Let no one say that David Kane, whatever his faults, is not a comedian of the highest order.

“Leave no modifier undangled.”

Whatever his faults, let no one say David Kane is not a comedian of the highest order.

You came into this with an axe to grind.

And you know this how? I was involved with this for two years before I published anything which anyone found objectionable.

[sound of gong]
By David Kane’s own account, the very first comment he made on this subject was the one just quoted. He entered this discussion by saying that the study could not be trusted because its authors’ motives were suspect, and that this was a valid objection to the study’s methodology and / or its results. And he has not deviated from that pattern of argument since then.

Look—I know this thread is titled “Hilarity”, so I hesitate to harsh anyone’s buzz. But I need to point one more time to the depressing “fraud balloon” incident. When Amy Perfors of Harvard’s IQSS removed David Kane’s post accusing Roberts et al. of fraud, she justified the act by saying that

The tone is unacceptable, the facts are shoddy, and the ideas are not endorsed by myself, the other authors on the sidebar, or the Harvard IQSS.

The central problem with the Lancet study was that it was conducted by people who, before the war started, were against the war, people who felt that the war was likely to increase civilian casualities and who, therefore, had a expectation/desire (unconscious or otherwise) to find the result that they found.

That sort of thing is a big problem with cancer research as well.

No, we’ve already established why you think such things; now we’re just speculating on the price.

When Atrios talks of ‘zombie lies’, it’s sometimes unclear whose bodies those lies feast upon. Not so here.

sg: you forgot “4) liberal! use! of exclamation! marks! to assert! understanding!”

1) use of hazily defined prior distributions

2) symmetric normal distributions and their ratios

3) italicization of the words think and seems

It certainly seems that any proof based on these three components is logically perfect.

All data analysis was conducted in R, using code supplied by deltoid readers. Statistical significance is determined by the method of overlapping confidence intervals for sample statistics with unequal variances, which seem to work in all cases no matter the complexity of the problem. Any errors are the fault of the fundamental theory of epidemiology, which often seems to be wrong. Insinuations of fraud and incompetence were entirely the responsibility of the lead author, and we think they are self evident in every case.

Abstract

A recent study by Burnham et al. claimed that Iraq mortality rates were higher after the US intervention into Iraq than before. In this paper, we attempt to show that Burnham et al.’s results cannot be replicated; and even if they can be replicated, the definition of crude mortality rate (CMR) they used is a wrong one; and even if it is not a wrong one, the very fact that Burnham et al. refuse to release their data to Gourley et al. proves that their results are bogus; and even if they do send their data to Gourley et al., it does not invalidate any of the rest of the breadth of academic criticism against the Lancet papers; and even if it does invalidate the rest of the breadth of academic criticism against the Lancet papers, the truth remains that the Lancet papers are bad for freedom and capitalism and the American Way.

= = =

I invite Crooked Timber readers to fill in the rest of the paper while I sit back and offer virtual US$10,000 bills.

His anti-Lancet work has no credibility with actual academics, so he’s hoping to find a mindless propagation network in Michelle Malkin?

Back in the day, this practice was called “forum shopping”. I wonder what the wingnuts call it now.

I was involved with this for two years before I published anything which anyone found objectionable.

I believe it is ridiculous for them to refuse to share data with Gourley et al.

I think it is unprecedented (counter-examples welcome!) to share data from a published paper with some critics but not others.

And:

“What I have told you is the truth (as I deduced from circumstantial evidence in the Deltoid thread).”

“Please try to educate yourself on these details before engaging in baseless slander.”

From the circumstantial evidence of these two statements, I conclude that David Kane is a hack. This is the truth.

and final comment before I get back to my real life – the issue under debate in this thread isn’t whether people should be convinced that “the Lancet authors are correct” – they may indeed be wrong. The issue is whether people should or should not be convinced that one particular critic of the Lancet authors – David Kane – is full of crap.

Charming. And you wonder why I think of Crooked Timber as the Little Green Footballs of the academic left? Comments like this are very LGFesque.

I have no problem with CT authors who don’t care about this dispute. Life is short. But your drive-by slander is annoying. Better to spend time at Deltoid where at least the critics take the time to read what they are criticizing.