The authors of a new study analyzing 2018 to 2022 insurance claims data characterized such prescriptions as rare and said this rarity undermined arguments for bans of these interventions.
The moral relativism in this study is astounding. It's like saying the Manson Family deserved to go free because they only harmed a small percentage of the population of California. And of course we have no numbers for the drugs obtained from online grey-market and illegal sources which cannot be claimed on health insurance.
A 2015 systematic review (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933815000917) whose authors include Jon Arcelus and Walter Bouman (the latter is a past president and a current member of the Executive Committee of WPATH, and both Arcelus and Bouman are coauthors of WPATH's SOC 8) arrived at a meta-estimate of 0.0046% (or 4.6 per 100,000): 0.0068% being trans women and 0.0026% trans men (the ratio of 2.6:1 between the two is consistent with the historical preponderance of transwomen). That number - 0.0046% - is about 22 times larger than the 0.1% that these researchers are claiming as "rare."
Numbers like those presented in the 2015 systematic review are not outliers either. A 2019 narrative review found five different ways of classifying transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) population estimates across 43 studies conducted in various locations at different times. This narrative review, all of whose six authors share authorship of WPATH’s SOC8 (including the SOC8’s lead author, Eli Coleman), was subsequently cited by Baker et al. (2021) - the WPATH-commissioned systematic review on the mental health benefits of hormones (https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/5/4/bvab011/6126016). In their systematic review, Baker et al. distinguished between studies that “rely on clinical records” and those that “focus… on self-report among nonclinical populations" (p. 2).
Other researchers who studied the size of the transgender population have also highlighted this distinction. For example, one systematic review (of 27 studies) from 2016 (https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article/13/4/613/6940166) stressed “the importance of adhering to specific case definitions [“transgender-related diagnoses” and “self-reported transgender identity”] because the results can range by orders of magnitude” (p. 13). Specifically, its estimate for “self-reported transgender identity” among adults (0.871%) was 128 times larger than the estimate for “transgender-related diagnoses” (0.0068%).
The 2019 narrative review (mentioned above) found that the median estimate of those who received or requested medical interventions in countries as varied as the United States, Italy, Serbia, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Spain, and Singapore between 1968-2011 is 0.00526%. Remember, this is a review authored by WPATH SOC8 writers and approved by WPATH's systematic review on the mental health outcomes from cross-sex hormones.
Claiming 0.1% to be "rare" even when there are several reviews within the last 10 years - authored by the doyens of WPATH, no less - that show that the actual numbers are orders of magnitude smaller, is the height of chutzpah. For every minor who might have qualified for medical interventions less than 10 years back, 21 more are being given these medications. On the basis of what evidence? That of Johanna Olson Kennedy, who did not publish her findings about puberty blockers, or published findings about hormones after changing the study protocol wholesale, one that Jesse Singal had to spend two giant posts (the first one here: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/on-scientific-transparency-researcher) to find all its shortcomings?
Thank you. You confirmed what I was thinking when I was reading about this study. The manipulative reporting of data by advocate researchers is out of hand.
SCANDAL. Why are so many professionals caving and lying? What happened to personal moral and protecting CHILDREN. Thank you for this thorough analysis. My daughter is collateral damage.
I'd be curious to know the geographic spread of these 1 in 1,000. If trans is some kind of naturally occurring, totally normal human variation, you'd expect it to be fairly evenly spread across the US, but I suspect that there's a good deal of clumping. Of course, some might respond, "People who don't live near gender clinics aren't getting treatment, and so aren't billing their insurance companies", which I guess would be true. Then we're left with the puzzle of the totally normal human variation that nonetheless requires 21st-century medical treatments or else those possessing it will kill themselves. Ugh.
what should we make of "studies" produced by organizations and persons whose stated goal is to further access to gender affirming care and has created goal statements with the usual misinformation that frames persons who opt to ID as transgender, or were tricked into it, as marginalized based solely on this voluntary identification? These groups paint a one sided picture of severe interventions that add to inaccurate perception that gender care is evidenced based or that it will lead to positive outcomes.
their data and study conclusions must be assumed to be one sided, typically filled with ommissons with the single goal of activism
"The LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence...aims to advance health equity for LGBTQ people"
Another great example of why you CANNOT understand these articles without the appropriate context, and why the vast majority of mainstream reporting has so egregiously failed the public in their reporting on it. Thank you again, Ben.
