 I'm with a magazine called Adbusters. It's from Vancouver-based, but we're just curious. We often hear about how, like when the Lancet study was released about how many Iraqis have died, there are so many different sources that basically discredited saying, oh, you know, that's the numbers too high. That would, I did not do so many for nine per month. It's impossible. But even speaking with some Iraqis who have come to Vancouver, it sounds as if the study is accurate. How difficult is it for journalists, given how dangerous it is, how difficult is it to do an accurate body count? Because there's just a lot of people saying that the condition is being so dangerous. Part of the reason why the numbers are so vague and so, I guess, best versus because nobody can get an accurate count, I mean, if you would like. Yeah, good question. And I love your magazine. There's an organization that's essentially led the charge against the Lancet survey. And that organization is a rock body count. And a little bit about a rock body count, it's this NGO based in the UK that started up right when the invasion was launched. And they already have the domain name for Iran body count.org, just FYI. But this is a group that they started out and they were outraged that General Tommy Franks had made that quote, we don't do body counts. And so they said, OK, we're going to try to do a body count. And so they started keeping tabs of the number of Iraqi civilians killed. But as the occupation progressed, it was clear that this number is far too low. I mean, there was like tens of thousands. When already, we were seeing mass carnage in places like Najaf and Fallujah, et cetera. And so if you read their website, it's interesting because so the brunt to this day of the establishment journalist, site IBC, as if it's a credible source, at best it's sloppy journalism. Because as a journalist, if I'm going to site a source, I better damn well know about that source. That means with that survey group, I need to understand the fact that according to their methodology, they only count deaths that have been reported by three different media outlets. And they don't count something as a legitimate media outlet in their survey unless it has an English website. So Fox News counts as a legitimate news outlet. But over half the Arab media outlets don't. And those are the only ones with reporters going around un-embedded in Iraq today. I actually had, as you can tell, I have strong feelings about this group. I actually wrote John Sloboda, one of the co-founders of it, and said, look, you're being misquoted in the media. You yourself admit that your survey is too low. Why don't you just put something on your website that says, look, this is not a total figure. This is just taken from media reports. It's a low ball figure by far. But it still serves a purpose. I mean, it's good that they're doing it. But just be very clear that this is not a total figure. And that would stop people from Mr. Bush, the brilliant statistician that he is, of quoting your figure in the media. At the time, it was 30,000. And that's when I wrote to John Sloboda, because he just let it go. And obviously, egos are involved, because he said, no, we're not going to let this go, because this is legitimate count in the Lancet guys or not. And the interesting thing about the Lancet survey, and this has done so much damage to the Lancet report. But if anyone looks, it's the most updated scientific methodology available for tabulating deaths in the wakes of wars of natural disasters and other famines, droughts, catastrophes, this kind of thing. I mean, this is the same statistical survey methodology used in places like Darfur. It was used in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Nobody questioned it in either of those two places. Why are they questioning in Iraq? Gee, it's a little bit of a political situation. Do the math. But it's really ridiculous that that group has done so much damage and called into question the validity of the Lancet. The Lancet is a peer-reviewed medical journal. It's akin to the New England Journal of Medicine in the United States. And this little group in the UK is calling into question their credibility. It's absurd. So I said, at best, it's sloppy journalism for a journalist to cite the IBC. And at worst, it's being complicit in war crimes. Because it's hiding the true catastrophic nature of Iraq.