Science rejects Dems' delusional mutilation of children to encourage mental illness

[artichoke]

Imagine that. Irreversibly mutilating and poisoning a child to encourage mental illness (the equivalent of helping an Anorexic starve themselves further, violating the Hippocratic Oath) really DOESN'T do anything but make them more depressed and insane (hence the high post-'transition' suicide rate). The anti-science left (as I recently demonstrated here) humiliated by facts and reality some more.

“While this comparison was performed retrospectively and was not part of the original research question given that several other factors may differ between the groups,” the correction said, “the results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts in that comparison.”

Twitter users called attention to the fact that the study’s abstract with “strong” conclusion is not under a paywall, though the correction itself is.

“The original abstract remains public yet the letters of dissent and the correction is paywalled,” tweeted one user. “That is not fair. People need access to the arguements [sic].”

“Astounding and unethical to put the correction behind a paywall, APA,” another user tweeted.

Psychiatric Journal Corrects Transgender Study, Now Says There’s ‘No Advantage Of Surgery’ For Mental Health

genes gender.jpg

[StoneByStone]

Imagine that. Irreversibly mutilating and poisoning a child to encourage mental illness (the equivalent of helping an Anorexic starve themselves further, violating the Hippocratic Oath) really DOESN'T do anything but make them more depressed and insane (hence the high post-'transition' suicide rate). The anti-science left (as I recently demonstrated here) humiliated by facts and reality some more.

“While this comparison was performed retrospectively and was not part of the original research question given that several other factors may differ between the groups,” the correction said, “the results demonstrated no advantage of surgery in relation to subsequent mood or anxiety disorder-related health care visits or prescriptions or hospitalizations following suicide attempts in that comparison.”

Twitter users called attention to the fact that the study’s abstract with “strong” conclusion is not under a paywall, though the correction itself is.

“The original abstract remains public yet the letters of dissent and the correction is paywalled,” tweeted one user. “That is not fair. People need access to the arguements [sic].”

“Astounding and unethical to put the correction behind a paywall, APA,” another user tweeted.

Psychiatric Journal Corrects Transgender Study, Now Says There’s ‘No Advantage Of Surgery’ For Mental Health

genes gender.jpg

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

[Darth Omar]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

I long for the day when citing ‘fact checkers‘ ceases to be a counter argument.

[StoneByStone]

I long for the day when citing ‘fact checkers‘ ceases to be a counter argument.

If you can't find a real news site reporting on your story, then it's probably bullshit.

[Darth Omar]

If you can't find a real news site reporting on your story, then it's probably bullshit.

The primary source was a medical journal.

[StoneByStone]

The primary source was a medical journal.

So post the medical journal or a real site linking it.

[artichoke]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-caller/

Attack the Source.jpg

Repeating this diversionary "Democrat 'fact-checkers' smeared your source, therefore the claim must be invalid" fallacy will get you nowhere. Are you saying the CLAIM is false? No. You're just changing the subject to avoid debate.

content bs.jpg

Next.

[artichoke]

I long for the day when citing ‘fact checkers‘ ceases to be a counter argument.

Biased ones at that, and to prop up invalid "attack the source" fallacies too.

[christiefan915]

I long for the day when citing ‘fact checkers‘ ceases to be a counter argument.

I long for the day when people accept science and not Tucker Carlson lol.

[artichoke]

If you can't find a real news site reporting on your story, then it's probably bullshit.

Or Democrat sources just exclude everything that doesn't prop up their provably false bullshit. See how that works?

[StoneByStone]

Attack the Source.jpg

Repeating this diversionary "Democrat 'fact-checkers' smeared your source, therefore the claim must be invalid" fallacy will get you nowhere. Are you saying the CLAIM is false? No. You're just changing the subject to avoid debate.

content bs.jpg

Next.

I didn't say the claim was true or false. I said the source can't be trusted. If you'd like to find a real source for this claim, feel free.

[artichoke]

The primary source was a medical journal.

[StoneByStone]

Or Democrat sources just exclude everything that doesn't prop up their provably false bullshit. See how that works?

I didn't say anything about "Democrat sources."

[artichoke]

So post the medical journal or a real site linking it.

Or just grow up and stop being such a dishonest crybaby.

[artichoke]

I long for the day when people accept science and not Tucker Carlson lol.

Medical journals are not "Tucker Carlson," dishonest demagogue. Next impotent lie please.