To nominate the principle authors of the CASS review for this..

What I find utterly devastating is that children have been irreparably harmed over the past several years based on a body of evidence that, when assessed, has been found to be absolute bullshit, to use the correct medical terminology.

They've sterilised children. 15 year olds were shipped from Scotland to England to have their breasts amputated. Children have had body parts surgically removed. FOR NO REASON.

It's a joke that you didn't understand and misapplied.

It only works if not getting puberty blockers = death (not just possible "social" benefit to a minority)

Or

If we have such a wealth of high quality evidence (for eg, large, well conducted observational studies if rcts not possible) that puberty blockers are a definite good that it would be unethical to conduct trials.

Not the case here as I'm sure you know.

Can we at least get the title changed for accuracy to

"To nominate NICE for this.."

?

You are literally the only person saying this on the thread.

saying ‘it’s a joke’ doesn’t make it ok.

We can see what you are doing here.

Apologies I am on my phone. It’s from here:

https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/20220726_Evidence-review_Gender-affirming-hormones_For-upload_Final.pdf

Okay, so we're getting somewhere. Not the Cass-commissioned review being discussed earlier. That's a review produced by NICE in 2020.

And the bit that was cropped out from the zoom was that in this NICE review (which was not Cass's review), each reference to "double blind" is of the form:

Downgraded 1 level - the cohort study by Achille et al (2020) was assessed at high risk of bias (poor quality; lack of blinding, no control group and high number of participants lost to follow-up).

So "downgraded 1 level", not "omitted"/"discarded"/whatever, and NOT EVEN FROM THE CASS REVIEW OR THE PAPERS PRODUCED FOR IT!

FFS...

That BMJ article was a joke. Yes.

My comment is not about that article at all. It’s about your thread.

But you know that. Because you are disingenuous right down to the bone.

It's the wishing it on individuals part that's not acceptable. It ceases to be a joke.

Other countries seem to be taking on board the results of the Cass review. Just the OP and other TRAs seem to be struggling to read the room.

www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/13/belgium-netherlands-puberty-blocker-restrictions/

As is characteristic of your approach here:

1. misogynistic insults to discredit ✅
2. decontextualised claims ✅
3. missing the point on purpose ✅
4. gaslighty ‘it’s a joke’ ✅

And so on.

But it’s not relevant. Because that bmj article is not arguing that medical and surgical interventions with life long implications should be carried out on children on the basis of poor quality evidence. That article has NOTHING to do with that.

You did start a thread basically saying ‘why don’t the authors of this report I don’t like kill themselves’. Which speaks volumes about you.

You don’t do RCTs where you KNOW that one of the options will kill people.

This. It's just fatuous.

I fear that it will inevitably be deleted because the start point of ‘haha. Why don’t the authors of the Cass review kill themselves?’ (which is exactly what the OP intended to imply) is outright nasty.

And every subsequent post shows that our namechanging agent provocateur is not operating in good faith in any way.

Yes - both of those things are absolutely characteristic of so much online transactivism. But it’s hard to see how @MNHQ can really justify leaving it up.

I don't want the thread to be deleted because it's such a great example of the logic and rhetoric of transactivism.

Erm… you know that this comment does not support your position, don’t you?

I am actually quite angry about this thread.

Not least because the level of methodological understanding being employed is ‘haha. Why don’t they do RCTs about parachutes if RCTs are so good?’. Seriously, people HAVE died jumping from things without parachutes. They have died from parachute failure. None of that is funny.

You don’t do RCTs where you KNOW that one of the options will kill people. Despite TRAs using the spectre of suicide in deeply dangerous and problematic ways across any sphere they are active in, there is no comparison here.

Indeed, one of the reasons the evidence base in gender medicine is so poor is because so many of the interventions are unethically risky to conduct RCTs for.

The relevant comparison is advocates for parachuteless free-falling insisting an evidence base of extremely poor quality attitudinal surveys proves that you don’t need parachutes - indeed that insisting that people use parachutes is free-fall-phobic.

Explain social benefits?
There should be a cost v benefit analysis but I don’t think social benefits are a factor!

First do no harm.

The fact that you can't refer to a specific study which you think supports your case for puberty blockers speaks volumes.

thank you. Most of this thread has been spent with people trying to dispute this.

I don't agree with you and I'm actually wrong, having read some the links...

They omitted 98 trials, because they were poorly designed and recorded and were effectively useless and / or misleading

thank you. Most of this thread has been spent with people trying to dispute this.

Again, if you genuinely want a good faith engagement here, point to at least one specific study, by name, that you personally think has been wrongly excluded.

NameChangeCass · Today 10:01

The CASS review has made recommendations that puberty blockers (and other medical treatments for trans children) should no longer be routinely be available on the NHS on the grounds that there isn’t enough evidence on their efficacy. In reaching this conclusion they chose to discard evidence from around 100 studies on the grounds that these studies weren’t double blinded , randomised control trials.

They omitted 98 trials, because they were poorly designed and recorded and were effectively useless and / or misleading. Every stage of the report was reviewed in a two stage process. All statistical analysis was checked and approved by two independent experts.

It's not wise to listen to heavily invested non scientists and non statisticians and their emotive rants.