According
to Les Roberts (Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee
Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the
world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the Lancet report) there
might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)
horror inflicted by our governments, with our money and in our name,
might be way far more horrifying. Dr Gideon Polya recently wrote:
MORTALITY (technically, excess mortality) is the difference between the
actual mortality in a country and the mortality expected for a
peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics (i.e. with
the same birth rate and the same population age profile). Avoidable
mortality is a fundamental parameter to be considered in any sensible
discussion of human affairs – it is the bottom-line issue when
assessing the success or otherwise of societal, regional and global
Ignoring mass mortality simply ensures its
continuance and denying past atrocities simply ensures their repetition
– history ignored yields history repeated. Thus the actuality of the
Jewish Holocaust (6 million deaths) was not formally acknowledged by
the Allies until 30 months before the end of World War 2 in Europe.
This tardiness in reportage must surely have contributed significantly
to this atrocity.
However, TODAY Mainstream Media are
comprehensively ignoring the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable
post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan (presently
totaling 2.3 million deaths) and the avoidable deaths in the First
World-dominated non-European World (presently 14.8 million deaths each
year)." (Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths, by Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Magazine, 6 April 2006)
Underneath please find some interesting articles and studies about this issue.
Thank you for your time.
Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths, by Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Magazine, 6 April 2006
Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005
When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths, by Stephen Soldz, ZNet, February 05, 2006
BURYING THE LANCET - PART 1
BURYING THE LANCET - PART 2
BURYING THE LANCET – Update
Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006
- Learning to Count: The Dead in Iraq, By Dahr Jamail and Jeff Pflueger