Psyche, Science, and Society

Comments on the reception of new NEJM Iraq mortality study

I have just posted the following comments on the new NEJM study of Iraq mortality on the Media Lens Message Board, in response to heated criticism of the new study:

 I don’t think this is fair. The NEJM study is another attempt to do something very difficult: assess the consequences of the war and occupation in a situation of extreme violence. I notice that Les Roberts was fairly positive, while raising a number of important issues. [One version of Les' thoughts can be read  [url=http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/01/10/les-roberts-on-new-iraq-mortality-study/]here[/url]] I think we should follow Les’ example here.

While there are many issues with the new study, there is no fatal flaw.

I think the authors assess deaths due to violence because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that they can estimate this figure more accurately than total excess mortality. Violent deaths do not rely upon an accurate estimate of prewar mortality several years earlier, while excess mortality estimates do. This is something in which the NEJM study clearly fails. This failure does suggest, as  Les suggests, that the NEJM study is an undercount. Other problems are, as Cockburn points out, the steady rate of mortality in the NEJM study.

But Cockburn attributes nefarious motivations to the fact that Iraqi interviewers were sent to Amman for training. I will bet that this was so that they could be trained by WHO staff. Remember, at this time Les Roberts and, I believe, Gilbert Burnham, went to Amman when conducting L2 and conducted the data analyses there. The reason was the same: they felt it was too dangerous for foreigners to go into Iraq.

As for the ORB study, I was impressed when it came out. but the absence of any publication of methodological details, much less their failure to post the additional results they promised for early October cast doubt upon the study. Until they publish more, it can’t be taken as meaning much of anything, alas.

I’m afraid we’re in danger of falling into a dangerous trap of defending heartily studies whose the results we like and attacking those whose results we dislike. I teach my research students that we should subject studies confirming our prior beliefs to extra scrutiny while being careful not to search mightily for methodological flaws in those studies we don’t agree with. Otherwise, we learn nothing.

If Les welcomes this study, while examining its weaknesses, I suggest we should as well. Examining violent mortality in Iraq is extremely difficult. we may never know what the true figure is. As of summer 2006, it was most likely somewhere between 150,00 and 650,000. By now, it is probably somewhere between 250,00 and 1.2 million.  In any terms, that is truly horrifying and a humanitarian catastrophe. We should work to get that message out. To fight NEJM vs Lancet will only deflect the  message and work to the right’s advantage. Let’s not give them that advantage.

I suspect there will be responses at the Media Lens Message Board. Go there and read them.

Add comment January 12th, 2008

Les Roberts on new Iraq mortality study

Les Roberts, an author of the two previous Lancet studies of Iraq mortality,  sends the following comments on the new Iraq mortality study, the Iraq Family Health Survey, that I blogged about last night:

I think that this new article in the NEJM is a good addition to the discussion. It is good for Iraqis, it is good for science, it is good for promoting peace.

1) There is far more in common in the results than appears at first glance.

The NEJM article found a doubling of mortality after the invasion, we found a 2.4 fold increase. They found a CMR of 3/1000/yr. before and 6 after but thought they were missing almost 1/2 the deaths. We found a CMR of 5 before and 13 after….thus we actually agree roughly on the number of excess deaths. The big difference is that we found almost all the increase from violence, they found 1/3 the increase from violence.

The other odd items (family size, refusal rates, absentee household rates, fraction of deaths from infectous diseases and car accidents…) are strikingly similar.

IBC adds to their estimate for months after a given date; back at the end of June 2006, IBC estimated 41,000 deaths (my notes suggest 38,475 to 42,889 on June 24, 2006). This new estimate is 4 times the “widely accepted” number of that moment, our estimate was 12 times higher. Both studies suggest things are far worse than our leaders have reported.

2) There are reasons to suspect that the NEJM data had an under-reporting of violent deaths.

The death rate they recorded for before the invasion (and after) was very low….lower than neighboring countries and 1/3 of what WHO said the death rate was for Iraq back in 2002.

The last time this group (COSIT) did a mortality survey like this they also found a very low crude death rate and when they revisited the exact same homes a second time and just asked about child deaths, they recorded almost twice as many. Thus, the past record suggests people do not want to report deaths to these government employees.

We confirmed our deaths with death certificates, they did not. As the NEJM study’s interviewers worked for one side in this conflict, it is likely that people would be unwilling to admit violent deaths to the study workers.