I can't access the article so I don't know if this was shared in it, but I was curious how "rare" 0.1% of the population in question looks like in terms of actual numbers of youth. Using the per 100,000 numbers from the chart for ages 13-17 and an assumption of 4,000,000 people in the US at each of those ages I get on average about 10,000 minors on cross-sex hormones in the US at any given point during the period referenced in the study. I suppose one can argue whether 10,000 is "rare" for that kind of treatment in minors.
There are varying definitions of what constitutes a rare disease: the World Health Organization uses the ratio of less than 65 per 100k people, the European Union <1 in 2000, the US NIH says anything affecting <200k Americans. To pick another rare disease, cystic fibrosis, which affects 40k people (adults & children) in the US. Its genetic origin was discovered in the 20th century, though the symptoms were first mentioned in medical texts from the 16th century.
By these standards puberty blocking/cross-sex hormone treatments are "rare" but the striking statistic about it is the astronomical rate of increase of its diagnosis over the past 10-15ish years (not to mention the lack of any definitive test for it, evidence of treatment efficacy, etc.). This is why supporters redefine gender non-conforming historical figures, claiming these numbers were always present, just not being counted.
Thank you for doing this tedious, but important, investigative work. I also know, for a fact, that there exist clandestine networks to get off-prescription hormones to both minors and adults alike, which research on insurance claims of any kind would obviously never capture. As others have rightly pointed out, regardless of any of these extenuating details, a 0.01% occurrence rate in any other medical context would be grounds for great concern/alert and not minimization let alone dismissal.
Furthermore, it should be noted that activists are openly seeking to break down whatever limited gatekeeping does exist so that MORE minors can access medicalized treatments for gender dysphoria on the grounds that barriers are tantamount to discrimination. Add to this a visceral opposition to parents/guardians having the right to know that their children are socially transitioning at school, or in any other context, and it's really hard for activists to argue that this is just a " right-wing conspiracy theory."
I have a question I read somewhere there was a peer reviewed critique of this article Mental health outcomes in transgender and nonbinary youths receiving gender-affirming care
Diana M Tordoff someone link me that critique I can't find it anywhere
Children can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can "consent" to have sex with an adult.
Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve their participation in pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not
It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions. The obscene bureaucrat Rachel (Richard) Levine among those in the dock.
I have not read one reply from a Transgender person here. I am a transgender woman. I can tell you that early transition with puberty blockers will provide overall better outcomes. Most transgender people know their true gender between 3 and 8 years old. However, most of us are scared to speak about what we feel. I was beaten for dressing in my mothers clothes at 5 years old, and I was told I would be kicked out of the house if my parents caught me again. Just to correct my facial features to a female face cost me $65,000 U.S in 2004. I can’t change the size of my hands, feet, shoulders, hips to waist ratio, or muscle structure with surgery. I am lucky that my body can pass for a woman with straight men hitting on me as soon as I walk into a bar. If I had the knowledge of testosterone limiting/blocking in the 1980’s I could have side stepped a lot of pain and expense that bankrupted me. Plus, almost every transgender women of my generation and older will tell you they wish they could have blocked or lowered their testosterone to the female level during puberty. Now, here is my FU to everyone that has a problem with young people blocking their hormones and replacing them with their desired hormones. The transgender information genie is out of the lamp/bottle. Young people will do a DIY transition, under everyone’s radar. News flash, they do not need doctors to help them or gate keep. The reason why you see more young people coming out as transgender is they now have access to information on the internet, and answers to their questions about their cross gender feelings. Young people can get the medication online from offshore pharmacy's for about $2.00 a day. Less than the price of a slice of pizza. It is best to get care with a doctor monitoring blood work. However, my self and many others had to educate our doctors on transgender HRT, and many transgender women, myself included at some point in transition went DIY because health care in the U.S is a BUSINESS, and sooner or later for many reasons we can not afford a doctor to help us, and/or sometimes they refuse to help us, both situations happened to me during my transition. If a young person is smart and understands how to do some basic research, understands the metric system, and can read a graph, they can manage their HRT. And if they heed the warnings from transgender women like me to go slow, more is not