The Cat's Blog: Silence kills and silence is complicity

Simon Kelner, Editor
Patrick Cockburn,
Andrew Buncombe, Washington correspondent
Leonard Doyle, Foreign editor
Andrew Grice, Political editor
Mary Dejevsky,
Terry Kirby,
John Rentoul,

Underneath Patrick Cockburn’s article “Iraq three years on: Don't look away” (The Independent, 8 April 2006) your newspaper presents some number “Then and Now”. About IRAQI DEATHS, you write:

Military 4,895 - 6,370

Civilian 33,821 - 37,943

Iraq Body Count, from where you got the numbers, simply records the Iraqi civilians deaths reported in the English language media with an online website. On the IBC website, you may read: “It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.”

A few weeks ago, the Independent wrote:

“But IBC admits that with the increasing inability of journalists to move around and report freely, its method of monitoring civilian deaths is becoming increasingly inaccurate. What evidence has emerged indicates that a widely ridiculed study published in The Lancet in autumn 2004, estimating that at least 100,000 civilians had died violently since the war began, might not be so inaccurate.” (“Iraq: The reckoning” , Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker , The Independent, 12 March 2006)

On 29 October 2004, the British medical journal The Lancet published ‘Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey’:

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. (Interpretation)

Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. (Findings)

Source: Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey, The Lancet, Published online October 29,2004

"The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children... Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery." ('Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion', October 28, 2004)

The Financial Times, on November 19, 2004 wrote:

“This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)

The Chronicle of Higher Education on January 27, 2005 wrote

“’Les has used, and consistently uses, the best possible methodology,’ says Bradley A. Woodruff, a medical epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Indeed, the United Nations and the State Department have cited mortality numbers compiled by Mr. Roberts on previous conflicts as fact -- and have acted on those results. (...) Mr. Roberts has studied mortality caused by war since 1992, having done surveys in locations including Bosnia, Congo, and Rwanda. His three surveys in Congo for the International Rescue Committee, a nongovernmental humanitarian organization, in which he used methods akin to those of his Iraq study, received a great deal of attention. ‘Tony Blair and Colin Powell have quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity,’ he says.” (Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005)

According to Les Roberts (Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the Lancet report) there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)

The horror inflicted by our governments, with our money and in our name, might be way far more horrifying. Dr Gideon Polya recently wrote:

“AVOIDABLE MORTALITY (technically, excess mortality) is the difference between the actual mortality in a country and the mortality expected for a peaceful, decently-run country with the same demographics (i.e. with the same birth rate and the same population age profile). Avoidable mortality is a fundamental parameter to be considered in any sensible discussion of human affairs – it is the bottom-line issue when assessing the success or otherwise of societal, regional and global policies. (...)

Ignoring mass mortality simply ensures its continuance and denying past atrocities simply ensures their repetition – history ignored yields history repeated. Thus the actuality of the Jewish Holocaust (6 million deaths) was not formally acknowledged by the Allies until 30 months before the end of World War 2 in Europe. This tardiness in reportage must surely have contributed significantly to this atrocity.

However, TODAY Mainstream Media are comprehensively ignoring the horrendous magnitude of the avoidable post-invasion deaths in Occupied Iraq and Afghanistan (presently totaling 2.3 million deaths) and the avoidable deaths in the First World-dominated non-European World (presently 14.8 million deaths each year).” (Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths, by Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Magazine, 6 April 2006)

I have written many times to your newspaper on this subject but I have never got a reply from you. This time I want to end this email with Dr. Polya’s words:

“Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – it IS possible to get through the Wall of Silence.”

Gabriele Zamparini

P.S. Here some important articles regarding the Iraqi civilian deaths.