They roughly found a steady rate of violence from 2003 - 2006. Baghdad morgue data, Najaf burial data, Pentagon attack data, and our data all show a dramatic increase over 2005 and 2006.

Finally, their data suggests 1/6th of deaths over the occupation through 6/06 were from violence. Our data suggest a majority of deaths were from violence. All graveyard reports I have heard are consistent with our results.

I hope these comments are helpful. I hope people in the press will visit a few  graveyards/morgues/hospitals and decide if 1/6th or over 1/2 of the deaths during the period 2003-06.

Best regards,

Les Roberts

5 comments January 10th, 2008

New estimate of Iraq violent mortality, 151,000, far lower than Lancet

A new household survey in Iraq released today comes up with an estimate for violent mortality far lower than that by Burnham, Roberts and others in the Lancet last year. they estimate 151, 000 violent deaths. The study is available online from the New England Journal of Medicine. [I have not read the study yet but felt that I should post it as soon as possible.] Here is an article from MedPage Today on the study:

Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006

By Peggy Peck

GENEVA, Jan. 9 — The latest audit of Iraq war deaths — combatants and civilians — puts the mortality toll at 151,000, which is about 75% lower than an estimate published more than a year ago.

The new estimate comes from the Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group, a joint project of the World Health Organization and the Iraqi government that did interviews in 9,345 households in about 1,000 locations across Iraq. The findings were published online today by the New England Journal of Medicine.

The total mortality was based on direct reporting of deaths by household respondents, and the authors said that “there are no better methods available to provide more accurate estimates of the death toll due to the humanitarian conflict in Iraq in the wake of the 2003 invasion.”

The Iraq Family Health Study was a representative study of 9,345 households that have been providing information on deaths since 2001. The new estimate was culled from surveys conducted in 2006 and 2007 with 1,086 household clusters that reported 1,325 deaths from January 2002 through June 2006.

But estimating deaths in a war zone is not an exact science and the authors said that when “underreporting was taken into account, the rate of violence-related death was 1.67 (95% uncertainty range: 1.24 to 2.30). This rate translates into an estimated number of violent deaths of 151,000 (95% uncertainty range: 104,000 to 223,000) from March 2003 through June 2006.”

In other words, the number of violent deaths could be as low as 104,000 or as high as 223,000 during those three years, but the most probable total was 151,000, said Mohamed Ali, Ph.D., a WHO statistician who was a member of the Iraq Family health Survey Study Group.

And even the high-end estimate of this survey was about 66% lower than the mortality estimate from Burnham et al (Lancet 2006; 368: 1421-8), which estimated that there were 601,027 violent deaths during the three years following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

But the Iraq Family Health Survey estimate was about three times higher than the deaths reported by the Iraq Body Count project, which reported 47,668 deaths.

“How is it that these numbers vary so widely, given that there can only be one true answer?” asked Catherine A. Brownstein, M.P.H., of Yale, and John S. Brownstein, Ph.D., of Harvard in an editorial that accompanied the survey results.

“The [Iraq Family Health Survey] study group does not directly address this question, but it deserves speculation,” the Brownsteins added. “The probable cause is that the techniques used to obtain the estimates differ radically from one another.”

The Iraq Body Count project crosschecks civilian deaths that are reported by a minimum of two independent sources against hospital and morgue records, as well as official figures. Moreover, it does not include deaths of combatants in its tally. It represents surveillance, not survey, and “should be treated as a reliable lower bound,” according to the editorialists.

The Burnham study used a method similar to that of the Iraq Family Health Survey but its overall sample involved only 1,849 households in 47 cluster areas, while the new survey included almost five times as many households and 20 times more regions or clusters.

And although all three surveys identify the same regions as high mortality areas — Anba, Babylon, Basra, Diyala, Nineveh, and Salahuddin — there were striking differences in the death rates in those areas reported by Burnham et al versus the Iraq Family Health Survey.

According to Burnham et al, the daily death rates in those regions for years 2003 to 2006 were 231, 491, and 925, respectively, versus 128, 115, and 126 for the same periods in the Iraq Family Health Survey.

