Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000

[chomerics]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html

By David Brown

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, October 11, 2006; A12

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.

It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.

The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.

Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country.

The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The findings are being published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet.

The same group in 2004 published an estimate of roughly 100,000 deaths in the first 18 months after the invasion. That figure was much higher than expected, and was controversial. The new study estimates that about 500,000 more Iraqis, both civilian and military, have died since then -- a finding likely to be equally controversial.

Both this and the earlier study are the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods. The technique, called "cluster sampling," is used to estimate mortality in famines and after natural disasters.

While acknowledging that the estimate is large, the researchers believe it is sound for numerous reasons. The recent survey got the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the early survey, which gives the researchers confidence in the methods. The great majority of deaths were also substantiated by death certificates.

"We're very confident with the results," said Gilbert Burnham, a Johns Hopkins physician and epidemiologist.

A Defense Department spokesman did not comment directly on the estimate.

"The Department of Defense always regrets the loss of any innocent life in Iraq or anywhere else," said Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros. "The coalition takes enormous precautions to prevent civilian deaths and injuries."

He added that "it would be difficult for the U.S. to precisely determine the number of civilian deaths in Iraq as a result of insurgent activity. The Iraqi Ministry of Health would be in a better position, with all of its records, to provide more accurate information on deaths in Iraq."

Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true," and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."

This viewed was echoed by Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York, who said, "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey.

"I expect that people will be surprised by these figures," she said. "I think it is very important that, rather than questioning them, people realize there is very, very little reliable data coming out of Iraq."

The survey was conducted between May 20 and July 10 by eight Iraqi physicians organized through Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. They visited 1,849 randomly selected households that had an average of seven members each. One person in each household was asked about deaths in the 14 months before the invasion and in the period after.

The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates.

According to the survey results, Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate "excess deaths."

Of the 629 deaths reported, 87 percent occurred after the invasion. A little more than 75 percent of the dead were men, with a greater male preponderance after the invasion. For violent post-invasion deaths, the male-to-female ratio was 10-to-1, with most victims between 15 and 44 years old.

Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.

Burnham said that the estimate of Iraq's pre-invasion death rate -- 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people -- found in both of the Hopkins surveys was roughly the same estimate used by the CIA and the U.S. Census Bureau. He said he believes that attests to the accuracy of his team's results.

He thinks further evidence of the survey's robustness is that the steepness of the upward trend it found in excess deaths in the last two years is roughly the same tendency found by other groups -- even though the actual numbers differ greatly.

An independent group of researchers and biostatisticians based in England produces the Iraq Body Count. It estimates that there have been 44,000 to 49,000 civilian deaths since the invasion. An Iraqi nongovernmental organization estimated 128,000 deaths between the invasion and July 2005.

The survey cost about $50,000 and was paid for by Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies.

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

[iheartskins]

FWIW this was reported in the WSJ this morning as well.

[Midnight Judges]

It boggles the mind how the estimated death tolls can vary so widely-from 30,000 to 655,000. This is incredibly sad, don't know what else to say.

[Prosperity]

It boggles the mind how the estimated death tolls can vary so widely-from 30,000 to 655,000. This is incredibly sad, don't know what else to say.

the number outright killed is between 44000-49000, but I think this is talking about the overall death increase like deaths from disease, malnutirition, not being able to go to the hospital because of road blocks... etc.

[dreamingwolf]

It boggles the mind how the estimated death tolls can vary so widely-from 30,000 to 655,000. This is incredibly sad, don't know what else to say.

all depends on what you include

take for instance our death counts

Deaths/Mortality

(Data are for U.S. for year indicated)

Number of deaths: 2,398,343

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

Heart disease: 654,092

Cancer: 550,270

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694

Diabetes: 72,815

Alzheimer's disease: 65,829

Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762

Septicemia: 33,464

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

we are much bigger, and not at war but still people die, and when theres millions of people thousands of them die naturally without any help from war.

Iraq has about the population of texas, from the same site linked earlier by me here is the texas death rate

Deaths: 153,031 (2004)

so we are close to what 4 years in Iraq, thats about 600,000.

[Midnight Judges]

the number outright killed is between 44000-49000, but I think this is talking about the overall death increase like deaths from disease, malnutirition, not being able to go to the hospital because of road blocks... etc.

I'm not sure what you are saying squares with this statement from the article:

Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country

These are excess deaths cause by violence.

[Midnight Judges]

all depends on what you include

take for instance our death counts

Deaths/Mortality

(Data are for U.S. for year indicated)

Number of deaths: 2,398,343

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:

Heart disease: 654,092

Cancer: 550,270

Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694

Diabetes: 72,815

Alzheimer's disease: 65,829

Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762

Septicemia: 33,464

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

we are much bigger, and not at war but still people die, and when theres millions of people thousands of them die naturally without any help from war.

Iraq has about the population of texas, from the same site linked earlier by me here is the texas death rate

Deaths: 153,031 (2004)

so we are close to what 4 years in Iraq, thats about 600,000.

3.5 years in Iraq. Your comparison is false. These are mostly violent deaths (600,000 out of 655,000). How many violent deaths were there in Texas from late March 2003 to present? That would be a more apples to apples comparison. How old are these people when they die? I would be willing to bet the average age of death in Texas is somewhere around 76 whereas in Iraq it's significantly lower.

