What he did was critique the methodology. It was included because they felt its valid enough to publish. Ate you stating you think this govt website published false information?Are you actually serious? Did you even read the big box at the top of the page that says "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more about our disclaimer." It's not a journal. It's a database that links to articles and journals and straight up says so.
Did you even look at the source of the article you linked though? First click the DOI link right below the blue "Archives of Sexual Behaviour" banner. It'll take you to the original source, where right at the top it says "Letter to the editor".
This is a letter from a Micheal Biggs, BA., PhD. to the editor of the a journal called Pediatrics , but the letter wasn't accepted by the journal so it was posted online. He's a sociologist, not a medical doctor or a psychiatrist or an endocrinologist. He has zero valid qualifications and what you linked is not his study but his unqualified, unreviewed remarks on another study. And given that you don't understand the difference between a study, a journal, an archive, a database, and a website, you're not qualified to evaluate it.
I know exactly what happened. You googled what you wanted to prove (immediate confirmation bias), find a link that backed you up, any immediately posted it and now you're stuck looking foolish and trying to defend your rash behavior in not actually looking into what you found.
You prove over and over and over that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but that you don't even fully read or look into things. Do you know how dangerous it is to push opinions based on such poor research? We're talking about children's lives here. Do you not care about that? You care so little you can't even read full sentences or investigate the sources of things you find? Are their lives worth so little effort?
Jesus Christ, have some fucking empathy and take at least 3 minutes to fully read things before you condemn children to half-formed, ill-advised opinions.
The simple premise is that the studies are flawed due to a lack of proper method used. He explanation clearly shows that.
My empathy is for long term proper treatment.
Last edited: