But when Alito referenced a systematic review conducted for the Cass report in England, Strangio conceded the point. “There is no evidence in some—in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide,” he said. “And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare, and we’re talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don’t necessarily have completed suicides within them.”

And then

Advocates of the open-science movement often talk about “zombie facts”—popular sound bites that persist in public debate, even when they have been repeatedly discredited. Many common political claims made in defense of puberty blockers and hormones for gender-dysphoric minors meet this definition

Ok, I get the idea that there might be no scientific evidence for gender affirming care reducing suicide rate, but "no evidence" is not the same as "discredited": it might still be true, and in fact, anectodal evidence probably suggest it's true, but we don't have enough data to confirm that.

The conclusion should be "we need more data" rather than taking about zombie facts.

And the article continue to conflate "no evidence" with falsehood:

But the movement has spent the past decade telling gender-nonconforming children that anyone who tries to restrict access to puberty blockers and hormones is, effectively, trying to kill them. This was false, as Strangio’s answer tacitly conceded.

No, it's not false, or at least, we can't conclude that from not enough evidence.