Monday, March 20, 2006

Les Roberts to Speak in Syracuse About Iraq Experience

I got the following message in the mail this morning from the Cayuga Coalition for Peace - centered over in Auburn. It seems that the Syracuse Peace Council is involved in the effort as well.

"100,000 Iraqi Civilian Deaths: A Story of Media Spin"

A discussion with Dr. Les Roberts


Thursday, March 23, 7 pm

Westcott Community Center (826 Euclid Ave., Syracuse)

FREE

Dr. Les Roberts' study estimating that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was cited by Project Censored as the second most under-reported story of 2005. The story received very little press coverage in the US, but much more in both Canada and Europe.

Les has studied mortality caused by war since 1992, having done surveys in Bosnia, Congo, and Rwanda. He has worked as an epidemiologist for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and for the World Health Organization in Rwanda during their civil war. He has worked in more than 30 countries, including five war zones, as a Public Health Service Officer for the U.S. Government and is currently a Research Associate and Lecturer at Johns Hopkins.

Please join us.

For more information: Carol Baum, 472-5478 carol@peacecouncil.net"

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have supported Koziol since day one, however, all of this crap going around has made me realize something...Les Roberts is the only class act, with an organized campaign based on the issues. He's got my vote!!!

Anonymous said...

your definition of organized must have low standards then. I've been watching this race for 4 months and while it is clear that the roberts and arcuri campaigns are the only somewhat organized campaigns, neither of them is organized incredibly well. In fact I have not been impressed much with any campaign thus far, which is sad since we all know that Meier and the Republican machine will come out blazing. sad, just sad.

I can't think of much scarier than Meier as our Congressman

Jake said...

Roberts's study was "underreported" only because it was some of the most un-scientific tripe imaginable. He took the causes of 73 deaths in one village and then extrapolated that across a country of 27 million people. The survey stated that with 95% confidence, it could say that the number of civilians dead was between 8,000 and 198,000. Yes, that is a margin of 190,000 different. The "margin of error" on such a nonrepresentative survey makes it completely useless.

Anonymous said...

The science of the Roberts study was solid; the method he used is the widely accepted, widely used, standard method. The very same method produced the results of his Congo study, results Colin Powell and Kofi Annan and many others relied upon confidence. The science of the Iraq study is only challenged because people don't like the result. Further, it's not a margin of error, you're just wrong about that. This has been explained in several sources. You are jumping to conclusions out of ignorance. Is it willful ignorance?

Anonymous said...

The science of the Roberts study was solid; the method he used is the widely accepted, widely used, standard method. The very same method produced the results of his Congo study, results Colin Powell and Kofi Annan and many others relied upon with confidence. The science of the Iraq study is only challenged because people don't like the result. Further, it's not a margin of error, you're just wrong about that. This has been explained in several sources. You are jumping to conclusions out of ignorance. Is it willful ignorance?