Michael White and the Lancet

The "Lancet report" into excess mortality in Iraq, which suggested that 655,000 Iraqis may have died as a result of our invasion in 2003, needs no introduction from me.

Michael White is an assistant editor of the Guardian, and was previously political editor for 16 years. He's a senior figure in the paper at the left-hand edge of the political mainstream in the English-speaking world.

Given who he is, its particularly worrying that he's taken the stance he has on the Lancet study; basically questioning the integrity of the scientists who produced it and saying that its results seem wrong compared to what the media's reporting - its a flimsy argument to say the least, and I've been debating it with him.

First, here's his article which, though not aimed at the study, takes a swipe at it. Here's my first comment taking him up on it. Here's his response to various comments, including mine. Here's my reply, here's his reply to me, and here are my two replies, which is where it stands just now. (maybe its easier for you to scroll down from his article than clicking on all of this. up to you).

The problem with White taking this view is that people like him are in a position to bury the report by deeming it "controversial", and here on the basis of not very much. Judge for yourselves, but it seems to me that White can't really defend his position when called on it. Now if the Lancet study was right, or close to being right, we're talking about half a million deaths, that we helped to cause, which will end up being ignored on the basis of some decidedly faulty thinking and a bit of innuendo. Try explaining to an Iraqi whose lost a loved one in a war we started that, as far as we in Britain are concerned, their loss never happened.

And as I say, White's paper is at the left-hand edge of the political mainstream in the English-speaking world.