ROBUST.

ROBUST. According to the BBC:

The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt. Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet. But 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".

But, then, I'm sure that the BBC, the British government, and science all suffer from anti-war bias. More:

The reply from another official is: "We do not accept the figures quoted in the Lancet survey as accurate. "In the same e-mail the official later writes: "However, the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones."Asked how the government can accept the Lancet's methodology but reject its findings, the government has issued a written statement in which it said: "The methodology has been used in other conflict situations, notably the Democratic republic of Congo."However, the Lancet figures are much higher than statistics from other sources, which only goes to show how estimates can vary enormously according to the method of collection."

I understand it's difficult to accept the conclusion that a policy you supported has resulted in the unnecessary death of what is now likely upward of 3/4 of a million people. This is why people should be careful about advocating war.

--Robert Farley