The Lancet publish article estimating 186,000 death toll in Gaza

6 posters have questioned the thread title actually.

There are options - report and also thread title altered. But it isn't derailment.

It's not disputed that this letter in the Lancet has been misrepresented as a peer reviewed academic article from the beginning.

Your point is rather weak there.

Not making a point, merely letting you know how I view the use of that emoji, you don't agree fine.

It is derailing to be saying it over and over again as one poster has done.

It's not derailment to point out the misleading title.

It would be if the content of posts was irrelevant to this thread....

Agree. End of story. Let’s focus on the important thing. Thousands of Palestinians being killed by Israel

The 🤦‍♂️ emoji is entirely correct in response to any suggestion this was a Lancet study or view.

Your point is rather weak there.

I still don’t see where the thread title said it’s quadruple. I must go to specsavers

End of story

Good so can you stop derailing

I find your use of this emoji insulting and dismissive of posters

No @EasterIssland it is simply not possible to get direct and indirect deaths and future deaths from the thread title "The Lancet publish article estimating 186,000 death toll in Gaza"?

End of story.

Actually the Hamas estimate (according to the "article " is 35091, so the 186000 is 5.5 x this so apologies - it is greater than quadruple.

Unfortunately, that doesn't mean very much..... 🤷‍♂️

"And insult people...."

Now...point to precisely where I insulted anyone via pejorative terms and so on. 🧐

Based on experience on similar scenarios ? It does even explain it in the letter ?
I mean come on it’s not the first genocide that happens!

Only the OP can request the thread title change despite the gross inaccuracies but the thread title still remains in its original wording.

Yes, by all means, kindly point out the gross inaccuracies. If you're going to write this shit, back it up, qualify it.
I am alive because my father happened to survive what his family members did not: Genocide. So please, list those 'gross inaccuracies' because it really fucking matters that you do so. Especially in light of the fact that what is happening in Gaza is, in fact, genocide to its absolute core.

" In fact the title it does says estimate and it’s for those directly killed + those indirectly killed I.e lack of hospitals or medicines. Think many of us have understood it."

How can anybody get direct and indirect deaths and future deaths from the thread title "The Lancet publish article estimating 186,000 death toll in Gaza"?

I mean, come on!

The death toll in Gaza is still officially under 40,000 - the thread title says it is quadruple that

where? The title “The Lancet publish article estimating 186,000 death toll in Gaza ”

Only they can request the title to be changed, so why have they not?

Maybe they are happy with the title.

And as our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted, can we clarify that all we are saying is that the Gaza figures are credible & indirect toll will, in time, likely be much higher. The figure we give is purely illustrative.”

1. I don’t think anyone is disputing that. In fact the title it does says estimate and it’s for those directly killed + those indirectly killed I.e lack of hospitals or medicines. Think many of us have understood it.
2. That sentence I’ve highlighted is good. For those that say that the figures are fake because they’re coming out from Hamas .

No, the title is not misleading by just one word.

Here are some of the reasons - apologies that these include previously posted reasons:
1.) The death toll in Gaza is still officially under 40,000 - the thread title says it is quadruple that
2.) The thread title suggests it is an article but the link is to a letter
3.) The Lancet published an article - inaccurate, in that it's a letter not an article and whilst the difference may not be appreciated/understood by the OP it is important.
4.) Estimating 186,000 death toll in Gaza - misleading, as it implies an actual and current death toll which is neither the content or intent of the authors of the letter.

5.) First post by the OP is " estimating that the death toll in the Gaza genocide could be 186,000 people or more. That's 8% of the population, obliterated."
This figure is grossly wrong and not factual.
6.) "It's a non-peer reviewed letter which contains a future looking set of speculation. Nothing more and nothing less."

Huh?

I've read THIS thread. 🤦‍♂️

Hence, my first line of noting thread title has STILL not been altered. And, yes, I did see the OPs post on page 3.

Only they can request the title to be changed, so why have they not?

And, yes, it is Whataboutery for you to bring in an unrelated thread to this one. One I haven't read, I don't think. 🤦‍♂️

the gross inaccuracies
Could you point these gross inaccuracies out please?

It seems crazy that Palestinian advocates don’t want any criticism of the letter sent to the Lancet.

Someone asked Martin McKee an author of the letter for clarification.
“ MANY are citing this letter to say that 186,000 have been killed in the past 9 months. Is that an accurate reading of your work?”

Martin McKee
” No”
https://x.com/hijadevidriero_/status/1810377543834563036/photo/1

Martin McKee further clarified
“And as our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted, can we clarify that all we are saying is that the Gaza figures are credible & indirect toll will, in time, likely be much higher. The figure we give is purely illustrative.”

Anyone who wants to read point by point what is wrong with the letter’s sources and evidence.
https://x.com/Aizenberg55/status/1797648673964282104

Then accept it. Op might not want to change the title and they’re within their right.

ps. It’s not the only thread whose title might be inflammatory and might have inaccuracies