30737: Kondrat (response) Re: 30712: Deibert on the Lancet discussion

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Peter Kondrat <kondr8@gmail.com>


Some thoughts herewith on the latest post from Michael Diebert, another
politico obsessed with the evils of his bogeyman, Titid. We usually get a
lot of bluster and froth from this scribe, but nothing of substance. The
latest post was no exception. Let's look at his reasons for doubting the
scientific study in the Lancet:
1. "Supporters" of the study have been hoodwinked. For Diebert, no one could
have looked carefully at the science and concluded that it was sound.
Rather, anyone who places credence in this study is "in ...awe" of the
Lancet, and believes it to be . . . infallible! What a silly position. I
have not read a single comment, here or elsewhere, that stated or suggested
that the Lancet study was valid because the Lancet is infallible. Michael
just made that up.

2. The Lancet has published studies that have been shown to be biased or
that have used invented data. True. Well, if that means we then must ignore
anything that the Lancet publiishes, then we'd have to live in almost total
ignorance, and reject whatever is published by the New York Times, the
Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Congress, the Vatican, and everything else. The
only credible source remaining, it would appear, would be the oeuvre of
Michael Diebert. I am not ready to go that far, Michael.

Yes, the Lancet has published stuff that turned out not to be accurate and
above-board. For someone who claims to be a journalist, this should be less
of a shock than it appears to be to Michael. It happens all the time. That
is the nature of scientific literature. It is self-policing, in that the
study should be replicable, and if it isn't, then there is a debate in the
scientific community. If others replicate the study and come up with
different results, then the science is revised. But that process cannot
occur until the study's data and findings are published.

3. Athena Kolbe has been associated with the popular movement in Haiti known
as Lavalas. That, in Michael's eyes, seems to be enough to send her to the
gulag. I still am not sure what the nature of Ms. Kolbe's crime was: I think
she spent a chunk of her life helping orphans, and she allied herself with a
guy who was (and probably still is) the most popular politician in the
history of Haiti. Unfortunately for her reputation in Michael's eyes, those
orphans were affiliated with his bogeyman, Titid. Therefore, her work turns
into some sort of cabalistic endeavor. Little mind -- for Michael, it's all
about innuendo, casting aspersions and making insinuations without actually
having to do the work of presenting  facts and connecting dots.

4. The sample of data that was reviewed and verified was too small for
Michael's taste. Michael not only does not believe in scientific studies, he
also does not believe in the practice of random sampling. He wants someone
(not him, of course) to scrutinize every notation of every interviewer,
check them against some taped record or something . . .  Michael, they don't
even do that at the Carter Center! Bottom line, Michael doesn't trust the
interview process that was a part of the study. There may have been problems
there, but if you want to make that case, you need to do more than try to
start a dirty little whispering campaign.

6. The Lancet authors "claim" that no rapes were committed by Fanmi Lavalas
supporters, and this claim is at odds with assertions by Haitian grassroots
organizations. That is just a lie. Anyone who actually bothered to read the
study knows that the Lancet authors made no such claim, and Michael is
surely smart enough to know that. I am sure that he went to the trouble of
reading the Lancet study, unlike other of its critics. Kolbe's and Hutson's
report discusses data they collected. Michael seems to get confused since he
is responding to a scientific study, not the polemic that he is accustomed
to composing. It presents facts, not half-formed opinions.

Alas, Michael is one of those 21st century curiosities (George Bush, the
Taliban, creationists, global-warming doubters) who doesn't seem to know
what to do when data collide with his strongly held political beliefs. Some
people use that as an opportunity to re-evaluate what they have assumed to
be true, while others desperately flail at the data and fire wildly in the
direction of the messenger.

Still waiting for some substantive, data-driven critique of this study,
Michael.

Best,

Peter Kondrat