Man, I truly hate low effort posts like this.

What I expect is a link to the research so I can look at it myself and see if it's legit or not. I'm a health professional, so if I see a claim like this, I have to be able to cite it and discuss it with patients, so I can't just read the headline. I have to do the work of actually reading and considering the paper.

What I got:

• A link to some pundit's Twitter (guess who I think posted this anonymously)
• A tweet with a screen cap of a headline
• No actual link to the Epoch Times headline he screen capped
• An article which itself is gated behind a demand for registration and/or payment
• No actual reference to the actual research
• No archive link to bypass the paywall

All I got is some random person's screen cap.

So I go to the journal's page directly. Search for key words used in the Epoch Times headline yields no results. No original research, no abstracts, no editorials. (It's a terrible search engine, like most of them, they're too specific, and of course OP didn't give any damn details). Ok, I'll just manually go through the current issue and see if something looks right. Too bad, no love. Only one looks reasonably close and it's paywalled. <3

So, try Google. Again, key word search for key words in the ET title. This time I get results. Google curates this kind of thing, but we all know their bias, so naturally it's recent, but not "this month" recent. I get a whole set of pages of "research" (low quality observational studies straight off the WPATH citation list, because pro-trans cheerleading, right? right?) none of which actually shows a rise in suicide rates. Bing's just as bad. Maybe I'll have to try Yandex, but at this point I've wasted far more time and energy than I want to chasing this goose, that I'm no longer interested.

I hate low effort posts like this. I need data, not outrage sensationalism and clickbait. This isn't good enough.