better, and don’t exceed the recommend safe dose, DIY can be done reasonably safely, especially for trans women— trans men is technically more difficult and risky. If you are not a transgender person, YOU DO NOT GET A SAY OR A VOTE ON OUR CARE, AND THAT GOES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TOO. I tell every young and adult person wanting to transition the good, bad, and ugly parts of gender transition. I tell then don’t listen to their friends. Transitioning is not cool or fun. I tell them to read the bio’s of the people who have transitioned and are happy, and I tell them to pay special attention the bio’s of detransitioners and those who are not happy after transition. Gender transition, will not fix all their problems, and it will thrown some new problems in their way. I tell them to listen to the voice inside them, and it will guide them to the correct answer. For the right young people, hormone suppression and hormone replacement will allow them to live a normal life, minus the ability to procreate. It is the price we pay as a transgender person. However, I have many non trans friends that could not conceive or just didn’t find a partner in life, so procreating is not a guarantee for anyone. This is not medical advice, it is my personal opinion that young transgender girls between 13 and 16 should only lower their testosterone to the low to mid female level for their age group. By not fully blocking their testosterone they will be more able to masturbate, stretch the penial skin, and experience orgasim. For some transgender girls this will not be a problem bc they figured out self pleasure before puberty. At sixteen, they can use a full puberty blocker. There is a reason for this. I will not go into it it here bc, some people will take the information out of context. I am tired of non transgender people telling transgender young people what health care they can have access to and at what age. Young transgender people do not have the time to wait until they are 16 or 18. Male facial features start around 14 and they start to experience major growth in body dimensions. They need to start at tanner stage 2 of puberty. No one has the right to decide what body a person is forced to spend their life occupying. Not having the right face, voice, hands, feet, shoulders.. etc that is what causes depression, drinking, drugs, and suicidal thoughts. We know this from transgender people of my generation. I had a gun in one had an ammo in the other. I was lucky that night I found Lynn Conway’s web site and the TS map by Andrea James. It saved my life. You get to make a choice for one person, YOU. Finally, seek out transgender people, talk to them and LISTEN to what they have to tell you. Find the young transgender girls who are happy, and the young transgender women who are happy. I guarantee you they will change your mind.
Your case is classical or childhood onset gender dysphoria. Adolescent-onset, which is what the overwhelming proportion of cases from the last 15-20 years are - is something different entirely, which is understood even less than the classical presentation but which I'd hedge is fuelled by exposure to pornography and contagion via social media making gay or bisexual adolescents think they are trans. Also - many trans adults, especially AGP males, falsely claim that their GD dates back to early childhood - Ray Blanchard posted on X about it fairly recently.
It is good and admirable that you commented with constructive dialogue. If comments have not been deleted, I am also impressed that other readers have behaved well after reading your comment.
For Jesse's post the other day but I think the paper I was looking for critiquing that pro hormone study was called this As one peer-re viewedcritique of the study observed,
“The spin of Tor doffis dramatic” Abbruzzese et al., supra, at
688. The fact thatMcNamara et al. cite this study as “valuable,”
McNamara Br. at13–14, I can't find a link to it anywhere does anyone have one
No, you're misunderstanding what that figure means. It means that they had an average of little over 2 years of data regarding 5 million minors. You multiply the average number of years of data by the total number of people in the dataset. This is known as person-years of follow-up.
It's worth the feedback that that expression, which I've been using for the past 13 years, doesn't make sense to everyone. It's hard to find a succinct way to describe person-years of follow-up in laymen's terms.
To be fair, if the quote is accurate, it says years and not person-years. Person-years would be more clear, I think. Or maybe something like "claim-years".
The moral relativism in this study is astounding. It's like saying the Manson Family deserved to go free because they only harmed a small percentage of the population of California. And of course we have no numbers for the drugs obtained from online grey-market and illegal sources which cannot be claimed on health insurance.
Or Kaiser operating on the West Coast, which aggressively pushes for gender affirming "care"
Are there specific articles about that? I hear that, but don't have time to search everything out.
Chloe Coe is also suing them https://www.dhillonlaw.com/lawsuits/chloe-cole-v-kaiser-permanente/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p2NaXyZy4U
Ok. Yeah, I knew about Chloe Cole, but didn't know specifically who else...
Thanks for links.
I always appreciate info.
