The statistic about bridge jump survivors seems improperly researched. It ignores the literal survivor bias as well as the fact that survivors probably had acc

The statistic about bridge jump survivors seems improperly researched. It ignores the literal survivor bias as well as the fact that survivors probably had access to many things that they didn't before the jump. * A memory of how painful and fearful they were while in the act. * Actual medical treatment and resources. * Awareness in those they know and work with. * Maybe, a more stable place in their community. It would be FAR more illustrative to contrast the 94% of survivors that persisted against the 6% who took another path. That would provide an extremely strong retrospective view about effective means of preventing "remission" and, quite plausibly, initial incidence.