Hvad så Villy Søvnighed:
There were attempts made by lay journalists to debunk the 2004 study (as well as the 2006 follow-up study that purported to back up the first). But none of those dissections comes close to a damning new statistical analysis of the 2004 study authored by David Kane, Institute Fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University. I read of Kane’s new paper at this science blog and e-mailed him for permission to reprint his analysis in its entirety here so that a wider blog readership could have a look. He has given me his permission and adds that he welcomes comments and feedback. He’ll be presenting the paper at the Joint Statistical Meetings in Salt Lake City on Monday — the largest conference of statisticians in North America.
Much of the math here is mind-numbingly complicated, but Kane’s bottom line is simple: the Lancet authors “cannot reject the null hypothesis that mortality in Iraq is unchanged.” Translation: according to Kane, the confidence interval for the Lancet authors’ main finding is wrong. Had the authors calculated the confidence interval correctly, Kane asserts that they would have failed to identify a statistically significant increase in risk of death in Iraq, let alone the widely-reported 98,000 excess civilian deaths.
An interesting side note: as Kane observes in his paper, the Lancet authors “refuse to provide anyone with the underlying data (or even a precise description of the actual methodology).”
Mere hos Michelle Malkin, hvor Kanes artikel kan læses i sin helhed.
Limewoody
Hej Hodja
Jeg googlede David Kane igen idag, og fandt derigennem frem til din blog.
Du vil måske være interesseret i at vide, at Kanes ‘kritik’ af Lancet-studiet er blevet helt og aldeles gennemhullet. Du kan følge diskussionen i sin seneste udgave på Tim Lamberts Deltoid blog. Det er ret beskæmmende at overvære.
Vh
Trane
Man kan stille et andet helt ikke-statistisk spørgsmål:
Hvor er de 100.000 vis af grave?