A 2015 systematic review (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924933815000917) whose authors include Jon Arcelus and Walter Bouman (the latter is a past president and a current member of the Executive Committee of WPATH, and both Arcelus and Bouman are coauthors of WPATH's SOC 8) arrived at a meta-estimate of 0.0046% (or 4.6 per 100,000): 0.0068% being trans women and 0.0026% trans men (the ratio of 2.6:1 between the two is consistent with the historical preponderance of transwomen). That number - 0.0046% - is about 22 times larger than the 0.1% that these researchers are claiming as "rare."
Numbers like those presented in the 2015 systematic review are not outliers either. A 2019 narrative review found five different ways of classifying transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) population estimates across 43 studies conducted in various locations at different times. This narrative review, all of whose six authors share authorship of WPATH’s SOC8 (including the SOC8’s lead author, Eli Coleman), was subsequently cited by Baker et al. (2021) - the WPATH-commissioned systematic review on the mental health benefits of hormones (https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/5/4/bvab011/6126016). In their systematic review, Baker et al. distinguished between studies that “rely on clinical records” and those that “focus… on self-report among nonclinical populations" (p. 2).
Other researchers who studied the size of the transgender population have also highlighted this distinction. For example, one systematic review (of 27 studies) from 2016 (https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article/13/4/613/6940166) stressed “the importance of adhering to specific case definitions [“transgender-related diagnoses” and “self-reported transgender identity”] because the results can range by orders of magnitude” (p. 13). Specifically, its estimate for “self-reported transgender identity” among adults (0.871%) was 128 times larger than the estimate for “transgender-related diagnoses” (0.0068%).
The 2019 narrative review (mentioned above) found that the median estimate of those who received or requested medical interventions in countries as varied as the United States, Italy, Serbia, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Spain, and Singapore between 1968-2011 is 0.00526%. Remember, this is a review authored by WPATH SOC8 writers and approved by WPATH's systematic review on the mental health outcomes from cross-sex hormones.
Claiming 0.1% to be "rare" even when there are several reviews within the last 10 years - authored by the doyens of WPATH, no less - that show that the actual numbers are orders of magnitude smaller, is the height of chutzpah. For every minor who might have qualified for medical interventions less than 10 years back, 21 more are being given these medications. On the basis of what evidence? That of Johanna Olson Kennedy, who did not publish her findings about puberty blockers, or published findings about hormones after changing the study protocol wholesale, one that Jesse Singal had to spend two giant posts (the first one here: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/on-scientific-transparency-researcher) to find all its shortcomings?
Thank you. You confirmed what I was thinking when I was reading about this study. The manipulative reporting of data by advocate researchers is out of hand.
Advocates are not researchers. At least not ethical researchers
SCANDAL. Why are so many professionals caving and lying? What happened to personal moral and protecting CHILDREN. Thank you for this thorough analysis. My daughter is collateral damage.
Thank You for this incredibly thoroughly-reported update!
I'd be curious to know the geographic spread of these 1 in 1,000. If trans is some kind of naturally occurring, totally normal human variation, you'd expect it to be fairly evenly spread across the US, but I suspect that there's a good deal of clumping. Of course, some might respond, "People who don't live near gender clinics aren't getting treatment, and so aren't billing their insurance companies", which I guess would be true. Then we're left with the puzzle of the totally normal human variation that nonetheless requires 21st-century medical treatments or else those possessing it will kill themselves. Ugh.
what should we make of "studies" produced by organizations and persons whose stated goal is to further access to gender affirming care and has created goal statements with the usual misinformation that frames persons who opt to ID as transgender, or were tricked into it, as marginalized based solely on this voluntary identification? These groups paint a one sided picture of severe interventions that add to inaccurate perception that gender care is evidenced based or that it will lead to positive outcomes.
their data and study conclusions must be assumed to be one sided, typically filled with ommissons with the single goal of activism
"The LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence...aims to advance health equity for LGBTQ people"
https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/new-center-to-tackle-health-disparities-affecting-lgbtq-community/
Another great example of why you CANNOT understand these articles without the appropriate context, and why the vast majority of mainstream reporting has so egregiously failed the public in their reporting on it. Thank you again, Ben.
