Ok smart one, I challenge you to a debate over 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq due to illegal invasion occupation.
From the sources I've looked into in academia that are discussing this latest study, it was even more rigorous than the Lancet report, which had a greater margin of error, yet it has in effect, substantiated the findings of that earlier report. For those hysterics with a cynical view of the numbers, one must ask oneself if they know how to use a chi square. That's the level at which this study must be attacked and questioned. Those who have been following the violence in Iraq carefully and on a daily basis find the results plausible.
The infernally ignorant will continue to quibble about the irrelevant points they think, in their utter inner torment, they can ferret out of this study, in whatever way they can, given that it's also clear they lack the educational background to understand the relevent and relative validity in the most up to date social science methodology for assessing mortality in just these circumstances. But since few of them know a framing square from a chi square, all we can do is sit back and watch them flail away, just as their President does in his news conferences now.
The actual peer review efforts to analyze this second study haven't yet begun. For some nimrod who has never even heard of the Chi Square statistical method, let alone understand its validity, to dismiss what's being said about the methods by those who are the experts in this field, not them, is something to be dismissed itself, or at least appreciated for what it is: knee jerk fear.
Ok I just have one question for you: What degrees of freedom did they use?
Anytime anyplace you want to debate this, I will be there.
But for a primer on the Chi Square "lesson" then:
Chi-Square/Be sure to use logic in any statistic application.
Accidents at Irongate