Baloney.
Lol, no it's not. This is standard scientific practice Colpy. You state a hypothesis and test it. You test it on the most homogenous population you can, and then evaluate outcomes based on differences that we can control for. Would it help you if I simply called one of them the control group?
If you think it's OK to compare the treatment responses of a healthy athlete with no heart disease diagnosis, and someone that has some form of cardiovascular trauma, then you're not able to have this discussion.
Even if you could pin down the population of pre-operative transgenders, the stats would be so very skewed.
Yes, well that sometimes happens. We don't have the luxury of doing bad analysis because the population distribution isn't to our liking.
.......say if that population had a suicide rate of 50% more than those that completed the operation, the conclusion would be that the operation was an effective treatment, and THAT is BS
Lol, is it? You may not like the answer, but that is clearly the conclusion you have to draw from that.
I see your problem now, you call anything that you don't like or agree with BS, or skewed. See, to us practicing scientists, this means something different. Skewed means the population deviates from some assumed distribution. So, what does that tell you about the assumption?
..........as the rate of post operative suicides would STILL be 20 times the norm.
Nobody is denying that people like transgendered aren't at a higher risk of suicide Colpy. Your good doctor is saying however that the treatment is dangerous and ineffective, however he's not using good data to support his claims.
BTW, the John Hopkins Medical School is the second best on earth, only the Harvard Medical School is better.
Perhaps you should argue with them.
Ahh, appeal to authority. I have no problem with John Hopkins or Harvard Medical. But, no scientist worth one pound of lab reagent or more would ever accept results simply because it came from some institution...that's ridiculous.
I do have a problem with scientists who make claims in the popular press that they know damned well they would not get away with in the scientific publishing. You know, avoiding the self-correcting nature of science, by having their conclusions reviewed by people who know what skewed means. Scientific peers.
This discussion we're having is what the peer review process is designed for. It's clear you don't understand that.
You never hesitate to tell people who don't have a good grasp of history exactly that. I'm telling you that you don't have a good grasp of the scientific method.