Layperson’s guide to counting Iraq deaths, by Dr Gideon Polya, MWC News Magazine, 6 April 2006

Researchers Who Rushed Into Print a Study of Iraqi Civilian Deaths Now Wonder Why It Was Ignored, by LILA GUTERMAN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 2005

When Promoting Truth Obscures the Truth: More on Iraqi Body Count and Iraqi Deaths, by Stephen Soldz, ZNet, February 05, 2006

BURYING THE LANCET - PART 1

BURYING THE LANCET - PART 2

BURYING THE LANCET – Update

Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006

***

REPLY FROM ANDREW BUNCOMBE - The Independent's Washington correspondent

gabrielle, i received your email this morning. you don't appear to actually
ask a question in your message but i presume you're asking for a
clarification as why the IBC figure was used?

i was not involved in writing this story but my presumption is that it was
used as a figure to indicate a bare minimum of iraqi civilian dead, though
i agree it would have been better to have said "more than" or "a bare
minimum of". in other articles the paper has mentioned the IBC's
limitations and regularly reported the Lancet report's estimate. (the story
below for instance.) indeed, i think we alone splashed on that report when
it came out in 2004.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/033106D.shtml

btw, i spoke to les roberts a month or so ago and discussed the 300,000
figure. he did not want to be "quoted as saying that are now 300,000" but
said he was simply saying it was as statistically as likely a figure as
those suggesting 30-50,000.

please get back to me if i can be of further help.

andrew buncombe

***

MY REPLY TO ANDREW BUNCOMBE

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your reply.

Let's proceed with order.

1) Les Roberts wrote: "It is more probable, however, that the estimates of 20,000 to 30,000 civilian deaths cited in the American press are too low, most likely by a factor of five or ten." (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)

In my articles and in my correspondence (that I have always sent to Les Roberts) I have always written: "According to Les Roberts (Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the Lancet report) there might be as many as 300,000 Iraqi civilian deaths (Do Iraqi Civilian Casualties Matter?, By Les Roberts, AlterNet, February 8, 2006)"

2) Yes, I did read your article. And I have also quoted Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker's article in my articles and correspondence: "But IBC admits that with the increasing inability of journalists to move around and report freely, its method of monitoring civilian deaths is becoming increasingly inaccurate. What evidence has emerged indicates that a widely ridiculed study published in The Lancet in autumn 2004, estimating that at least 100,000 civilians had died violently since the war began, might not be so inaccurate.” (“Iraq: The reckoning” , Patrick Cockburn and Raymond Whitaker , The Independent, 12 March 2006)

As I wrote in another email to the Independent: "Why did it take sixteen months to the Independent just to begin to acknowledge what it was clear and known since the beginning?"

The Independent has spent the past fifteen months to discredit the Lancet study. Please, read this email I sent to your newspaper on March 13, 2006: http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2006/03/iraq-email-to-indepenent.htm

I am still waiting for an answer.

The fact that after fifteen months the Independent remembered a serious study published in a serious medical journal and mentioned it in a couple of articles doesn't mean anything. Even more so when the same newspaper keep repeating the IBC figures every time it has to present the readers with numbers. Do you have an explanation for that?

Why does the Independent keep repeating the IBC figures when there are serious studies on this subject that show that there are hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians deaths?

Why does the Independent doesn't write that "The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children... Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery." ('Iraqi Civilian Deaths Increase Dramatically After Invasion', October 28, 2004)
http://www.jhsph.edu/PublicHealthNews/Press_Releases/PR_2004/Burnham_Iraq.html

In my last email - as always - I have included a number of articles and studies. Once again, here it's the link:
http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2006/04/silence-kills-and-silence-is.htm

Please, while reading those articles and those studies, keep in mind the words of Dr. Gideon Polya: "Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity – it IS possible to get through the Wall of Silence.”

Dear Andrew thank you for your time. Please understand I do appreciate your reply and your will to discuss this issue and I look forward to congratulate you and your newspaper for being the first in the mainstream media to break that silence that kills.