I can't access the article so I don't know if this was shared in it, but I was curious how "rare" 0.1% of the population in question looks like in terms of actual numbers of youth. Using the per 100,000 numbers from the chart for ages 13-17 and an assumption of 4,000,000 people in the US at each of those ages I get on average about 10,000 minors on cross-sex hormones in the US at any given point during the period referenced in the study. I suppose one can argue whether 10,000 is "rare" for that kind of treatment in minors.
It's hard to generalize since not all minors have this type of insurance. But it's a fair statement that the definition of "rare" is fuzzy.
There are varying definitions of what constitutes a rare disease: the World Health Organization uses the ratio of less than 65 per 100k people, the European Union <1 in 2000, the US NIH says anything affecting <200k Americans. To pick another rare disease, cystic fibrosis, which affects 40k people (adults & children) in the US. Its genetic origin was discovered in the 20th century, though the symptoms were first mentioned in medical texts from the 16th century.
By these standards puberty blocking/cross-sex hormone treatments are "rare" but the striking statistic about it is the astronomical rate of increase of its diagnosis over the past 10-15ish years (not to mention the lack of any definitive test for it, evidence of treatment efficacy, etc.). This is why supporters redefine gender non-conforming historical figures, claiming these numbers were always present, just not being counted.
Thank you!
Thank you for your excellent reporting!
Thank you for doing this tedious, but important, investigative work. I also know, for a fact, that there exist clandestine networks to get off-prescription hormones to both minors and adults alike, which research on insurance claims of any kind would obviously never capture. As others have rightly pointed out, regardless of any of these extenuating details, a 0.01% occurrence rate in any other medical context would be grounds for great concern/alert and not minimization let alone dismissal.
Furthermore, it should be noted that activists are openly seeking to break down whatever limited gatekeeping does exist so that MORE minors can access medicalized treatments for gender dysphoria on the grounds that barriers are tantamount to discrimination. Add to this a visceral opposition to parents/guardians having the right to know that their children are socially transitioning at school, or in any other context, and it's really hard for activists to argue that this is just a " right-wing conspiracy theory."
I have a question I read somewhere there was a peer reviewed critique of this article Mental health outcomes in transgender and nonbinary youths receiving gender-affirming care
Diana M Tordoff someone link me that critique I can't find it anywhere
I'm not sure, but Singal deconstructed it: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/researchers-found-puberty-blockers
Children can no more "consent" to have their healthy breasts and genitalia removed or take puberty blockers than they can "consent" to have sex with an adult.
Similarly, parents and doctors can no more approve such permanent mutilation simply because a minor child desires it than they can approve their participation in pedophilia.
Ultimately society will see the truth and ban the practice as we have banned female genital mutilation. Do people support that practice if the parents consent? I truly hope not
It is monstrous to believe otherwise and those who do will ultimately be held to account for their actions. The obscene bureaucrat Rachel (Richard) Levine among those in the dock.
I have not read one reply from a Transgender person here. I am a transgender woman. I can tell you that early transition with puberty blockers will provide overall better outcomes. Most transgender people know their true gender between 3 and 8 years old. However, most of us are scared to speak about what we feel. I was beaten for dressing in my mothers clothes at 5 years old, and I was told I would be kicked out of the house if my parents caught me again. Just to correct my facial features to a female face cost me $65,000 U.S in 2004. I can’t change the size of my hands, feet, shoulders, hips to waist ratio, or muscle structure with surgery. I am lucky that my body can pass for a woman with straight men hitting on me as soon as I walk into a bar. If I had the knowledge of testosterone limiting/blocking in the 1980’s I could have side stepped a lot of pain and expense that bankrupted me. Plus, almost every transgender women of my generation and older will tell you they wish they could have blocked or lowered their testosterone to the female level during puberty. Now, here is my FU to everyone that has a problem with young people blocking their hormones and replacing them with their desired hormones. The transgender information genie is out of the lamp/bottle. Young people will do a DIY transition, under everyone’s radar. News flash, they do not need doctors to help them or gate keep. The reason why you see more young people coming out as transgender is they now have access to information on the internet, and answers to their questions about their cross gender feelings. Young people can get the medication online from offshore pharmacy's for about $2.00 a day. Less than the price of a slice of pizza. It is best to get care with a doctor monitoring blood work. However, my self and many others had to educate our doctors on transgender HRT, and many transgender women, myself included at some point in transition