>>I was merely providing a single link. There's quite a bit of discussion regarding the Lancet's study's sampling and methodology. In addition the numbers cited by the Lancet study imply an 80% underreporting of death not only by the local and international press, but by health professionals and the Iraqi government itself.
>
>Perhap understanded since they appear to be in the midset of civil war.
>

Perhaps their sampling is suspect. The numbers extrapolated in the Lancet study are anywhere from 2-11 times higher than any other estimate. Several columns have found problems with not only the results but the methodology. The point I was making is that the study is far from the last word and simply sighting its results as fact ignores every other source.

This gives me yet another opportunity to bring up my favorite study of all time: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

>> Get out a calculator and look at the numbers, they do not add up.
>
>Excellent comeback.

I apologize for the snarky comment, it added nothing to the discussion. I was having a problem with something I was working on and wasn't in the mood to debate further.