All three surveys also agreed that Kurdistan was a low mortality area and Baghdad was a high mortality area. But although 54% of the deaths reported in the Iraq Family Survey and 60% of the deaths reported by the Body Count project occurred in Baghdad, only 26% of the deaths reported by Burnham et al occurred in Baghdad.

Finally, the authors concluded that even though their estimate was “substantially lower than that estimated by Burnham et al, it nonetheless points to a massive death toll in the wake of the 2003 invasion — and represents only one of the many health and human consequences of an ongoing humanitarian crisis.”

The survey was funded by the United Nations Development Group Iraq Trust Fund, the European Commission, and the WHO.

The study group members reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Here is the Abstract from the paper:

Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006

Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group

ABSTRACT

Background Estimates of the death toll in Iraq from the time of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 until June 2006 have ranged from 47,668 (from the Iraq Body Count) to 601,027 (from a national survey). Results from the Iraq Family Health Survey (IFHS), which was conducted in 2006 and 2007, provide new evidence on mortality in Iraq.

Methods The IFHS is a nationally representative survey of 9345 households that collected information on deaths in the household since June 2001. We used multiple methods for estimating the level of underreporting and compared reported rates of death with those from other sources.

Results Interviewers visited 89.4% of 1086 household clusters during the study period; the household response rate was 96.2%. From January 2002 through June 2006, there were 1325 reported deaths. After adjustment for missing clusters, the overall rate of death per 1000 person-years was 5.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.89 to 5.77); the estimated rate of violence-related death was 1.09 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.50). When underreporting was taken into account, the rate of violence-related death was estimated to be 1.67 (95% uncertainty range, 1.24 to 2.30). This rate translates into an estimated number of violent deaths of 151,000 (95% uncertainty range, 104,000 to 223,000) from March 2003 through June 2006.

Conclusions Violence is a leading cause of death for Iraqi adults and was the main cause of death in men between the ages of 15 and 59 years during the first 3 years after the 2003 invasion. Although the estimated range is substantially lower than a recent survey-based estimate, it nonetheless points to a massive death toll, only one of the many health and human consequences of an ongoing humanitarian crisis.

More information on the Iraq Family Health Survey is available from their web site.

2 comments January 9th, 2008

Burnhman & Roberts: U.S. must face huge death toll of Iraqi civilians

Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts, the two primae authors of the “Lancet”/Johns Hopkins Iraq mortality studies, make it onto the oped page of a US newspaper:

U.S. must face huge death toll of Iraqi civilians

By Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts
October 9, 2007

Not wanting to think about civilian deaths in Iraq has become almost universal. But ignorance of the Iraqi death toll is no longer an option.

An Associated Press poll in February found that the average American believed about 9,900 Iraqis had been killed since the end of major combat operations in 2003. Recent evidence suggests that things in Iraq may be 100 times worse than Americans realize.

News report tallies suggest that about 75,000 Iraqis have died since the U.S.-led invasion. But a study of 13 war-affected countries presented at a recent Harvard conference found that more than 80 percent of violent deaths in conflicts go unreported by the press and governments.

City officials in Najaf were recently quoted on Middle East Online stating that 40,000 unidentified bodies have been buried in that Iraqi city since the start of the conflict. In a speech Sept. 5, Samir Sumaidaie, the Iraqi ambassador to the United States, stated that there were 500,000 new widows in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group similarly found that the Pentagon undercounted violent incidents by a factor of 10. Finally, last month, the respected British polling firm ORB released the results of a poll estimating that 22 percent of households had lost a member to violence during the occupation of Iraq, equating to 1.2 million deaths. This finding roughly verifies a less precisely worded BBC poll last February that reported 17 percent of Iraqis had a household member who was a victim of violence.

So multiple polls and scientific surveys all suggest the official figures and media-based estimates in Iraq have missed 70 percent to 95 percent of all deaths. The evidence suggests that the extent of underreporting by the media is only increasing with time.

Being forthright about the human cost of the war is in our long-term interests. How can military and civilian leadership comment intelligently about security trends in Iraq, or about whether any security policies are working, if they are not detecting most of the estimated 5,000-plus violent deaths that occur each week? Can American plans for the future of Iraq be respected within Iraq if they do not openly address the toll that they imply? Avoiding the issue of Iraqi deaths will likely come back to haunt us as young people in the Middle East grow up with ingrained hostility toward America.

