“There is no evidence of a large rise in suicides in young patients attending a gender identity clinic in London, an independent review has found.”
"Prof Appleby’s review concludes “the data do not support the claim”.
And he added that the way the issue had been discussed on social media was “insensitive, distressing and dangerous”.
“A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said decisions on children’s healthcare must follow the evidence at all times.”
Except they also say “The evidence on suicide risk in children and young people with gender dysphoria is generally poor.”
That’s not debunking. That’s denial of the problem.
That’s not denial, it’s looking at the evidence.
More like suggesting there is no reliable evidence.
As the law of funding bias says, only research that corroborates powerful interests will get the funding necessary to create a reliable body of evidence.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias
Plenty of reasons to reconsider this stupid extreme ban, And this is clearly weighing the limited evidence of suicide higher than the lack of evidence of harm.
IE, it’s a bit hypocritical to ban something with no real evidence of harm. Simply because it has not been proven to be safe, And then argure the limited evidence of suicides, is a reason to continue.
But words matter. So no it is not a denial. It is saying the difference between pre ban suicides and post ban suicides is statistically irrelevant. IE the changes are not usable as evidence, because they are not high enough to prove a trend. (yet as honestly the ban is far too recent for any of this data to be of value)
Edit: QUICK look at numbers, last I heard 19 people had committed suicide since the ban in March while in some form of gender dysmorphia treatment. 5approx 6000 people a year commit suicide in the UK. Numbers being higher with any form of mental health treatment. (issue that needs addressing).
In the article, they only count 3 minors that have committed suicide since the ban, because they put additional qualifiers like that they had to already be on a specific treatment plan in order to count.
Your preliminary numbers already destroy their argument, which is kind of my point.
You’ll find the nuance is age