Thanks for the calculations that show data manipulation. The archives have already shown that while starvation was present it was nowhere near the scale claimed by western sources. The publisher of this book could not even find photographic evidence so he used 1946's Famine In China (under the KMT) picture as the cover, I have already posted a link showing this. He has not given credit for this either, so this book not only has serious scholarship faults, it has a plaigarized cover!
LOL!
What else do you expect from crusaders and ideologists! But we must understand their urgency in venting their frustration due to their lack of knowledge of, and their hatred thereafter against, a system that is vastly deferent from their under-performing copy of Western system.
The loss of their basic rationality/sanity a human would otherwise possess renders them unable to provide any data/analysis but feeble propaganda, and leads to the creation of one laughing stock after another. In this forum alone, to demonstrate ideological correctness, wasn’t somebody so desperate as to use air-flow velocity to describe electro-magnetic fields around an aerofoil! WTF is that!
The more this type of farce goes on in this world, the more it makes us really think that there must be some merits in the Chinese system.
Propaganda is cheap, but scientific analysis is expensive and therefore more valuable.
Back to topic.
Population censuses have only been taken in the People's Republic of China in 1953, 1964, 1982, 1990, 2000, and 2010. (Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) thus any data in between these years are only based on more error-prone interpolations/modifications, especially so when they are based on earlier years’ more erroneous censuses. Anybody who has basic knowledge of statistics/data processing knows this.
Further, it is obviously not true at all to say that people who don’t participate in census are dead people. I think this is the assumption taken by some otherwise would-be serious scholars who support 20-45million theory and is therefore fundamentally flawed academically.
Of course, we also comprehend the motivation/desperation of those who gleefully cite as facts the conjectures based on the wrong assumption.