In The Zimmermann Telegram, Barbara Tuchman describes the resentment in Japan over the 1913 California Alien Land Law designed to prevent Japanese immigrants from buying land. This resentment almost enabled Germany to persuade Japan to attack the United States during World War I and probably helped set the stage for it to happen a quarter-century later. We cannot yet tell what consequences will arise from our invasion of Iraq.

Discussion of trends and policy effects based on meaningful and validated measures such as median income and death rates would make our leaders more accountable and leave us better informed. Deliberately ignoring the number of dead Iraqis is not an option worthy of the United States and is not in our enlightened self-interest.

Gilbert Burnham is a professor of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. His e-mail is gburnham@jhsph.edu. Les Roberts is an associate professor at the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health. His e-mail is es@a-znet.com.

[Thanks to MediaLens Message Board.]

Add comment October 9th, 2007

Interview with ORB researcher on Iraq mortality poll

NPR interviews Johnny Heald of the British ORB polling company on their recent survey estimating 1.2 million Iraqi deaths.  Listen here.

1 comment September 23rd, 2007

Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts: Ignorance of Iraqi death toll no longer an option

Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts have written a, so far unpublished, op-ed on the multitudinous casualties from the Iraq war:

Ignorance of Iraqi death toll no longer an option

Not wanting to think about civilian deaths in Iraq has become almost universal. The average American believed approximately 9,900 Iraqis had died as a result of the war according to a February 2007 AP poll. Unfortunately, recent evidence suggests that things in Iraq may be one-hundred times worse than Americans realize.

News report tallies suggest some 75,000 Iraqis have died since the US-led invasion. A study of 13 war affected countries presented at a recent Harvard conference found over 80% of violent deaths in conflicts go unreported by the press and governments. City officials in the Iraqi city of Najaf were recently quoted on Middle East Online stating that 40,000 unidentified bodies have been buried in that city since the start of the conflict. When speaking to the Rotarians in a speech covered on C-SPAN on September 5th, H.E. Samir Sumaida’ie, the Iraqi Ambassador to the US , stated that there were 500,000 new widows in Iraq . The Baker-Hamilton Commission similarly found that the Pentagon under-counted violent incidents by a factor of 10. Finally, a week ago the respected British polling firm ORB released the results of a poll estimating that 22% of households had lost a member to violence during the occupation of Iraq, equating to 1.2 million deaths. This finding roughly verifies a less precisely worded BBC poll last February that reported 17% of Iraqis had a household member who was a victim of violence.

There are now two polls and three scientific surveys all suggesting the official figures and media-based estimates in Iraq have missed 70-95% of all deaths. The evidence suggests that the extent of under-reporting by the media is only increasing with time.

Being forthright about the human cost of the war, perhaps over a million deaths to date, is in our long-term interests. How can military and civilian leadership comment intelligently about security trends in Iraq, or if any security policies are working, if they are not detecting most of the 5000+ violent deaths that occur per week? Can American plans for the future of Iraq be respected within Iraq if they do not openly address the toll that they imply? Avoiding the issue of Iraqi deaths will likely come back to haunt us as young people in the Middle East grow up with ingrained hostility toward America.

In the Zimmerman Telegram, Barbara Tuchman describes the resentment in Japan over the 1913 California Alien Land Law designed to prevent Japanese immigrants from buying land. This resentment almost enabled Germany to persuade Japan to attack the US during WWI and probably helped set the stage for it happening a quarter century later. We cannot yet tell what consequences will arise from our invasion of Iraq . Ignoring the consequences of our actions, or striking a tone of belligerence rather than contrition, will not build long-term relationships we need in the Middle East . Established methods for estimating deaths exist, even in times of war. Discussion of trends and policy effects based on meaningful and validated measures such as median income and death rates would make our leaders more accountable and leave us better informed. Deliberately ignoring the numbers of dead Iraqis is not an option worthy of the United States , or in our enlightened self-interest.

Gilbert Burnham

Les Roberts

Gilbert Burnham is a MD and Professor of International Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Les Roberts is an Associate Professor at the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health

Add comment September 23rd, 2007

ORB Iraq mortality poll to be reexamined

The British polling company, ORB, that reported that an estimated 1.2 million Iraqis had died from violence post-invasion has decided that their results might be affected by a sampling design that undersampled rural areas. They had taken the survey results off the front page of the Newsroon page for a while. Now it has returned to that page, with a press release announcing that they are conducting some additional surveys in rural areas.

