An exchange with one of my readers on ZNet, IBC and the Lancet

Dear Gabriele,

I have been on your blog mailing list since being impressed by XXI
Century, and meeting yourself, I believe at the London ESF. I am not
myself engaged in writing on Iraq, and have had a limited campaigning
engagement in recent years.

I am writing to you to point out that to someone who has a relatively
small level of knowledge about Znet, IBC, media lens or your own work,
the blog articles which I have been reading about your argument with
Znet seem to make them look relatively reasonable, and similarly tend to
make you seem less reasonable. I have already stated that my engagement
with these issues is relatively low, and I therefore to not wish to
contend that these impressions are correct, simply that I have come to
them.

While I respect and agree with your point that using the Lancet casualty
figures seems the most appropriate choice, to me the 'editor's note'
posted by Znet seems an entirely appropriate response to your queries
about the article which mentions IBC.

I write this for no reason other than to point out to you that the way
you have communicated these issues has failed to convince me that you
are in the right, and if anything would tend to reduce the opinion I
have of you, which I repeat for the record was very high having met you
and seen your work. I hope that you will take this as a friendly comment
from a friendly activist who does not want you to give a bad impression
to other relatively unengaged readers, and believes that you are at risk
of doing so. That is how it is meant,

Yours sincerely,

Chris Malins

***

Thanks Chris,

Your comment is more than welcome.

It's a difficult task to oppose a propaganda campaign of this proportion. Science tells us that in Iraq there might be more than 1 million iraqi deaths because of the illegal war of aggression. The governments responsible for this genocide together with state-corporate media have been opposing that the truth be known to the larger public.

IBC is the main instrument for this propaganda campaign of disinformation.

Not only that, but IBC has been actively discrediting the two Lancet studies for the past three years.

I have been following this propaganda campaign about the downplaying of the Iraqi carnage from the beginning. I have written to hundreds of journalists, media and anti-war activists. The carnage is still being hidden.

That ZNet Editor note doesn't inform the readers of that carnage and implicitly accept IBC as a legitimate source to document the Iraqi carnage.

Let me make another example. Science tells us that the HIV virus causes AIDS. There are many people who oppose this and claim this is not the real cause.

Should a serious publication accept both these claims, the HIV virus and those who oppose this scientific view? What would be the consequences?

Science tells us that in Iraq there might be more than 1 million Iraqi deaths. This is a conservative estimate. What are the consequences to accept as a legitimate source to document the Iraqi carnage the IBC figures?

If propaganda is very harmful on the corporate media, can you imagine the impact it has on alternative media where readers are much more willing to accept uncritically the information coming from it?

I am aware that these questions are very uncomfortable and the reactions are very strong. I wouldn't do what I do if I were not convinced that this may help in raising the awareness around this important issue. Of course there is a prize to pay and my name will suffer from many attacks coming from many sides. All I can offer is my arguments. I can only appeal to my readers' reason.

Finally, this is the link where you can read the beginning of all this  http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2007/08/znet-iraq-body-count-and-that-omerta-on.htm

More can be read at the end of my last blog entry, in the references.  http://www.thecatsdream.com/blog/2007/09/ibc-and-munir-chalabis-numbers-znet-and.htm

Thank you again for your comments. I hope you will at least give me the benefit of the doubt.

Best wishes,
Gabriele

***

Hi Gabriele,

Thanks for your reply, I can see that the IBC issue is one of great
importance to you, and as I said I agree entirely with you that the
Lancet figures seem the appropriate ones to use.

I am happy to give you the benefit of the doubt myself. I do however
feel that you are at risk of failing to help your cause if people,
perhaps people like myself with a moderate engagement in the issue and a
general certainty that the deaths caused in Iraq are unacceptable
without a specific figure in mind, see you as being unreasonable and
almost factionalising in the way you are working.

I recognise that you see the IBC figure as not only representing a
minimum casualty rate, but as an active distortion of the truth because
of how low that minimum is. My suspicion however is that most people who
oppose the war are clear that it is an absolute minimum, but also see it
as simply one way of estimating the true figures. Regardless of the
Lancet reporting, I would always have automatically assumed that IBC was
several times too low, which seems to be an assumption born out by
evidence in the Lancet. To people like me who make these assumptions,
and have a limited knowledge of (and to some extent interest) in whether
IBC has been trying to present its figures as broadly correct, the level
of venom directed by yourself at IBC can seem surprising, but the
insistence with which you demand that Znet should not only acknowledge
as editors the weakness of IBC and existence of other estimates, but
explicitly republish Lancet results seems almost baffling.

I have done a little research as a result of your work, and have been
able to easily verify that IBC are trying to discredit Lancet. I am
however a scientist, and as a scientist I know that simply because
something appears in a peer reviewed journal it does not necessarily
make it true. I am therefore a little cautious of the way that you treat
criticism of Lancet figures, in which there may well be some flaws or
inaccuracies (leading to either under-or over-estimation). I imagine
that the people behind IBC are genuine in their belief in their own
method, and even though they may be very wrong, and though they may have
lost perspective in defending their work, I am not entirely happy with
the implication that there should be no debate or discussion about the
accuracy of various estimates. I suspect others who read your work will
question this idea as well, and would not want you to isolate yourself
by acting as if such concerns are illegitimate.

In short, I hope that you will remember that most of us don't have the
level of background awareness about these questions which you do, and
that issues which seem black and white to yourself may seem rather more
grey to us, and that when your certainty seems to spill over into
corresponding quite unnecessarily abruptly with third parties such as
Michael Albert, it does not do you credit.

Yours,

Chris

***

Thanks Chris,

The difference between IBC figures (70,000 more or less) and the two Lancet's study has greater implications if you consider that those responsible for this carnage have been working full time to discredit the only scientific studies available at the moment.

Nobody has THE TRUTH, in any field. We all go by attempts and tries and try to get closer to it. It's not that criticism of the Lancet is not welcome. You teach me that in science people offer their studies to other scientists who then are able to study them and in case find fallacies and problems.

We have two scientific studies conducted by the world leaders in the field of epidemiology and published as peer-reviewed scientific papers in the world's leading medical journal.

The IBC methodology and findings have never been presented to any scientific journals but IBC team has been campaigning to discredit the Lancets and invited by mainstream media and think tanks around the world where they generously discredit those two Lancet studies and their findings.

As I wrote, the difference between Iraq Body Count’s figures of 70,000 (more or less) and reality is the difference between a four year long war and genocide. The genocide is still going on and the government-media’s propaganda campaign to deny it is stronger than ever.

The meaning behind these number is grater and its consequences far richer than we can imagine. Just think of other cases where the number has played a central role in conveying all the horror against genocides and make the larger public stand up, behind the right denounce, never again!

In this case, the carnage is still going on and the need to inform people on its real extent is even more important.

Best,
Gabriele

***

I have asked Chris Malins the permission to publish this exchange and his name and this is his reply:

Hi Gabriele,

I have no objection to your using my name on the understanding that it
will be made clear that I have no connection or vested allegiances to
any of the groups discussed in our correspondence,

Yours,

Chris