And his quickness to write off the NEJM study’s estimate as “not credible” (in a post at Deltoid) is matched only by his quickness to misunderstand and/or misrepresent “Main Street Bias” (in his linked PDF document), presumably so he can write it off as “discredited” (even though it’s peer-reviewed research which has been “discredited” by no-one except some wishful thinkers at Deltoid).

He says: “There was no main street bias, period”. Perhaps he’s unaware that Gilbert Burnham acknowledged the problem of bias from busy streets. Perhaps he’s unaware that Burnham et al have, to date, been unable to demonstrate how the study avoided this acknowledged bias?

And as for his comment on “road accidents”, is he aware that in the 2004 Lancet study, 24,000 of the 40,000 or so non-violent deaths over and above pre-invasion levels were due to traffic accidents (according to Lancet co-author Richard Garfield)? http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=440

For all I know he may be 100% correct concerning Soros and related accusations against Munro. But until he gets the facts right about other issues, I suggest he can’t be taken seriously as an objective commentator on matters such as comparisons between the Lancet and NEJM studies.