[Prosperity]

I'm not sure what you are saying squares with this statement from the article:

These are excess deaths cause by violence.

damn, you are right. That really is odd

[dreamingwolf]

3.5 years in Iraq. Your comparison is false. These are mostly violent deaths (600,000 out of 655,000). How many violent deaths were there in Texas from late March 2003 to present? That would be a more apples to apples comparison. How old are these people when they die? I would be willing to bet the average age of death in Texas is somewhere around 76 whereas in Iraq it's significantly lower.

I think what your missing is a point that liberty made, that they include deaths that were not directly linked to violence but since violence is going on they say sure it probably has a link to it. so in essence I am comparing apples to apples, cause that elderly iraqi who died of a heart attack is being lumped in cause "he probably couldnt get the aid he needed cause of the war" type of inclusion.

my point is, that for their population size that mortality isnt that bad. For us to really being inflicting that kind of of civilian mortality by direct violence we would have to be carpet bombing them pretty consistantly.

I know you dont understand what the object of this propaganda is, and your just running with it to do damage to your domestic political rival but believe me this is just propaganda to get more relief funds from the US. You can use it to beat up Bush with it all you want, we will see what it gets you.

[@DCGoldPants]

how many times can you say that somebody that died, probably was violence related when it really wasn't during a civil war?

I'd guess at least 8 out of 10 times it was related to the civil war.

[twa]

OK ,so we brought them the freedom to kill each other ,69% of the deaths are by thier own hand...Pull back and let em kill enough to sort it out.

If we had crushed any opposition,instead of being PC(such as Sadr) things might be moving forward.

I would not put too much faith in projections formulated by 1,800 interviews anyway...But I'm certified rightwinger

[ozskin]

OK ,so we brought them the freedom to kill each other ,69% of the deaths are by thier own hand...Pull back and let em kill enough to sort it out.

If we had crushed any opposition,instead of being PC(such as Sadr) things might be moving forward.

I would not put too much faith in projections formulated by 1,800 interviews anyway...But I'm certified rightwinger

How's the sun burn on ya neck doin?

[@DCGoldPants]

it doesn't matter. The President said those numbers today weren't credible.

hmmmmm

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

it doesn't matter. The President said those numbers today weren't credible.

hmmmmm

and President Bush has always been credible so if he says they are no good then the numbers are no good.

[Midnight Judges]

I think what your missing is a point that liberty made, that they include deaths that were not directly linked to violence but since violence is going on they say sure it probably has a link to it. so in essence I am comparing apples to apples, cause that elderly iraqi who died of a heart attack is being lumped in cause "he probably couldnt get the aid he needed cause of the war" type of inclusion.

my point is, that for their population size that mortality isnt that bad. For us to really being inflicting that kind of of civilian mortality by direct violence we would have to be carpet bombing them pretty consistantly.

You keep commenting and clearly have not read the article.

According to the survey results, Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate "excess deaths."

For violent post-invasion deaths, the male-to-female ratio was 10-to-1, with most victims between 15 and 44 years old.

Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.

[Thiebear]

% killed due to the war

% killed by insurgents/terrorists/sadr/whomever

I'm guessing due to war 50k+

I'm guessing due to terrorism etc the rest.

But in all the news reports you won't hear that even mentioned at the end.

[nelms]

Bush prosecuted this war with appeasing the left as one of his major failures. On the initial invasion, we should have hunted down and killed every Hussein henchman, thug, criminal, and Republican guard member throughout the entire country. If that meant blowing up and burning down the mosques they were hiding in, then so be it. In the end, there are now more Iraqi deaths than if we prosecuted the war correctly to begin with, instead of trying to fight a PC war. I blame the weak-kneed left and Bush himself for the mess we're in right now. The only way to resolve the problem is to either get out or double the troops and kill anything that moves.

[Midnight Judges]

Bush prosecuted this war with appeasing the left as one of his major failures. On the initial invasion, we should have hunted down and killed every Hussein henchman, thug, criminal, and Republican guard member throughout the entire country. If that meant blowing up and burning down the mosques they were hiding in, then so be it. In the end, there are now more Iraqi deaths than if we prosecuted the war correctly to begin with, instead of trying to fight a PC war. I blame the weak-kneed left and Bush himself for the mess we're in right now. The only way to resolve the problem is to either get out or double the troops and kill anything that moves.

The left didn't make the decision to piss all over existing military plans for Iraq and throw them out the window, Rumsfeld and the Bush administratrion did.

[chomerics]

The only way to resolve the problem is to either get out or double the troops.

That is the first sensible thing I have seen you post. . .ever.

[Thiebear]

That is the first sensible thing I have seen you post. . .ever.

And you'd both be wrong...

[chomerics]

And you'd both be wrong...

yes bear, staying the course is such a smart move. . .I mean look at what it has done for us so far :doh:

[Thiebear]

yes bear, staying the course is such a smart move. . .I mean look at what it has done for us so far :doh:

Lets see option1:

Pull out now.

Option2:

Kill everything that moves..

I'm guessing there are a "couple" of options in between those two that would be more appropriate...

for every 50k Army/Police Trained: 25k troops come out starting last June.

[@DCGoldPants]

How black n white of you.

Doubling the troops doesn't mean twice the killing. that's a Sarge and AFC wet dream, not reality.

Doubling the troops means they have enough support to complete bigger missions and let the situation better prepared to stay that way.

I'm for 3X'ing the troops there. Where you get them? I don't know. But, what is happening not clearly isn't working.

[flashback]

But, what is happening not clearly isn't working.

You aren't not lacking a good point there, Bufford.

[@DCGoldPants]

You aren't not lacking a good point there, Bufford.

hahaha, whoops.

What's happening, clearly isn't working.