claiming? He had a big call for people to critique and offer alternatives. Spend some time here:
I guess my issue so far is that all I see in opposing arguments is a lot of hand waving, e.g., “ which I don’t find convincing. My own guess is that its actual causal effect on suicide is nil.” It’s not really a substantive critique with viable alternatives. Reminds me of academic reviewers who just don’t like your paper and say something like “Endogeneity!” But then fail to offer you alternatives to where the endogeneity might be coming from.