Jules Crittenden points out that, according to Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), the Lancet has botched yet another study, this time about “maternal and child undernutrition.”
DWB’s conclusion, as paraphrased by Jules: “dangerously flawed in its methodology and conclusions.”
Lancet… hmm… Lan…cet… where do I remember that name from?
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I think the Critter is barking at the "moonbats". There was no Lancet study to attack on methodology in this case. Conflating the "Lancet study/survey" with a series of papers at a conference has nothing to do with study methods. Critter is wrong on this one and is using exaggerations to attack the 2006 study.
Why is Critter wrong on this one?
His post was almost entirely quoted from ‘Medecins Sans Frontieres’. At the end, Critter acknowledges that he knows ‘zip’ about this and is without personal opinion on it.
I think you are using misinformation to back up your opinion that the 2006 study was attacked unjustly.