I sent the following letter to Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, earlier today.

Dear Mr Rusbridger,

I hope you are well. I note with some alarm that your recent leader on Iraq posits the figure of “Up to 85,000 Iraqi deaths” since May 2003. Where exactly does this figure come from? Iraq Body Count’s currently gives a maximum of 85,713. This count is necessarily hugely conservative. IBC derive their figures from newspaper reports of deaths that can be cross-referenced – in a context in which, as Madeleine Bunting has recently noted in your paper, the Iraq war has now become “nigh on impossible to report”. As she writes, “the number of journalists killed (now at least 138) means that this war is near private”; consequently, “It's no longer a war that is accessible to public scrutiny or to democratic engagement.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2228636,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2205309,00.html

As you will no doubt be aware, there are at least three credible surveys that have put the figure significantly higher. The first of these was published in the Lancet in October 2004, and put the death toll at around 98,000. A second study was published in the same journal in October 2006, which put the death toll at around 655,000.

http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/reports/lancet04.pdf

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

The latter survey was confirmed as credible by the private opinion of prominent government specialists. According to the BBC,

“the Ministry of Defence’s chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were “close to best practice” and the study design was “robust”.

“Another expert agreed the method was “tried and tested”.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm

A more recent poll conducted by the Opinion Research Business in September 2007 suggested “a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003”. Taking into account the margin of error, “the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063”. The higher-end figure here is around 17 times the one you give in your editorial.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

Les Roberts, co-author of the Lancet studies, substantiated the latter survey. In his words:

“The poll is 14 months later with deaths escalating over time. That alone accounts for most of the difference [between the October 2006 Lancet paper and the ORB poll]. There are confidence interval issues, there are reasons to assume the Lancet estimate is too low but the same motives for under-reporting should apply to ORB. Overall they seem very much to align.”

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070918_the_media_ignore.php

Given the necessarily hugely conservative nature of the Iraq Body Count figure, and the substantiation by the co-author of a poll described by government experts as “robust” and “close to best practice” of the ORB survey, why do you opt for a figure of “Up to 85,000 Iraqi deaths”, rather than “Up to 1,446,000 Iraqi deaths”?

This is not the first time I have written to the Guardian on this subject, and I am distressed that your reporting continues to significantly misrepresent what the figures show. It is particularly extraordinary given that your paper published a recent editorial – “Sliding back into the abyss” – in which you describe the Democratic Republic of Congo as “Emerging from a war which involved six foreign armies and claimed 3 million lives”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/congo/story/0,,2161228,00.html

This figure itself, as you will no doubt be aware, comes from a survey by the IRC, which employs a “household-based cluster sampling” technique, and was published in the Lancet. The (2006) Lancet survey of Iraq mortality, you will note, also employed a “cluster sample survey” of Iraqi “households”.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606679233/fulltext

Even more extraordinary, this precise double-standard was noted by George Monbiot, writing in your paper, in November 2005. “Now,” as he wrote, “whenever a newspaper or broadcaster produces an estimate of civilian deaths, the Lancet report is passed over in favour of lesser figures.” He also quoted the words of Iraq Body Count’s compilers on the significant shortfalls of their own methodology. In their words, “it is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. … our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording.”

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/11/08/bringing-out-the-dead/

Why is it then, that you continue to use IBC’s figure as representing a maximum death toll? Why do you apply such an extraordinary double-standard in reporting Iraq and such cases as the DRC?

In light of the concerns noted above, I would be grateful if you would issue a correction and clarification on this point, and publish a copy of this letter either in your paper or on your website.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Holmes