Lancet’s 186k estimate is not reliable: Difference between revisions
→Questionable Methodology and Assumptions: Bold only relevant text Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=== A Misrepresented Projection, Not a Verified Count === | === A Misrepresented Projection, Not a Verified Count === | ||
In July 2024, The Lancet published a [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext Correspondence] ('''not a peer-reviewed study''') suggesting that the Gaza death toll could reach up to 186,000. This figure quickly made global headlines, but was widely misunderstood. One of the authors, ''Martin McKee'', later clarified that the figure was “purely illustrative” and that the letter “has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”<ref name="ref1">{{Citation | last1=Merlin | first1= Ohad | In July 2024, The Lancet published a [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext Correspondence] ('''not a peer-reviewed study''') suggesting that the Gaza death toll could reach up to 186,000. This figure quickly made global headlines, but was widely misunderstood. One of the authors, ''Martin McKee'', later clarified that the figure was “purely illustrative” and that the letter “has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”<ref name="ref1">{{Citation |last1=Merlin |first1=Ohad |title=‘186,000 Gazans dead’: Lancet magazine publishes new blood libel |year=2024 |url=https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-809632 |access-date=5 August 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250509074324/https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-809632 |archive-date=2025-05-09 |url-status=live}}</ref> In reality, the 186,000 figure was not presented as a current death toll, but as a long-term cumulative projection, based on assumptions about indirect mortality from other wars, not on verified data from Gaza. | ||
===Questionable Methodology and Assumptions=== | ===Questionable Methodology and Assumptions=== | ||
The authors of the Lancet letter '''reached their estimate by multiplying the reported direct death toll by five,''' extrapolating from other conflicts where indirect deaths, caused by factors like infrastructure collapse, famine, and disease, far outnumbered deaths from violence.<ref name="ref2">{{Cite web |last=Overton |first=Iain |date=2024-07-10 |title=A critical analysis of The Lancet's letter “Counting the Dead in Gaza: Difficult but Essential”. Professor Mike Spagat reviews the claim the total Gaza death toll may reach upwards of 186,000 |url=https://aoav.org.uk/2024/a-critical-analysis-of-the-lancets-letter-counting-the-dead-in-gaza-difficult-but-essential-professor-mike-spagat-reviews-the-claim-the-total-gaza-death-toll-may-reach-upwards-of-186000/ |access-date=2025-08-04 |website=AOAV |language=en-US}}</ref> However, this approach is highly problematic in the Gaza context. Gaza is a densely urban area with functioning international NGOs, health monitors, and ongoing data collection. As Professor Michael Spagat, a leading expert on conflict mortality, wrote: “This is not an empirical estimate, it is a speculative upper-bound projection built on weak foundations.<ref name="ref2" /> Similarly, Peter Singer, former WHO adviser, criticized the figure as “taking one unreliable number and multiplying it by another unreliable number to get a bigger unreliable number”.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Gilbert |first=Andrew |date=2024-11-16 |title=Concerns regarding Gaza mortality estimates |url=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01682-9/fulltext |journal=The Lancet |language=English |volume=404 |issue=10466 |pages=1927–1928 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01682-9 |issn=0140-6736 |pmid=39510112}}</ref> | The authors of the Lancet letter '''reached their estimate by multiplying the reported direct death toll by five,''' extrapolating from other conflicts where indirect deaths, caused by factors like infrastructure collapse, famine, and disease, far outnumbered deaths from violence.<ref name="ref2">{{Cite web |last=Overton |first=Iain |date=2024-07-10 |title=A critical analysis of The Lancet's letter “Counting the Dead in Gaza: Difficult but Essential”. Professor Mike Spagat reviews the claim the total Gaza death toll may reach upwards of 186,000 |url=https://aoav.org.uk/2024/a-critical-analysis-of-the-lancets-letter-counting-the-dead-in-gaza-difficult-but-essential-professor-mike-spagat-reviews-the-claim-the-total-gaza-death-toll-may-reach-upwards-of-186000/ |access-date=2025-08-04 |website=AOAV |language=en-US}}</ref> However, this approach is highly problematic in the Gaza context. Gaza is a densely urban area with functioning international NGOs, health monitors, and ongoing data collection. As Professor Michael Spagat, a leading expert on conflict mortality, wrote: “This is not an empirical estimate, it is a speculative upper-bound projection built on weak foundations.<ref name="ref2" /> Similarly, Peter Singer, former WHO adviser, criticized the figure as “taking one unreliable number and multiplying it by another unreliable number to get a bigger unreliable number”.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Gilbert |first=Andrew |date=2024-11-16 |title=Concerns regarding Gaza mortality estimates |url=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01682-9/fulltext |url-status=live |journal=The Lancet |language=English |volume=404 |issue=10466 |pages=1927–1928 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01682-9 |issn=0140-6736 |pmid=39510112 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250725185257/https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01682-9/fulltext |archive-date=2025-07-25}}</ref> | ||