went DIY because health care in the U.S is a BUSINESS, and sooner or later for many reasons we can not afford a doctor to help us, and/or sometimes they refuse to help us, both situations happened to me during my transition. If a young person is smart and understands how to do some basic research, understands the metric system, and can read a graph, they can manage their HRT. And if they heed the warnings from transgender women like me to go slow, more is not better, and don’t exceed the recommend safe dose, DIY can be done reasonably safely, especially for trans women— trans men is technically more difficult and risky. If you are not a transgender person, YOU DO NOT GET A SAY OR A VOTE ON OUR CARE, AND THAT GOES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TOO. I tell every young and adult person wanting to transition the good, bad, and ugly parts of gender transition. I tell then don’t listen to their friends. Transitioning is not cool or fun. I tell them to read the bio’s of the people who have transitioned and are happy, and I tell them to pay special attention the bio’s of detransitioners and those who are not happy after transition. Gender transition, will not fix all their problems, and it will thrown some new problems in their way. I tell them to listen to the voice inside them, and it will guide them to the correct answer. For the right young people, hormone suppression and hormone replacement will allow them to live a normal life, minus the ability to procreate. It is the price we pay as a transgender person. However, I have many non trans friends that could not conceive or just didn’t find a partner in life, so procreating is not a guarantee for anyone. This is not medical advice, it is my personal opinion that young transgender girls between 13 and 16 should only lower their testosterone to the low to mid female level for their age group. By not fully blocking their testosterone they will be more able to masturbate, stretch the penial skin, and experience orgasim. For some transgender girls this will not be a problem bc they figured out self pleasure before puberty. At sixteen, they can use a full puberty blocker. There is a reason for this. I will not go into it it here bc, some people will take the information out of context. I am tired of non transgender people telling transgender young people what health care they can have access to and at what age. Young transgender people do not have the time to wait until they are 16 or 18. Male facial features start around 14 and they start to experience major growth in body dimensions. They need to start at tanner stage 2 of puberty. No one has the right to decide what body a person is forced to spend their life occupying. Not having the right face, voice, hands, feet, shoulders.. etc that is what causes depression, drinking, drugs, and suicidal thoughts. We know this from transgender people of my generation. I had a gun in one had an ammo in the other. I was lucky that night I found Lynn Conway’s web site and the TS map by Andrea James. It saved my life. You get to make a choice for one person, YOU. Finally, seek out transgender people, talk to them and LISTEN to what they have to tell you. Find the young transgender girls who are happy, and the young transgender women who are happy. I guarantee you they will change your mind.
Your case is classical or childhood onset gender dysphoria. Adolescent-onset, which is what the overwhelming proportion of cases from the last 15-20 years are - is something different entirely, which is understood even less than the classical presentation but which I'd hedge is fuelled by exposure to pornography and contagion via social media making gay or bisexual adolescents think they are trans. Also - many trans adults, especially AGP males, falsely claim that their GD dates back to early childhood - Ray Blanchard posted on X about it fairly recently.
It is good and admirable that you commented with constructive dialogue. If comments have not been deleted, I am also impressed that other readers have behaved well after reading your comment.
For Jesse's post the other day but I think the paper I was looking for critiquing that pro hormone study was called this As one peer-re viewedcritique of the study observed,
“The spin of Tor doffis dramatic” Abbruzzese et al., supra, at
688. The fact thatMcNamara et al. cite this study as “valuable,”
McNamara Br. at13–14, I can't find a link to it anywhere does anyone have one
Thank you for this important, timely, and complete critique.
“This included a cumulative 11.9 million years of insurance-claims data.”
This must have slipped through in editing/proofing.
This time period was within the Miocene Era. I image the health insurance of that time was quite primitive.
No, you're misunderstanding what that figure means. It means that they had an average of little over 2 years of data regarding 5 million minors. You multiply the average number of years of data by the total number of people in the dataset. This is known as person-years of follow-up.
Ah! Well don’t I feel sheepish.
🫢
It's worth the feedback that that expression, which I've been using for the past 13 years, doesn't make sense to everyone. It's hard to find a succinct way to describe person-years of follow-up in laymen's terms.
To be fair, if the quote is accurate, it says years and not person-years. Person-years would be more clear, I think. Or maybe something like "claim-years".
Yes, that would be good...Would make it clearer.
When I read the quote I certainly laughed.
Yes, and the gender ideologues do their best to create as much confusion as possible!