Kick 'em when they're upKick 'em when they're downKick 'em when they're upKick 'em when they're downKick 'em when they're upKick 'em when they're downKick 'em when they're upKick 'em all around
This time we get a double whack!
By a so called research study and the NYT!
OPINIONBy Pamela PaulJuly 12, 2024Imagine a comprehensive review of research on a treatment for children found “remarkably weak evidence” that it was effective. Now imagine the medical establishment shrugged off the conclusions and continued providing the same unproven and life-altering treatment to its young patients.This is where we are with gender medicine in the United States.It’s been three months since the release of the Cass Review, an independent assessment of gender treatment for youths commissioned by England’s National Health Service. The four-year review of research, led by Dr. Hilary Cass, one of Britain’s top pediatricians, found no definitive proof that gender dysphoria in children or teenagers was resolved or alleviated by what advocates call gender-affirming care, in which a young person’s declared “gender identity” is affirmed and supported with social transition, puberty blockers and/or cross-sex hormones. Nor, she said, is there clear evidence that transitioning kids decreases the likelihood that gender dysphoric youths will turn to suicide, as adherents of gender-affirming care claim. These findings backed up what critics of this approach have been saying for years.“The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” Cass concluded. Instead, she wrote, mental health providers and pediatricians should provide holistic psychological care and psychosocial support for young people without defaulting to gender reassignment treatments until further research is conducted.
Totally Bull!
There is tons of evidence out there, they just ignored it and looked at right-wing “research!” Puberty blockers have been given to children since the early 1980s! But they ignore that research because it doesn’t fit their narrative of being harmful to us, instead they looked at research that is flawed. The researchers look a trans children when they went off of blockers and found that the bone density was way less that cis children the same age… Well Duh! That is what the blockers are suppose to do! Another study that they don’t cite found after 5 years of stopping the blockers the bone density is the same age. But they ignore that little fact.
As for cross-sex hormones they are not given to minors! Period. The number of children given cross-sex hormones is 0, zip, zilch. But once again they create the impression that children are shot up with hormones on demand, and they don’t mention that the standard of care does not recommend that.
But in the United States, federal agencies and professional associations that have staunchly supported the gender-affirming care model greeted the Cass Review with silence or utter disregard.
Maybe that is because they know the real facts.
The report found that the Cass Review contains “serious methodological flaws, including the omission of key findings.”Teen VogueBy Angie JaimeJuly 3, 2024Researchers at The Integrity Project, from medical and legal experts at the Yale School of Law and Yale School of Medicine, have published a new report this week finding that the Cass Review “obscures key findings, misrepresents its own data, and is rife with misapplications of the scientific method.”The landmark Cass Review, published earlier this year by Dr. Hilary Cass, offered a series of recommendations regarding gender-affirming healthcare provided by the NHS (National Health Service) for youth under 18 in Great Britain.The Cass Review’s claims that there was “remarkably weak” evidence on medical interventions among trans youth, a claim which almost immediately led to far-reaching implications, including leading to the NHS in Scotland to pause prescription of puberty blockers and hormone treatments to new patients under 18 years old.[…]Led by Professor Anne Alstott of Yale Law School and Dr. Meredithe McNamara of the Yale School of Medicine, the co-founders of The Integrity Project, An Evidence-Based Critique of “The Cass Review” on Gender-affirming Care for Adolescent Gender Dysphoria aims to critique assertions put forward by the Cass Review among the international community of medical and legal experts.“It is vital that the national and international medical community, policymakers, and the media understand what the Cass Review is and what it is not,” Professor Alstott said in a press release. “The Review will likely be cited by states [in the U.S.] attempting to ban gender-affirming care, but, in fact, it does not recommend a ban on medical care for transgender youth.”According to McNamara, the Cass Review “levies unsupported assertions about gender identity, gender dysphoria, standard practices, and safety of gender-affirming medical treatments” and “repeats claims that have been disproved by sound evidence.”The report states that Cass Review contains “serious methodological flaws, including the omission of key findings in the extant body of literature.”
"Figures don't lie, but liars figure."