The projection also fails to account for real-time monitoring and humanitarian access, which are far more robust in Gaza today than in many of the conflicts the Lancet authors referenced. | The projection also fails to account for real-time monitoring and humanitarian access, which are far more robust in Gaza today than in many of the conflicts the Lancet authors referenced. | ||
=== A Pattern of Overestimation === | === A Pattern of Overestimation === | ||
This is not the first time The Lancet has published controversial casualty figures. In 2006, it estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had died in the war,<ref>https:// | This is not the first time The Lancet has published controversial casualty figures. In 2006, it estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had died in the war,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Burnham |first=Gilbert |last2=Lafta |first2=Riyadh |last3=Doocy |first3=Shannon |last4=Roberts |first4=Les |date=2006-10-21 |title=Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey |url=https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)69491-9/abstract |journal=The Lancet |language=English |volume=368 |issue=9545 |pages=1421–1428 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69491-9 |issn=0140-6736 |pmid=17055943 |ssrn=1455017}}</ref> a number that was later widely discredited.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Roberts |first=Adam |date=2010-07-01 |title=Lives and Statistics: Are 90% of War Victims Civilians? |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2010.494880 |journal=Survival |volume=52 |issue=3 |pages=115–136 |doi=10.1080/00396338.2010.494880 |issn=0039-6338}}</ref> The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) found that the lead author, Dr. Gilbert Burnham, violated ethical standards by refusing to disclose key methodological details.<ref name=":0" /> Not only that, but he also did not account for immigration and increase the rising violence of the time, which has probably inflated the total count.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Marker |first=David A. |date=2008 |title=Review: Methodological Review of "Mortality after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: A Cross-Sectional Cluster Sample Survey" |url=https://academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/72/2/345/1920219 |journal=The Public Opinion Quarterly |publisher=Oxford University Press |volume=72 |issue=2 |page=362 |issn=0033-362X |jstor=25167629 |quote=Iraq has clearly experienced significant migration since the time of the invasion. The authors take account of migration from the March 2003 invasion through mid-2004, using the best population estimates at that time. However, as sectarian violence and death rates have increased from that time through mid-2006, the rate of external and internal migration has increased. It is likely that not accounting for this has produced an overestimate of the number of excess deaths.}}</ref> A more rigorous survey conducted by the Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group (IFHS) placed the number of violent deaths at approximately 151,000.<ref name=":0" /> Funnily enough, the department of error addressed the paper in question three years later without saying anything about the methodological errors resulting in the inflation of casualties.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=2009-03-07 |title=Department of Error |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673609604839 |journal=The Lancet |volume=373 |issue=9666 |pages=810 |doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60483-9 |issn=0140-6736}}</ref> | ||
The Gaza projection appears to repeat the same methodological errors. | The Gaza projection appears to repeat the same methodological errors. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* Prof. Martin McKee, one of the authors, clarified the 186,000 figure was not a real count but a theoretical illustration.<ref name="ref1" /> | * Prof. Martin McKee, one of the authors, clarified the 186,000 figure was not a real count but a theoretical illustration.<ref name="ref1" /> | ||
* Prof. Michael Spagat emphasized the estimate lacks empirical support.<ref name="ref2" /> | * Prof. Michael Spagat emphasized the estimate lacks empirical support.<ref name="ref2" /> | ||
* Dr. Peter Singer criticized the math behind it as “unreliable multiplied by | * Dr. Peter Singer criticized the math behind it as “unreliable multiplied by unreliable”.<ref name=":1" /> | ||
