How the data on defining "famine" in Gaza might be false ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Wednesday, August 13, 2025

How the data on defining "famine" in Gaza might be false

There is an interesting footnote in the latest IPC fact sheet on Gaza titled "Worst-case scenario of Famine unfolding in the Gaza Strip":

Normally, the IPC chooses to measure Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) using WHZ (weight to height Z score) in preference to Mid-Upper Arm Circumference. Their technical manual says that they should only rely on MUAC under strict conditions:

Preference of GAM based on WHZ: GAM based on MUAC may only be used in the absence of GAM based on WHZ. In exceptional cases where GAM based on MUAC portrays a much more severe situation than GAM based on WHZ (i.e. two or more phases higher), GAM based on MUAC should also be taken into account along with a critical analysis of the contributing factors before a final phase is determined.
GAM based on MUAC classification is based on an analysis of the relationship between WHZ and MUAC in the analysis area and convergence of evidence: GAM based on MUAC must only be used in the absence of GAM based on WHZ, and always using convergence of evidence with contributing factors to arrive at the final phase. In exceptional conditions where GAM based on MUAC portrays a much more severe situation than GAM based on WHZ (i.e. two or more phases), GAM based on MUAC should also be taken into account in the phase classification. MUAC-based classifications should be supported by the relationship between GAM based on WHZ, and GAM based on MUAC in the area of analysis. Convergence of evidence should focus on assessing the status of contributing factors (e.g. disease outbreak, food security crisis) as well as historical trends.

Their data sheet does not explain why they rely on GAM and not WHZ. They have a footnote referring to a detailed sampling methodology and data by the UN Nutrition Cluster yet that document does not mention WHZ at all.

To measure WHZ requires a scale and a height board, which can be expected to be found in every hospital and medical clinic in Gaza. Any health workers who go into the field to take random samples, however, would only be expected to have a tape measure to measure arm circumference. Presumably that is the basis for their choosing to rely on MUAC. Yet even so, they are supposed to show a relationship between the prevalence of GAM based on MUAC and GAM based on WHZ.

Now, let's think about this. The only way they can make such a relationship is by measuring both MUAC and WHZ in hospitals and clinics where there are scales and tape measures. But the children being brought into hospitals are far more likely to have illnesses that would indicate both weight loss and MUAC, like diarrhea or acute respiratory infections, which are temporary. If, say, 40% of children are brought into hospitals/clinics for such reasons, and 40% of the samples taken are from hospitals and clinics (both of those are quite reasonable assumptions), that would be equivalent to the 16% of sampled children exhibiting low MUAC scores - even if every child who is at home is perfectly healthy.

The lack of detail by IPC of their sampling methodology is concerning and could easily be skewed.

Also strange is the sudden dramatic increase of MUAC issues in Gaza City in just one month. Normally these would increase slowly over months in normal areas of famine.

Finally, we have the problem we've had since the beginning: the number of actual deaths counted, while claimed to have increased to the low hundreds, is nowhere near the numbers that are required to declare famine (four child deaths per ten thousand per day) - which would be dozens of deaths daily in Gaza City alone.

The IPC was careful not to say there was a famine in Gaza, or even to say that there was "likely famine" there. It said "worst case scenario of famine unfolding" which has no definition - but it sure gets reported on in the media as if it means an actual famine.

Things aren't adding up.