Thread by @Aizenberg55

🧵Widely cited letter in @lancet ridiculously implies total Gaza fatalities could be 186,000. Close review shows this short piece is based on junk research citing unreliable sources, gross misrepresentations, errors & omissions. This is a bad look for Lancet. Analysis: 1/

Piece starts by citing Hamas number of 37,396 fatalities citing UN OCHA – but negligently omitting that OCHA takes these numbers from Hamas. To back this number authors claim the figures are “accepted as accurate by Israeli intelligence services” – but this claim is false. 2/

Authors cite as only evidence a Vice article citing a Mekomit article claiming unnamed Israeli “intelligence sources” found Hamas numbers reliable. Author's admit “Israeli authorities” reject Hamas numbers, yet still rely on a fringe news item based on unidentified sources. 3/

Next paragraph of letter is filled with falsehoods. First, Gaza Health Ministry did not augment body counts from “reliable media sources” but unnamed media including social media, none of which can be called “reliable.” Real int’l media has almost zero presence inside Gaza. 4/

Next, there is zero evidence that some Gazan “first responders” are counting bodies in addition to “Gaza Health Ministry,” this concept is made up by the authors. In fact, deaths are “augmented” by a Google Form open to anyone, which the authors omit. 5/ sehatty.ps/moh-registrati…

The shoddy research of the "correspondence" is highlighted when authors claim UN estimated 35% of Gaza had been “destroyed” – but the UN study the authors cite says only 12% "destroyed." Did authors bother to review the original source? (35% refers to destroyed & damaged). 6/

Now to preposterous claim: "it is not implausible" that 186,000+ deaths "could be attributable" to conflict in Gaza, based on authors' "research" that “conservatively” there are 4 indirect deaths per direct death, so 37,400 x 5 =187,000. Where does this concept come from? 7/

Source is Global Burden of Armed Conflict document published by group called the “Geneva Declaration”; but concept of "indirect deaths" is a post-conflict event due to the breakdown in services, lack of food; NOT part of the active phase of the war, see below from p. 53. 8/

Thus implying that in Gaza today perhaps 4x indirect deaths may have already happened is a gross & deliberate misrepresentation of "indirect deaths" as explained in Global Burden of Armed Violence. This is specifically a number that can only be assessed in post-war future. 9/

We again see shoddiness of research, as citation for Global Burden of Armed Violence is strangely to "UN Office of Drugs and Crime" that links to the 2008 World Drug Report. I found the actual document elsewhere; note Geneva Declaration is not a UN entity as endnote implies. 10/

Authors also deliberately omit IDF estimate of 17,000 combatants killed while arguing Hamas number is accurate, falsely claiming Israel agrees. Amazingly, in assessing total casualties, many concepts & statistics are discussed, but this it somehow irrelevant to authors. 11/

Authors inflate war fatalities using misrepresented & unreliable evidence, argue that Hamas numbers are fact, omit IDF numbers of combatants killed & ignore key statistics like civilian/combatant ratios & IPC data on starvation mortality (almost zero). Junk in Junk out. 12/

In Dec 23 Lancet published another letter claiming Hamas numbers were accurate (now you know how to get published in Lancet) using UNRWA workers killed as a proxy. But if this correlation is true, then today Hamas has overstated fatalities by 14,000. END

@martinmckee did not like being exposed for fraudulent research

@martinmckee Now @martinmckee is explaining that the 186,000 fatality figure is "purely illustrative" which means it's serving as an example, not meant to be real. So why so vague in the article?