* Assistant Professor Jessica Trisko Darden, writing in The Forward, noted it “lumps civilians and combatants together” and relies on unverifiable assumptions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Darden |first=Jessica Trisko |date=2024-07-09 |title=Has Israel really killed up to 186,000 people in Gaza? How to understand the numbers war |url=https://forward.com/opinion/631386/the-lancet-gaza-casualties-israel-war/ |access-date=2025-08-04 |website=The Forward |language=en}}</ref> | * Assistant Professor Jessica Trisko Darden, writing in The Forward, noted it “lumps civilians and combatants together” and relies on unverifiable assumptions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Darden |first=Jessica Trisko |date=2024-07-09 |title=Has Israel really killed up to 186,000 people in Gaza? How to understand the numbers war |url=https://forward.com/opinion/631386/the-lancet-gaza-casualties-israel-war/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250411024706/https://forward.com/opinion/631386/the-lancet-gaza-casualties-israel-war/ |archive-date=2025-04-11 |access-date=2025-08-04 |website=The Forward |language=en}}</ref> | ||
==== And by others ==== | ==== And by others ==== | ||
* The blog Hodjasblog accused The Lancet of bias, stating that “they only trust the science that fits their politics”.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Three peer-reviewed studies in The Lancet about Gaza all have severe methodological flaws. They only “trust the science” that fits their politics. – Hodjanernes blog |url=https://hodjasblog.one/three-peer-reviewed-studies-in-the-lancet-about-gaza-all-have-severe-methodological-flaws-they-only-trust-the-science-that-fits-their-politics/ |access-date=2025-08-04 |language= | * The blog Hodjasblog accused The Lancet of bias, stating that “they only trust the science that fits their politics”.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Three peer-reviewed studies in The Lancet about Gaza all have severe methodological flaws. They only “trust the science” that fits their politics. – Hodjanernes blog |url=https://hodjasblog.one/three-peer-reviewed-studies-in-the-lancet-about-gaza-all-have-severe-methodological-flaws-they-only-trust-the-science-that-fits-their-politics/ |access-date=2025-08-04 |language=en}}</ref> | ||
* The American Jewish Committee (AJC) issued a formal request to The Lancet to retract the letter, calling the figure “unsubstantiated and dangerously misleading”.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-07-10 |title=AJC Urges Retraction of Lancet Letter with Unsubstantiated Projected Gaza Death Toll {{!}} AJC |url=https://www.ajc.org/news/ajc-urges-retraction-of-lancet-letter-with-unsubstantiated-projected-gaza-death-toll |access-date=2025-08-04 |website=www.ajc.org |language=en}}</ref> | * The American Jewish Committee (AJC) issued a formal request to The Lancet to retract the letter, calling the figure “unsubstantiated and dangerously misleading”.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-07-10 |title=AJC Urges Retraction of Lancet Letter with Unsubstantiated Projected Gaza Death Toll {{!}} AJC |url=https://www.ajc.org/news/ajc-urges-retraction-of-lancet-letter-with-unsubstantiated-projected-gaza-death-toll |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250630161741/https://www.ajc.org/news/ajc-urges-retraction-of-lancet-letter-with-unsubstantiated-projected-gaza-death-toll |archive-date=2025-06-30 |access-date=2025-08-04 |website=www.ajc.org |language=en}}</ref> | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
{{reflist}} | |||
==Useful sources== | |||
====Quick response in debates==== | |||
https://israelfaqs.com/ <br> | |||
https://speedy-facts.vercel.app/ (Beware, no sourcing. Double check before using) <br> | |||
https://david2050.com/ (Beware, AI. Always fact-check) <br> | |||
====Information centers==== | |||
https://zionism-israel.com/ (limited accessibility on mobile) <br> | |||
https://besacenter.org/ <br> | |||
https://www.warinisrael.org/ <br> | |||
http://mideastweb.org/ (limited accessibility on phone) <br> | |||
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ <br> | |||
https://jcpa.org/ | |||
[[Category:Analysis essays]] | |||
Latest revision as of 18:06, 20 September 2025
A Misrepresented Projection, Not a Verified Count
In July 2024, The Lancet published a Correspondence (not a peer-reviewed study) suggesting that the Gaza death toll could reach up to 186,000. This figure quickly made global headlines, but was widely misunderstood. One of the authors, Martin McKee, later clarified that the figure was “purely illustrative” and that the letter “has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”[1] In reality, the 186,000 figure was not presented as a current death toll, but as a long-term cumulative projection, based on assumptions about indirect mortality from other wars, not on verified data from Gaza.
Questionable Methodology and Assumptions
The authors of the Lancet letter reached their estimate by multiplying the reported direct death toll by five, extrapolating from other conflicts where indirect deaths, caused by factors like infrastructure collapse, famine, and disease, far outnumbered deaths from violence.[2] However, this approach is highly problematic in the Gaza context. Gaza is a densely urban area with functioning international NGOs, health monitors, and ongoing data collection. As Professor Michael Spagat, a leading expert on conflict mortality, wrote: “This is not an empirical estimate, it is a speculative upper-bound projection built on weak foundations.[2] Similarly, Peter Singer, former WHO adviser, criticized the figure as “taking one unreliable number and multiplying it by another unreliable number to get a bigger unreliable number”.[3] The projection also fails to account for real-time monitoring and humanitarian access, which are far more robust in Gaza today than in many of the conflicts the Lancet authors referenced.
