From RedState:
Polling Group Censures Iraq Death Toll Researcher
A prominent group of polling researchers has accused the lead author of a 2006 study suggesting massive civilian deaths in Iraq of violating the polling profession’s codes and ethics.
The Executive Council of the American Association for Public Opinion Research said Dr. Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins University professor, had repeatedly refused to cooperate with an eight-month investigation into his research on the Iraqi death toll that made headlines in October 2006 when it was published by The Lancet, a British medical journal.
The widely publicized study headed by Burnham contended that nearly 655,000 Iraqis had died because of the U.S.-led invasion and war in Iraq.
“When asked to provide several basic facts about this research, Burnham refused,†the council said in a statement. It noted that the group’s Code of Professional Ethics and Practices calls for researchers to disclose their methodology when survey findings are made public so they can be independently evaluated and verified.
“Dr. Burnham provided only partial information and explicitly refused to provide complete information about the basic elements of his research,†said Mary Losch, chair of the association’s Standards Committee.
God, what a disappointment that guy was.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED!
True, but do you question the timing?
You know what, I ….. I DO question the timing!
good thing that the poll didnt get any traction.
NPR was a lot incurious about the methodology of this poll I remember. It’s almost like they were trying to use false intelligence to lie our country out of war.
Oh well, I guess Dr. Burnham will have to get a real job now…
Or maybe, he can do another study, on how many of the code Pinko variety, BusHitler screaming leftards heads explode when the learn of this…
I mean, to them at least, Burnham is being persecuted for speakin’ troooooooooof! to pow-ah…
Couldn’t be that a professor in the People’s Republic of Maryland might, you know, have tried to score cheap political points for the Democrats…Nah…
I am shocked and amazed … that the “polling profession” has “codes and ethics.”
Round up the usual suspects.
#7 – indeed. I would have expected that anyone from Zogby would have been tarred and feathered by now, ’twere that the case.
If the research methodology was so shabby, WHY WAS IT PUBLISHED IN THE LANCET?
I’m on Burnham’s side here. It would have been just to ugly to drop his knickers, bend over and show how he pulled the numbers out of his ass.
This is outrageous. Who are you going to believe ? A bunch of polling researchers or Alphie. I think the answer is patently obvious.
*It’s almost like they were trying to use false intelligence to lie our country out of war.*
Lies. Who are you going to believe ? happyfeet or jack murtha ? Come on. Millions of Iraqis dead ! Billions possibly!! Murdered by our troops in cold blood.
Have you ever known Jack Murtha to lie ?
Wonder if John Hopkins U is concerned about their credibility. It’s my understanding that they’re fairly highly regarded. This can’t be helpful.
Speaker Pelosi says 500 million Iraqis are killed every month!
So surprising – polling methodology was skewed for a political purpose. An academic would massage his results for a political purpose.
Never would have expected that to happen.
As I recall, one of the researchers actually quit the team to run for Congress as a hyper-liberal democrat, and the first Lancet study was admittedly rushed out to hit right before the Bush-Kerry election.
As usual, the big lefty propaganda piece is on Page 1 for a week, and the debunking of same is on Page 16 next to the Viagra ads.
The Lancet has become a joke recently in some scientific circles. A few years ago it started a panic in the UK by publishing a study linking the MMR vaccine with autism.
It was later revealed that the study only included 12 children, who were supplied to the “researcher” Wakefield, by their attorney.
Peer review, what’s that?
Some things–global warming, the evilness of the US–are just too important for peer review. Facts can’t be allowed to stand in the way of the “truth.”
Where was Burnham nine months before parsnip hatched?
Who knew that pollsters had an ethical board.
Maybe he and James Hansen can start a consulting group.
Politically motivated research is never trustworthy. A taxpayer should never be forced to subsidize the political activities of those he disagrees with, therefore, it’s time to privatize all academic research.
That being a non-starter, all scholarship paid for at public expense should immediately enter the public domain and be posted on the internet without charge. Come on academics! Shouldn’t YOU be giving something back?
It’s a wonder that Mr. Obama didn’t appoint Burnham as Ambassador to Iraq instead of Zinni (who was unceremoniously replaced by Hill).
Hansen is more efficient. He just eliminates those pesky outliers or plugs in the right numbers.
Burnham actually went out and got some data samples. His methodolgy was akin to trying to describe the population of the entire country based on the composition of the US Congress. We’re poorer, more honest, less male than extrapolation of that sample would suggest.
That old saying that figures don’t lie, but liars can figure is still true. It’s amazing how gullible so many people are, still. All they want is your money and control of your life and property. They are on your side, they said so.
[…] people who were appalled by the numbers, that there may have been something flawed about the Lancet report which claimed the eeeeeevil Bushitler regime had caused the deaths of some 655,000 innocent […]