Reply With Quote
.
thats because you cant really hold off on approving a course of treatment until you have 20-30 years of data from longitudinal studies
.
So then do them.
Anything done to a child should be banned. Of course there needs to be way more education and acceptance of trans youth, and zero tolerance for transphobic bullying. I just strongly disagree with anything done chemically to alter them until they’re a consenting adult.
8 out of 100 and 2 out of 100 is a difference of 6%.
Exactly! I am more speaking about his daily podcast.
What exactly is so bad with listening to others opinions that differ from your own? This is why you're trapped in your bubble. I read everything you ing losers have to say and others online just like you leftists so I keep an open mind about both POV's. You on the other hand would rather subscribe to the cult ideology you subscribe to now and stay in your bubble like the weak that you are unfortunately.
At the end of the day I know exactly why yall are mad at me and it has nothing to do with how I come across here on ST. I am an artist and yall feel as if I shouldn't think outside the box but instead be knee deep in yalls ideology; well you losers I am all for the USA and FREEDOM you ing es!
Why is that funny
What about vaccines? Asking for Qris
If 8 out of 100 people died from a disease without treatment and 2 out of 100 died with treatment, would you recommend treatment for people who get the disease?
Not if the study done concludes that there's no significance between treatment and survival like this one did. Treatment being "medical stuff" survival being "suicide attempts" in this case. Combine the 6 percent and the fact that their own odds ratio was unable to establish a significant realation between suicide and treatment I wouldn't recommend it, would you? would you recommend a treatment where the variables aren't significant?
Last edited by Trainwreck2100; 06-13-2022 at 05:45 PM.
I think there might be a misunderstanding about what is significant here.
If you think a 75% reduction of deaths is insignificant, OK.
Not sure where to go from there.
Did you not see their odds ratio and their own conclusion that attempted suicides we're not significant?
I did not read their conclusion that attempted suicides are insignificant, no.
Ok well when you decide to it's there for you. It's it not "insignificant" it's "not significant"
This thread is amazing. Liberals trying to cancel a reasonable liberal ( Will Hunting ) for being reasonable.
It goes over about as well as me telling my conservative friends that Trump did a sh1t job handling COVID - or that I hope DeSantis ousts him in the primary
i dont think that becoming trans surgically/hormonally/whatever until you're an adult should be allowed either tbh
or maybe we can count of professionals in the field to study and assess the clinical pros/cons of going on reversible puberty blockers at that age vs allowing them to go through a version of puberty thats only going to cause them more trauma
kids arent allowed to get bottom surgery until 18 nor do they go on hormone replacement therapy until like 16 tbh. before that point they can put kids on puberty blockers which are by and large reversible once you stop taking them. basically just buys them time to figure out what direction they actually want to go in instead of going through a version of puberty that will later require more surgery/procedures to undo
You don't have to worry because you're the biggest pussy here.
LMAO The Big Lie! Take for instance that dude on TLC parading around as a fat chick with a tiny who got it sliced up and stuffed up in him. If he decided not to go through with it he would've ended up with a baby just like you. "Everything will go back to normal when getting off puberty blockers" Sure bud!
This is the will hunting and me are talking about. You don't know if they're reversible. Example, doctors don't know their long term effect on fertility.
you mentioned statistical significance which is a completely separate thing though. just because some figure in a research paper is less than 5% doesnt make it insignificant. statistical significance comes from whether the "p-value" is greater or lower than 5% or 0.05. p-value is basically a term for calculating the chances that your measured phenomenon is due to random chance or if there is some correlation to the experiment.
you dont just say "oh this was a difference of 3% and therefore its statistically insignificant."
same with looking at the prevalence of suicide attempts.
and if you werent talking about statistical significance and just a more arbitrary use of the word significant, i still think you're way off. taking suicide attempt rates of 10% and reducing them to 3-4... more than cutting them in half, is pretty ing great
what makes you think those studies are not happening?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
