nerianasims

[nerianasims]

IT FUCKIN YURI DAAAAAAAAAAAY

[nerianasims]

me, quietly whispering to the ao3 page of an author who doesn’t even know I exist: I am obsessed with you

[nerianasims]

[nerianasims]

Wake up babes, a new lie about the Gaza death toll has dropped.

CAIR, the Cradle, and others are reporting that a new report/study from Harvard states nearly 400,000 Gazans have been killed and the death toll is under reported. Except here's the problem. It doesn't.

Now before I get into it, let me give you the TL;DR -

The study does not make the claim that there are 377,000-400,000 dead Gazans. The study is actually a geospatial analysis of aid distribution centers in relation to population densities. It provides rough estimates of populations in 3 regions (with no citations) that total 1.85 mil, people are taking the difference and saying this is the actual death toll. Except the 3 areas do not encompass all of Gaza nor is all of Gaza's population in those 3 regions. The study is also extremely flawed and provides no citations, methods, or sources.

Now, this is going to be in depth so if you want more details, keep on reading.

Let's start with CAIR's "link" to the report, which isn't a link to it at all.

It goes to a Facebook post from Middle East Monitor with a picture stating this.

The Cradle's article does link to the database in which the study (as they and others report it) is hosted. However, I'm betting they don't want you to read it because it doesn't contain any numbers regarding death tolls or missing Gazans. It's a GIS study about aid distribution centers, how they are structured, and how they do not follow proper humanitarian SOPs for how aid centers need to be designed and structured (with no citations or explanation as to what these are btw).

It's literally a 9 page report with absolutely no mention death tolls and the only mention of casualties is this section here.

(I'm going to screencap the same section over and over with me searching for terms so you all can see that they don't appear or appear in the context of the claim.)

Fig. 1. Text from Garb 2025 displaying the only mention of the word casualty in the 9 page document.

Fig. 2. Text from Garb 2025 showing that the word death does not occur in the 9 page document.

There is, in fact, no mention of 377,000 throughout the entire document, let alone just the numbers 377.

Fig. 3. Text from Garb 2025 showing that the numbers 377 do not appear in the 9 page document.

In fact, if you search any terms relating to dead, death toll, or combination thereof you will get nothing. There's no mention in this paper whatsoever of these terms or figures.

Now, you might be asking "what about the data files on the Harvard database page associated with the study? Surely that has the numbers, right?"

Nope. They're GIS files showing geolocation. Here's one of them in ArcGIS.

Fig. 4. KML file data from Garb 2025.

Notice that these shows pins which are the locations of the aid centers that Garb is focusing on in his report. This coincides with the rest of the data as presented in the document about buffer zones around these centers.

So where are they actually getting these numbers in this report?

From two maps that use population estimates of 3 enclaves from the IDF.

Fig. 5. One of the maps detailing the location of the 5 aid centers, their proximity to enclaves with population estimates, distance that needs to be traveled to reach them, and how dangerous that travel is.

This is where they're getting the 377,000 number from because adding these 3 regions together gets us 1.85 million with Gaza's total population being estimated between 2.1 and 2.4 million. Notice how these estimates are only for these regions and by the author's own admission comes from IDF estimates reported in the media (in the foot note). We have no actual citations for estimates in the report, just this admission (there is no citation section in the document).

Furthermore, notice that these regions do not encompass all of Gaza. Just certain sections. It cannot be assumed that 1) everyone in those regions is accounted for, and 2) that everyone in Gaza is in those regions. Especially with no citations regarding population numbers beyond "media reports" in the footnote.

This is a clear example of taking a study that mentions something in passing and blowing it out of proportion to push a particular narrative. Already I've seen the major antisemitic accounts on here use this faulty interpretation as "proof" of another "Holocaust".

The actual conclusions of the study are that the design of the aid compounds are conducive to problems, do not follow humanitarian designs, and induce duress on the population they're supposedly helping.

It does not state that 377,000 Gazans are missing and/or dead, nor is it a study that is designed to make such a statement. It doesn't even mention total population, only population estimates within particular areas.

But let's go even further. Is this even a good report/study?

First of all, there is no methods section. At all. That's a huge red flag and to me means that this might be a working paper, and if not then it should never have been published due to that alone.

Then there is the issue of sources and citations.

