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

From the BMJ (think part of it was screenshotted below):

One emerging criticism of the Cass review is that it set the methodological bar too high for research to be included in its analysis and discarded too many studies on the basis of quality. In fact, the reality is different: studies in gender medicine fall woefully short in terms of methodological rigour; the methodological bar for gender medicine studies was set too low, generating research findings that are therefore hard to interpret. The methodological quality of research matters because a drug efficacy study in humans with an inappropriate or no control group is a potential breach of research ethics. Offering treatments without an adequate understanding of benefits and harms is unethical. All of this matters even more when the treatments are not trivial; puberty blockers and hormone therapies are major, life altering interventions. Yet this inconclusive and unacceptable evidence base was used to inform influential clinical guidelines, such as those of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which themselves were cascaded into the development of subsequent guidelines internationally (doi:10.1136/bmj.q794).7
The Cass review attempted to work with the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) and the NHS adult gender services to “fill some of the gaps in follow-up data for the approximately 9000 young people who have been through GIDS to develop a stronger evidence base.” However, despite encouragement from NHS England, “the necessary cooperation was not forthcoming.” Professionals withholding data from a national inquiry seems hard to imagine, but it is what happened.
A spiralling interventionist approach, in the context of an evidence void, amounted to overmedicalising care for vulnerable young people. A too narrow focus on gender dysphoria, says Cass, neglected other presenting features and failed to provide a holistic model of care. Gender care became superspecialised when a more general, multidisciplinary approach was required. In a broader sense, this failure is indicative of a societal failure in child and adolescent health (doi:10.1136/bmj.q802 doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-073448).89 The review’s recommendations, which include confining prescription of puberty blockers and hormonal treatments to a research setting (doi:10.1136/bmj.q660), now place the NHS firmly in line with emerging practice internationally, such as in Scandinavia (doi:10.1136/bmj.p553).1011

www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q837

Okay, I've found the paper, can't find that table. And on page 182 of Cass it says

15.19 The studies had many methodological problems including the selective inclusion of patients, lack of representativeness of the population, and in many of the studies there were no comparison groups. Where there was a comparison group, most studies did not control for key differences between groups

Nothing about "double blinds" there...

(Indeed, there's basically nothing on "blinds" in Cass itself, apart from in an explanation of terms).

It's almost as if OP is just making stuff up.

Shark jumped.

Your blurry screenshot does not come from that paper.

There’s no point in lying on the internet when it’s apparent to everyone that you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. 🤣🤣🤣

This. Although the posting style is definitely sounding familiar.

There’s no way this OP has the skills or knowledge to engage meaningfully with the report.

But, this OP is absolutely determined to shout about how wrong Cass got it anyway.

If you look at the OP's posts, they haven't offered anything substantive. They are trying to undermine the report for their own reasons, not comment on the "evidence" they think proves it wrong.

That lovely, yellow highlighted document that we’ve all seen on X

I haven't - what is it actually from? OP says from "the paper"? Do I gather it is from one of the 2 "non-discounted" papers?

(In which case is the OP "ignoring" the other 101, and the Cass review itself?)

Oh, so you’re just unable to see all the other reasons those papers were weak? Because we’re not.

There is no way the OP has actually even had a cursory skim of the contents of that report. No way.

It's painfully transparent and embarrassing.

No wonder the OP of this thread felt the need to undergo a name change before posting it.

On that basis alone, OP is not being unreasonable. I'd also be embarrassed to put my name to such incomprehensible, ill-reasoned and ignorant twaddle.

Fail.

Op, if you're actually concerned and curious about this, Testing Treatments is a free book that breaks it all down in a pretty digestible way:

www.testingtreatments.org/

As far as I'm aware, the authors are completely neutral on this specific topic area.

You clearly have neither the knowledge or understanding of research methodology in medicine and healthcare nor the ability to form a coherent argument so that people can follow your reasoning.

Rejecting studies that do not produce the quality of evidence required to make treatment recommendations is absolutely standard for systematic review. This is not ignoring them. It’s reviewing them, assessing their methodology and categorising them accordingly.

Control groups and blinding matter enormously. You need to control for placebo effects. You need to be sure that the intervention caused the effects - not something else.

It’s not some dreadful conspiracy. This is how evidence is evaluated.

If gender ideologists are so certain they’re right, why are you all so terrified of generating high quality research evidence?

And if you read the BMJ snippet there - the thing they're actually mainly concerned with is just having a control group. That's the issue. Not so much the lack of blinding ("sometimes acceptable") or randomisation ("ideally").

I wonder why you are so intent on characterising it otherwise.

That lovely, yellow highlighted document that we’ve all seen on X - I’m just curious. There’s clearly a long list of reasons why each of the papers were found to be of low quality. Why is the screenshot zoomed out to focus on the lack of double blinds?

Don’t bother answering - we can all see why for ourselves. It’s to force an interpretation that would not be forthcoming if we saw the whole thing.

It’s rather like the way you’re choosing to believe people on X with no medical expertise instead of groups like, oh, the editor of the British Medical Journal. The sheer arrogance and stupidity on display is breathtaking.

Are you suggesting that if you think a poll is of low quality the results should be given less weight than that of one made using higher quality methods?

Well quite.

"Am I being unreasonable to fantasise about the death of a consultant paediatrician as punishment for writing a report that I didn't like"

@NameChangeCass you appear to believe in the idea of a 'trans child.'

If you think Cass was wrong to suggest that gender confusion is NOT the same as being left-handed, can you please explain why gender confused girls outnumber boys six to one?

Your parachute analogy is stupid, and you know it, for all the reasons already posted.

The BMJ article (the one you say backs up what you're trying to assert) says this:

The evidence base for interventions in gender medicine is threadbare, whichever research question you wish to consider—from social transition to hormone treatment.

For example, of more than 100 studies examining the role of puberty blockers and hormone treatment for gender transition only two were of passable quality. To be clear, intervention studies—particularly of drug and surgical interventions—should include an appropriate control group, ideally be randomised, ensure concealment of treatment allocation (although open label studies are sometimes acceptable), and be designed to evaluate relevant outcomes with adequate follow-up.

One emerging criticism of the Cass review is that it set the methodological bar too high for research to be included in its analysis and discarded too many studies on the basis of quality. In fact, the reality is different: studies in gender medicine fall woefully short in terms of methodological rigour; the methodological bar for gender medicine studies was set too low, generating research findings that are therefore hard to interpret. The methodological quality of research matters because a drug efficacy study in humans with an inappropriate or no control group is a potential breach of research ethics. Offering treatments without an adequate understanding of benefits and harms is unethical. All of this matters even more when the treatments are not trivial; puberty blockers and hormone therapies are major, life altering interventions.