Iraq Casualties Poll Update

ORB to conduct additional interviews in rural Iraq.

We have received a lot of interest in the recent ‘casualties’ poll that we carried out in conjunction with our local partners in Iraq - IIACSS. Our survey was carried out throughout Iraq and looked at the incidence of civilian deaths since 2003 - together with Iraqi’s views on the displacement of people.

As with many other activities in Iraq polling has its own restraints and it is simply too dangerous for interviewers to operate in some areas. Meanwhile local authorities prevent interviewers from working in certain towns and districts. This means that we cannot gather opinion from the more volatile areas but, at the same time we have, so far, also limited coverage in rural districts. Both of these factors mean that any estimate of deaths will remain just that - an estimate.

While, for obvious reasons, we cannot boost our representation of people living in Iraq’s most violent areas we have decided - following feedback from readers of our poll - to conduct a more extensive survey of rural areas to see how this may impact on our estimate. We are in the process of conducting additional interviews in rural areas of Iraq. Once this data has been verified and merged with our current data set we will post it here on the ORB.

As scientists, we await the release of these additional results. I also hope that ORB will post details on their sampling methodology and survey administration techniques. Like the Johns Hopkins studies, the ILCS, and others, we need to closely examine their methodology. While I take the Hopkins and ORB studies seriously as evidence that the death toll is in the many hundreds of thousands, as a scientist, and sometime survey researcher (albeit in a very different area), I know that estimates in a situation like Iraq are just that, estimates. I’d like to see their methodology to see how well they dealt with the various potential biases. If it stands up, the replication of the basic findings of the Hopkins study, that the mortality in Iraq is enormous, will immeasurably strengthen our case.
At the same time, as I teach my research methods students, we should be skeptical of studies that support our prior beliefs and subject them to the same critical examination that we do of studies which challenge our prior beliefs.

1 comment September 21st, 2007

New study: Over one million Iraqis killed by violence since invasion

A new survey by the British polling agency ORB reports over one million Iraqis have been killed by violence since the 2003 invasion. This number is even higher than that derived from the so-called “Lancet study” of Gilbert Burnham et al that last summer found about 650,00 total excess deaths from violence and deteriorating health conditions. The Lancet study has been subjected to relentless attack by the American and British governments, by Iraq Body Count, by those alleging that its methodology had a “main street bias,”and by others. During the controversy, independdent erplication of the Lancet findings were sorely missing. While it’s early to be sure, as details are not yet available, this new survey provides the potential replication, supporting the claim that violent deaths in Iraq are in the many hundreds of thousands.

Here is the press release [See also the LA Times article.]:

PRESS RELEASE

More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered since 2003 invasion

In the week in which General Patraeus reports back to US Congress on the impact the recent ’surge’ is having in Iraq, a new poll reveals that more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have been murdered since the invasion took place in 2003 Previous estimates, most noticeably the one published in the Lancet in October 2006, suggested almost half
this number (654,965 deaths).

These findings come from a poll released today by O.R.B., the British polling agency that have been tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005. In conjunction with their Iraqi fieldwork agency a representative sample of 1,461 adults aged 18+ answered the following question:-
Q How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean
those who were actually living under your roof.

None 78%

One death 16%

Two deaths 5%

Three deaths 1%

Four+ deaths 0.002%

Given that from the 2005 census there are a total of 4,050,597 households this data suggests a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003.

Detailed analysis (which is available on our website) indicates that almost one in two households in Baghdad have lost a family member, significantly higher than in any other area of the country. The governorates of Diyala (42%) and Ninewa (35%) were next.

The poll also questioned the surviving relatives on the method in which their loved ones were killed. It reveals that 48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance. This is significant because more often that not it is car bombs and aerial bombardments that make the news – with gunshots rarely in the headlines.

As well as a murder rate that now exceeds the Rwanda genocide from 1994 (800,000 murdered), not only have more than one million been injured but our poll calculates that of the millions of Iraqis that have fled their neighbourhoods, 52% have moved within Iraq but 48% have crossed its borders, with Syria taking the brunt of refugees.

And for those left in Iraq, although 81% may describe the availability of basic groceries such as bread and fresh vegetables as “very/fairly good”, more than one in two (54%) consider them to be “expensive”.