Best wishes,
Gabriele Zamparini

***

REPLY FROM ANDREW BUNCOMBE

gabrielle, again i'm not sure what question you're directing at me here. i
must say i find it strange that in reference to an article written about
the ongoing violence in iraq - written by someone who is actually there -
and urging people "not to look away", the only comment you have is about
one number in an accompanying list of figures.

again, i'll point out that the independent devoted its entire front page to
the lancet report when it was published, something that hardly equates with
silence or complicity. how does that fit with your claim "that after
fifteen months the Independent remembered a serious study published in a
serious medical journal and mentioned it in a couple of articles"?

best

andrew

***

MY REPLY TO ANDREW BUNCOMBE

Dear Andrew,

Thank you again for your reply.

Again, let's proceed with order.

1) You asked me why my "only comment... is about one number"?

"One number", dear Andrew? Think a second, please. What does that number represent?

2) I am afraid you didn't read the email I sent to the Independent on March 13, 2006. Had you read it, you would have not asked me about "my claim".

Here some cut and paste from that email:

“However, this number is only the central point of a range that extends from 8,000 to 194,000. This huge disparity was mocked ignorantly by one American commentator as ‘not an estimate, it's a dartboard‘. It was also defended, equally ignorantly, by the editor of The Lancet, who said: ‘It's highly probable the figure is 98,000. Anything more or less is much less probable.’ Both wrong. What the figures say is that there is a 95 per cent chance that the true figure lies between 8,000 and 194,000... It is statistically respectable, which is why The Lancet article passed its peer reviews, but it produces estimates hedged about with great uncertainty.

And there are good reasons for thinking that the true figure is towards the lower end of The Lancet's range.” (‘We should be counting the dead in Iraq, but let’s not get the figures out of proportion like this,’ John Rentoul , The Independent on Sunday, December 10, 2004)

“The Iraqi Body Count figure is probably much too low, because US military tactics ensure high civilian losses. American firepower, designed to combat the Soviet army, cannot be used in built-up areas without killing or injuring many civilians. Nevertheless a study published in The Lancet, estimating that 100,000 civilians had died in Iraq, appears to be too high.” (‘Terrified US soldiers are still killing civilians with impunity,’ Patrick Cockburn, The Independent on Sunday, April 24, 2005)

[the Lancet findings has been reached] “by extrapolating from a small sample... While never completely discredited, those figures were widely doubted”. (‘The true measure of the US and British failure,’ Leader, The Independent, July 20, 2005)

“even Iraq Body Count, an anti-war campaign, puts the total attributable to coalition forces at under 10,000, rather than the figure with an extra zero that is the common misconception of anti-war propaganda”. (‘Islam, blood and grievance,' John Rentoul, The Independent, July 24, 2005)

The Financial Times, on November 19, 2004 wrote: “This survey technique has been criticised as flawed, but the sampling method has been used by the same team in Darfur in Sudan and in the eastern Congo and produced credible results. An official at the World Health Organisation said the Iraq study ‘is very much in the league that the other studies are in ... You can't rubbish (the team) by saying they are incompetent‘”. (Stephen Fidler, 'Lies, damned lies and statistics,' Financial Times, November 19, 2004)

Question: Why did it take sixteen months to the Independent just to begin to acknowledge what it was clear and known since the beginning?

On your same newspaper, Andy McSmith recently wrote: “Mr Blair refused to say whether he had prayed for guidance on whether to send British troops into Iraq - which has cost the lives of 103 British troops, 2,300 US soldiers, and up to 30,000 Iraqis, with many thousands maimed or injured, in a conflict which has claimed more lives since the fall of Baghdad than the war itself.” (“Blair: 'God will be my judge on Iraq'”, Andy McSmith, The Independent, 04 March 2006)

When I wrote to McSmith, asking about the meaning of “up to 30,000” and why he had not mentioned the Lancet study, he wrote back: “There has been a lot written about the Lancet study, which was professionally conducted but under difficult conditions, but which necessarily relied on a small sample with a wide margin or error. They estimated 8,000-194,000 'excess deaths', and put the probable total at 98,000. This included increases in infant mortality, traffic accidents etc, with 60% directly attributable to the violence. It is the small sample and very wide margin of error that makes people nervous about the Lancet figure.”