ABC News in an article wrote;
The Cass review was cited in recent, successful legislative efforts in Indiana to uphold a 2023 law that prohibited physicians from providing "gender transition procedures" to anyone younger than 18 years old, with certain medical exceptions.The new report – which states it was authored by a team of researchers and clinicians that has "86 years of experience working with 4,800 transgender youth," and "has published 278 peer-reviewed studies, 168 of which are related to gender-affirming care" – takes issue with several aspects of the Cass Review in their critique, saying that it "obscures key findings, misrepresents its own data, and is rife with misapplications of the scientific method." It also accuses the Review of speculating about data on transgender patients, and criticizes certain statements made in the Review about concern over gender care referrals, early medical intervention, and more.Yet despite being cited in the NHS decision to restrict prescribing puberty blockers to minors, the report notes that the Cass Review does not recommend a ban on trans youth care. It also notes that it consistently makes recommendations that are in line with international gender-affirming medical care guidelines by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society, a professional medical organization that is "dedicated to providing the field of endocrinology with timely, evidence-based recommendations for clinical care and practice," according to its website.
Here is the Yale reply…
IntroductionIn 2020, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) commissioned an inquiry to provide recommendations for the healthcare of transgender adolescents. This process was overseen by a pediatrician named Dr. Hillary Cass and reached completion in April 2024. The final product is a 388-page report called the “Cass Review,” (henceforth “the Review”) and is accompanied by seven systematic reviews conducted by authors affiliated with the University of York (henceforth “the York Srs”).As researchers and pediatric clinicians with experience in the field of transgender healthcare, we read the Review with great interest. The degree of financial investment and time spent is impressive. Its ability to publish seven systematic reviews, conduct years’ worth of focus groups and deeply investigate care practices in the UK is admirable. We hoped it would improve the public’s awareness of the health needs of transgender youth and galvanize improvements in delivery of this care. Indeed, statements of the Review favorably describe the individualized, age-appropriate, and careful approach recommended by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society. Unfortunately, the Review repeatedly misuses data and violates its own evidentiary standards by resting many conclusions on speculation. Many of its statements and the conduct of the York SRs reveal profound misunderstandings of the evidence base and the clinical issues at hand. The Review also subverts widely accepted processes for development of clinical recommendations and repeats spurious, debunked claims about transgender identity and gender dysphoria. These errors conflict with well-established norms of clinical research and evidence-based healthcare. Further, these errors raise serious concern about the scientific integrity of critical elements of the report’s process and recommendations.
[...]We produced this report to emphasize the Review’s key tenets, to bring the critical yet buried findings to the forefront, and to provide evidence-informed critiques where merited. The transparency and expertise of our group starkly contrast with the Review’s authors. Most of the Review’s known contributors have neither research nor clinical experience in transgender healthcare. The Review incorrectly assumes that clinicians who provide and conduct research in transgender healthcare are biased. Expertise is not considered bias in any other realm of science or medicine, and it should not be here. Further, many of the Review’s authors’ identities are unknown. Transparency and trustworthiness go hand-in-hand, but many of the Review’s authors cannot be vetted for ideological and intellectual conflicts of interest.Our concerns about the Cass Review reflect the politicized context for transgender healthcare, especially for youth. Transgender people of all ages face a critical inflection point in the UK and across the globe today. If politics continue to interfere with transgender healthcare, clinical services and research in this field may not recover. Peoples’ lives will be drastically—and needlessly—upended. Further, the politicization of healthcare is a concern not just for transgender people, but for all people. Every person deserves the opportunity to make private and deeply personal medical decisions in consultation with healthcare providers whose work is guided by sound evidence, appropriate training, and clinical expertise.
I think that the New York Times writer should stick to her book reviews and leave science to those who are scientist.
We can disagree and still love each other, unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to existJames Baldwin
I rather believe over 92,000 people.
The sample included 92,329 respondents, including 84,170 adults, from all fifty states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and U.S. military bases overseas. Building upon the success of the prior study, the 2022 USTS is now the largest survey ever conducted to examine the experiences of binary and nonbinary transgender people in the United States.
That is the number of trans people who took the 2022 US Transgender Survey do you think that all 92,000 people lied? Or that the survey was fudged?
I think that you only have to look at a trans child to know that transition works!
Kick 'em when they're upKick 'em when they're downKick 'em when they're upKick 'em when they're downKick 'em when they're upKick 'em when they're downKick 'em when they're upKick 'em all around
The NYT article made me furious. So many distortions. I read a bit about the author, Pamela Paul. In addition to the Cass report, she consulted with a pediatrician recommended by Florida Gov. DeSantis. Infuriating that the Times didn't present other research. Or make her bias clear.
ReplyDelete