Note:

The opinion poll was conducted by O.R.B. and the survey details are as follows:

• Results are based face-to-face interviews amongst a nationally representative sample of 1720 adults aged 18+ throughout Iraq.

• The standard margin of error on the sample size is +2.4%

• The methodology uses multi-stage random probability sampling and covers fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq. For security reasons Karbala and Al Anbar were not included. Irbil was excluded as the authorities refused our field team a permit.

• Interviews conducted August 12th – 19th 2007.

• Full results and data tabulations are available at www.opinion.co.uk/newsroom.aspx [Note: no information is posted there as of this writing.]

• O.R.B. are full members of the British Polling Council and abide by its rules

Contacts:

Johnny Heald Munqeth Daghir

Managing Director, ORB Managing Director, Baghdad

+44 207 611 5270 +962 799672229

07973 600308

Notice that they found one in two households in Baghdad had lost a family member. Assuming that there are about six individuals per household [population of 25 million divided by 4 million households] and that the same ration applies in Baghdad, this would suggest, using a rough population figure for Baghdad of 5 million, that perhaps 400,000 people had been killed in Baghdad alone!

Note that the press release points out that their results, if true, mean that the death in Iraq now surpasses that from the Rwandan genocide.

While cautioning again that further details are needed, this new study provides further support for the position that Iraq deaths from the invasion are one of the great humanitarian catastrophes of modern times. This study provides strong support for the findingsof the Lancet authors.

1 comment September 14th, 2007

Pope rationalizes genocide

The Pope in Brazil implicitly defended the genocide of indigenous peoples as a fulfillment of those peoples “silent longings”:

Outraged Indian leaders in Brazil said on Monday they were offended by Pope Benedict’s “arrogant and disrespectful” comments that the Roman Catholic Church had purified them and a revival of their religions would be a backward step.

In a speech to Latin American and Caribbean bishops at the end of a visit to Brazil, the Pope said the Church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

They had welcomed the arrival of European priests at the time of the conquest as they were “silently longing” for Christianity, he said.

Millions of tribal Indians are believed to have died as a result of European colonization backed by the Church since Columbus landed in the Americas in 1492, through slaughter, disease or enslavement.

Many Indians today struggle for survival, stripped of their traditional ways of life and excluded from society.

“It’s arrogant and disrespectful to consider our cultural heritage secondary to theirs,” said Jecinaldo Satere Mawe, chief coordinator of the Amazon Indian group Coiab.

Several Indian groups sent a letter to the Pope last week asking for his support in defending their ancestral lands and culture. They said the Indians had suffered a “process of genocide” since the first European colonizers had arrived.

Priests blessed conquistadors as they waged war on the indigenous peoples, although some later defended them and many today are the most vociferous allies of Indians.

“The state used the Church to do the dirty work in colonizing the Indians but they already asked forgiveness for that … so is the Pope taking back the Church’s word?” said Dionito Jose de Souza a leader of the Makuxi tribe in northern Roraima state….

Pope Benedict not only upset many Indians but also Catholic priests who have joined their struggle, said Sandro Tuxa, who heads the movement of northeastern tribes.

“We repudiate the Pope’s comments,” Tuxa said. “To say the cultural decimation of our people represents a purification is offensive, and frankly, frightening.

“I think (the Pope) has been poorly advised.”

Even the Catholic Church’s own Indian advocacy group in Brazil, known as Cimi, distanced itself from the Pope.

“The Pope doesn’t understand the reality of the Indians here, his statement was wrong and indefensible,” Cimi advisor Father Paulo Suess told Reuters. “I too was upset.”

The question I have is is the the Pope “poorly advised” or simply evil, putting the institutional interests of the Catholic Church above all human sentiments? After all, this Pope is known as a historian and scholar. It is virtually impossible to imagine him as ignorant of the precise meaning of his words. He seems to believe that a life lived outside the Church is simply not worth living. If one believes the Church has a pipeline to the TRUTH, such a conclusion is certainly understandable. Of course, its the assumption that needs questioning.

1 comment May 16th, 2007

Lancet motality study author Riyadh Lafta fears for life

LancetIraq mortality study author Riyadh Lafta, recently unable to speak in the United States because he was a visa, and in Canada, because the UK denied a transit visa, now fears for his life back in Baghdad, the Globe and Mail reports:

Doctor fears for life in homeland
Prevented from speaking at SFU, author continues controversial work despite danger

JONATHAN WOODWARD

A scientist known for counting the dead from the U.S.-led war in Iraq spent this week fearing for his own life in Baghdad after being denied a transit visa through Britain to Canada.