There are three "citations" in the paper and they are all foot notes. The first is to another publication of Garb's titled The massive reworking of southern Gaza's population and landscapes-1: the new Tel Sultan compound. This citation is another geospatial analysis that details construction, destruction, and demolition since the Israeli offensive began, and what the land or buildings were previously used for, have been used for, and might be used for.

The second "citation" is footer number 2 which is pictured in Fig. 5. which states that the population estimates are from mainstream media sources (and doesn't list them at all or tell us exactly where).

The third citation is an actual scientific paper written by Garb and titled Geospatial dataset and analysis of usability for emergency communications of the official maps of Gaza "Humanitarian Area" and evacuation blocks. It details geospatial maps that the Israeli government used to denote humanitarian zones, complete with in text citations, a methods section, sources, and offers criticism of how things were done according to the analysis, cited sources, and expertise of the author.

And that's it.

There's no other citations to back up Garb's claims throughout the report.

That's extremely problematic as I can identify multiple parts where proper intext citations should be provided. One such is the claim that aid distribution centers have to follow a certain layout to reduce duress on the population receiving said aid. Garb makes the claim, but provides nothing to back it up. In a scientific study such as this one you would expect multiple citations from various publications and NGOs to back up such a statement. There's not even mainstream publications cited to back up this claim.

Another should be actually citing internal law and standards that he references repeatedly.

Moving on, let's go back to the map in Figure 5. Notice any problems with it?

There's no key.

Geospatial analysis maps have to have a key in order to be readable at the bare minimum or else they need to rely upon a very good figure legend. The figure legend for said map is this:

Fig. 6. The figure legend for the map depicted in Fig. 5.

This figure legend tells us very little about the map it is supposed to define. What do the increasing numbers mean as they radiate outwards? What are the thick red lines? The fact that we have no explanation for what these numbers mean or an explanation for the color coordination is extremely problematic for a scientific study.

Speaking of which, remember how I said there are no citations? There's no bibliography or list of sources either. Just the three foot notes I mentioned earlier.

So here we have a report/study with no methods section, no citations, and no bibliography.

And yet the claim that everyone is making based upon this egregious publication is that there is a population discrepancy depicted in the maps and thus the casualty rate is actually 377,000-400,000

Anyone making this claim has likely not read the report and is just repeating what other sources are saying about it (which are purposefully misleading). If they claim they have read the report then they are either purposefully lying about the study's purpose, its details, and conclusions or they are scientifically illiterate and do not understand what it depicts and the flaws within it.

The only reason to lie and mislead in this manner is to foment hatred of Israelis and Jews, and further spread antisemitic hatred and conspiracy.

That's it.

[nerianasims]

Bridget wishes you a happy Wednesday. Stay cute! <3

[nerianasims]

maybe i am bisexual 🤷

go off judean king 😭😭 thank g-d he was there.

[nerianasims]

reblog game put in the tags how you found prev

[nerianasims]

The left can never come back from supporting the Ayatollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Whatever last shred of moral credibility they had left is dust in the wind.

[nerianasims]

I could put on a bikini and go to the busiest area of the city where I live and do a huge song and dance about how much I hate the president at the top of my lungs and the most I'd get is some heckling and a lot of funny looks.

Someone just said to me, 100% seriously, “the US is the most oppressive country in the world and you’re brainwashed by propaganda if you don’t see that.” Come the fuck on now.

While it certainly cannot be denied that there are certain aspects of the US and her government, just like my own country, that are horrifically, brutally repressive, especially of minorities, keeping a straight face while saying that while the governments of countries like Iran, Afghanistan, China, Russia, exist is deeply, farcically ludicrous.

People who say this are functionally no different to MAGA arseholes, but instead of AMERICA BEST EVER it’s AMERICA WORST EVER - still imagining that the U S of A is the centre of the fucking universe.

[nerianasims]

life as a persona protagonist

[nerianasims]

I am trying a Fisherman's Friend cough drop for the first time, in part of my desperation to get over this stupid illness already. And. It works! It feels like a cold wind over Lake Superior is blowing through my sinuses.

The package says not to take more than one every two hours. Not to worry -- I don't think I could handle more than one of these every 12 hours at best.

[nerianasims]

[nerianasims]

Just a couple of yard finds of hawk feathers. (P7)