The Lancet Publishes Another Bunk Study on the Gaza Death Toll
How Hamas Propaganda and Bad Data Inflated the Casualty Count
The Lancet, supposedly a prestigious medical journal, recently published a study claiming that nearly 70,000 people died in Gaza between October 2023 and June 2024—roughly 25,000 more than Hamas’ own estimates. The researchers used a method called “capture-recapture,” which compares different sources of death reports to estimate the total number of fatalities, including unreported ones.
While this might sound scientific, experts have flagged serious flaws. The data sources, which include the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health and death information from the Hamas-affiliated Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor and the Palestinian Information Centre, are unreliable. The statistical methods are questionable, and key details about how the data was collected raise significant red flags.
Garbage In, Garbage Out: Capture-Recapture's Fatal Flaw
One of the core issues identified by experts like Aizenberg (@Aizenberg55) is the lack of true independence between the data sets used in the capture-recapture analysis. For this method to work, each data set must be compiled without reliance on the others. However, in Gaza, the Ministry of Health (MoH) frequently uses and refines data from non-governmental sources, including social media reports and surveys.
As highlighted by Elder of Ziyon, the survey list was explicitly designed to supplement the hospital list, making these sources not independent but deliberately complementary. The Ministry of Health combines these lists and removes duplicates, meaning their analysis cannot assume these sources are independent samples of the total deaths. As a result, capture-recapture is not an appropriate methodology for this data.
The third list, derived from social media obituaries, is even more problematic. Social media entries can be posted by anyone, anywhere, making them unverifiable and potentially redundant with other sources. Giving this list equal weight in the analysis further skews the results.
Finally, the survey itself conflates “martyrs” and “missing persons,” with no clear distinction between those confirmed dead and those unaccounted for. Given that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has reunited thousands of missing persons with families during the conflict, this raises further doubts about the validity of the survey data.
Moreover, Aizenberg further explains: "The Ministry of Health data uses other sources (e.g., Google Form reports) and scrubs duplicates to create a 'clean' list. Since these sources aren't independent, the capture-recapture methodology crumbles as garbage in-garbage out." The dependence between these sources inflates the death count estimate, undermining the credibility of the study’s conclusion.
Big Problems with Obituary Data and Models
Dr. Avi Bitterman (@AviBittMD) points out a serious problem in The Lancet study’s use of social media obituaries. The study claims it excluded deaths from non-traumatic causes, like natural illnesses, but Bitterman asks: “what did the authors do for obituaries that simply did not mention the death attribution?” Unlike their survey data, where respondents were directly asked to list deaths caused by the conflict (referred to as “martyred”), obituaries don’t typically include this kind of detail.
This is where things get really messy. If the researchers assumed that all obituaries represented war-related deaths unless specifically stated otherwise (an “opt-out” approach), they may have mistakenly included many natural or unrelated deaths. This assumption could significantly inflate the reported death toll, creating a major flaw in the study’s analysis.
Bitterman also raises concerns about how the authors chose their statistical model. The method they used to combine data from different sources, called capture-recapture analysis, can be done in multiple ways, and each approach gives different results. The authors picked a model that produced one of the highest possible estimates, but they didn’t explain why they chose this one over other, more balanced options. For instance, Bayesian model averaging—a more cautious approach that considers a range of possibilities—suggests the Hamas-run Ministry of Health may have underreported deaths by about 25%, far less than the 41% the Lancet study claims.
According to Bitterman, if there’s no solid reason to favor one model, the study should have presented a range of estimates instead of pretending there’s one clear answer. The lack of clear explanations and the choice to use a method that inflates numbers casts serious doubt on the study’s reliability.
Demographics Disprove the Claims
A demographic analysis from The Maggid (@The_Maggid) found compelling evidence that disproves Lancet study’s claims of underreporting of Gaza’s death toll. Using WHO vaccination data from late 2024, The Maggid estimates the number of children under 10 in Gaza at 563,932, with a potential maximum of 4,736 deaths in this age group. Given that children under 10 make up nearly 30% of Gaza’s population, the study's claim of over 50,000 total deaths is incompatible with these figures. "As the death rate of nearly 30% of the population is max <5000 it's very unlikely that the 45,000 is an undercount and far likelier that is it an overcount as we now have to account for >40,000 deaths amongst roughly 72% of the population," The Maggid concludes.
This discrepancy strongly suggests the Lancet study grossly overestimated mortality, likely due to inflated or misrepresented data.
Bias in the Sources
The study relied heavily on biased and unreliable sources, significantly undermining its credibility. As noted earlier, the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Gaza operates under the full control of Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.
This connection has long been criticized for creating a conflict of interest, with Hamas being a direct party to the conflict. A recent report published by the Henry Jackson Society revealed that the ministry frequently inflates its casualty figures by including natural deaths, deaths that occurred before the conflict, and even duplicate records.
For example, individuals previously registered as hospital patients have reappeared on fatality lists, and the number of women and children reported killed has been artificially inflated through misclassification. Furthermore, the Lancet study makes no attempt to estimate the number of Hamas combatants among the dead, an omission that significantly skews its analysis.
Even more troubling is the Lancet’s use of obituary data scraped from the Palestinian Information Centre (PIC), which is affiliated with Hamas and was so controversial that the Palestinian Authority itself blocked the website for its extremist ties. These obituaries often lack detailed or verifiable information about the cause of death, and using them as a primary source without proper verification raises serious concerns about the integrity of the data.
Additionally, the study cites a death tally from the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, a group with documented ties to Hamas. As noted by the NGO Monitor research institute, Euro-Med has a history of spreading inflammatory and unverified claims, such as allegations of organ theft and genocide, which have been widely criticized as antisemitic propaganda. The organization’s leadership even includes individuals identified by Israel as Hamas operatives, further calling into question its impartiality.
Relying on data or narratives from such a source compounds the already significant biases in the study, making its conclusions even harder to trust.
What This All Means
The Lancet study took a complicated method, applied it incorrectly, and relied on questionable data to come up with an eye-popping death toll. While it’s important to understand the human cost of conflict, exaggerating numbers with bad science doesn’t help anyone. It misleads the public, damages trust in legitimate research, and creates confusion instead of clarity.
If future studies want to be taken seriously, they need to use better methods, explain their choices, and rely on data that’s truly independent and trustworthy. Until then, this report should be thrown to the trash along with The Lancet’s other recent publications on the Israel-Hamas War.