Riyadh Lafta, who co-authored a controversial study that estimated the war-related deaths at more than half a million, had planned to tell students at Simon Fraser University about his work and then spend a week in retreat near West Vancouver, writing a paper about an alarming rise in cancers among Iraqi children.

He would have left Canada today. Instead, he taught to all-but-empty classes at al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, with students fearful of attacks choosing to not leave their homes.

“This country is a killing machine,” said Dr. Lafta in a phone interview from Baghdad. “And can one escape death? No one can.”

In January, two car bombs ripped through his university, killing 70 and injuring more than 200, mostly students. In February, a female suicide bomber killed more than 40 more. Several days ago, Dr. Lafta received word that one of his colleagues - a pediatric lecturer in Baghdad, although Dr. Lafta would not give his name - had been killed.

“They took money from his family, and yet still they assassinated him,” he said.

“Even a man who is a little bit well known is at extreme risk of being killed,” he said. “Now, when I talk to you, really I am risking my life.”

Dr. Lafta, 47, rarely speaks with the media and would not discuss much of his life in Baghdad: his family, his daily routine, his new research, or his political views. His home was searched by coalition forces several weeks ago.

His science, epidemiology, is the study of health on the scale of a population. It sometimes mixes with politics - often unpleasantly, he said.

The study he co-authored, which was published in the prestigious Lancet medical journal, sent volunteers door-to-door to get estimates for small communities throughout Iraq, and then extrapolated the number of war dead at 654,965 - or about 2.5 per cent of the population.

That was 10 times higher than other independent counts such as the Iraq Body Count, and 20 times higher than the number the Bush administration uses. According to a recent survey, it’s about 66 times higher than the number the average American believes - 9,800.

The study was a bombshell that convinced some public figures to recant their support for the war. But it was also attacked in the American media, and Dr. Lafta believes the Americans who wage the war must know the damage they’re doing.

“It is our duty to concentrate on the things that are alarming and disastrous to our population,” he said. “This is unpopular. I know it is. But the challenge is to find the truth. I am not a politician. I hate politics.”

Dr. Lafta had originally planned to speak at the University of Washington, but could not get a visa to the United States. Canada offered a visa, but as he was en route to Jordan, a pass to spend four hours in Heathrow airport in London was denied on the basis of his citizenship.

That’s despite a week-long stay in the U.K. two years ago, when he delivered teeth specimens to Randy Parrish at the University of Leicester, said Dr. Parrish in an e-mail interview.

“I cannot really understand this denial of a visa, since he obtained one a couple of years ago evidently without incident,” said Dr. Parrish, who met Dr. Lafta in June, 2005.

The British Embassy in Canada refrained from commenting on the inconsistency. But Dr. Lafta’s colleague in the child-cancer study, SFU professor Tim Takaro, said, “There’s no reason anything should have changed between those two visits. The only thing that changed was the Lancet study.”

While that study is unpopular in the U.S., doing that kind of research can be deadly in Iraq, said Les Roberts, a co-author of the study from Johns Hopkins University.

“When was the last time there was a vicious war that went on for four years and 2.5 per cent of the people didn’t die?” he said.

“I’m worried sick about him being one of them, and the irony is he could be killed by pro-government people and anti-government people with almost equal probability.”

His colleagues are trying to get Dr. Lafta’s data, which suggest an increase in birth defects and a tenfold rise in childhood cancers that could be due to the war. They are trying to find a direct flight for Dr. Lafta to Canada, or a connection through a country that will grant a visa.

Until then, Dr. Lafta says he will continue his research. The war has to some extent heightened his senses, he says.

“You use it to concentrate more, and you start to struggle for something,” he said. “Maybe your adrenaline is going. You have an objective, and the difficult conditions make a special kind of person. It makes you more courageous.”

While many professionals have left the country, Dr. Lafta’s work - and his patriotism - keep him in Iraq.

“I can’t leave my home just because I am scared of being killed,” he said. “I think have lived enough.”

[h/t to MediaLens Message Board.]

1 comment April 28th, 2007