A Pattern of Overestimation
This is not the first time The Lancet has published controversial casualty figures. In 2006, it estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had died in the war,[4] a number that was later widely discredited.[5] The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) found that the lead author, Dr. Gilbert Burnham, violated ethical standards by refusing to disclose key methodological details.[5] Not only that, but he also did not account for immigration and increase the rising violence of the time, which has probably inflated the total count.[6] A more rigorous survey conducted by the Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group (IFHS) placed the number of violent deaths at approximately 151,000.[5] Funnily enough, the department of error addressed the paper in question three years later without saying anything about the methodological errors resulting in the inflation of casualties.[7]
The Gaza projection appears to repeat the same methodological errors.
The 186,000 figure has been widely criticized by experts across disciplines:
- Prof. Martin McKee, one of the authors, clarified the 186,000 figure was not a real count but a theoretical illustration.[1]
- Prof. Michael Spagat emphasized the estimate lacks empirical support.[2]
- Dr. Peter Singer criticized the math behind it as “unreliable multiplied by unreliable”.[3]
- Assistant Professor Jessica Trisko Darden, writing in The Forward, noted it “lumps civilians and combatants together” and relies on unverifiable assumptions.[8]
And by others
- The blog Hodjasblog accused The Lancet of bias, stating that “they only trust the science that fits their politics”.[9]
- The American Jewish Committee (AJC) issued a formal request to The Lancet to retract the letter, calling the figure “unsubstantiated and dangerously misleading”.[10]
References
- ↑ a b Merlin, Ohad (2024), ‘186,000 Gazans dead’: Lancet magazine publishes new blood libel, archived from the original on 2025-05-09, retrieved 5 August 2025
- ↑ a b c Overton, Iain (2024-07-10). "A critical analysis of The Lancet's letter "Counting the Dead in Gaza: Difficult but Essential". Professor Mike Spagat reviews the claim the total Gaza death toll may reach upwards of 186,000". AOAV. Retrieved 2025-08-04.
- ↑ a b Gilbert, Andrew (2024-11-16). "Concerns regarding Gaza mortality estimates". The Lancet. 404 (10466): 1927–1928. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01682-9. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 39510112. Archived from the original on 2025-07-25.
- ↑ Burnham, Gilbert; Lafta, Riyadh; Doocy, Shannon; Roberts, Les (2006-10-21). "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey". The Lancet. 368 (9545): 1421–1428. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69491-9. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 17055943. SSRN 1455017.
- ↑ a b c Roberts, Adam (2010-07-01). "Lives and Statistics: Are 90% of War Victims Civilians?". Survival. 52 (3): 115–136. doi:10.1080/00396338.2010.494880. ISSN 0039-6338.
- ↑ Marker, David A. (2008). "Review: Methodological Review of "Mortality after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: A Cross-Sectional Cluster Sample Survey"". The Public Opinion Quarterly. 72 (2). Oxford University Press: 362. ISSN 0033-362X. JSTOR 25167629.
Iraq has clearly experienced significant migration since the time of the invasion. The authors take account of migration from the March 2003 invasion through mid-2004, using the best population estimates at that time. However, as sectarian violence and death rates have increased from that time through mid-2006, the rate of external and internal migration has increased. It is likely that not accounting for this has produced an overestimate of the number of excess deaths.
- ↑ "Department of Error". The Lancet. 373 (9666): 810. 2009-03-07. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60483-9. ISSN 0140-6736.
- ↑ Darden, Jessica Trisko (2024-07-09). "Has Israel really killed up to 186,000 people in Gaza? How to understand the numbers war". The Forward. Archived from the original on 2025-04-11. Retrieved 2025-08-04.
- ↑ "Three peer-reviewed studies in The Lancet about Gaza all have severe methodological flaws. They only "trust the science" that fits their politics. – Hodjanernes blog". Retrieved 2025-08-04.
- ↑ "AJC Urges Retraction of Lancet Letter with Unsubstantiated Projected Gaza Death Toll | AJC". www.ajc.org. 2024-07-10. Archived from the original on 2025-06-30. Retrieved 2025-08-04.
Useful sources
Quick response in debates
https://israelfaqs.com/
https://speedy-facts.vercel.app/ (Beware, no sourcing. Double check before using)
https://david2050.com/ (Beware, AI. Always fact-check)
Information centers
https://zionism-israel.com/ (limited accessibility on mobile)
https://besacenter.org/
https://www.warinisrael.org/
http://mideastweb.org/ (limited accessibility on phone)
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/
https://jcpa.org/