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

Where does your blurry screenshot you seem to think is evidence come from?

This is total pigeon chess but just for the avoidance of doubt, as the BMJ said, it wasn’t just that they were not blind RCT but also that there was next to no follow up or clarity of outcomes

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?

"blinding did not come into the quality scoring of the papers included in the systematic review of puberty suppresion in gender dysphoric adolescents that was commissioned by the Cass Review, and was not a criteria by which studies were excluded."

Op, the fact you are using the outdated term 'trans children' suggests you are not posting in good faith.

As the Tavistock whistle blower Dr Michael Biggs made clear, the vast majority of gender questioning children will desist. This is a fact that has been known for some time. Mermaids used to state it on the front page of their website.

As Dr Biggs points out, only a tiny number of gender questioning children will become a trans adult and no-one can tell which ones it will be.

To give all gender questioning children a toxic drug like puberty blockers is as crazy as castrating all teenage boys just because a minority of them will get testicular cancer as they get older.

Are you going to answer this, @NameChangeCass ?
I'd also like to know whether you have experience in this type of research, especially health research, as a number of people responding on this thread do. Because you're making a pretty serious accusation against the very experienced authors and the quality control team. It's also a serious accusation against those who commissioned the study, evaluated the interim and final findings, and accepted it, if you're suggesting that they're all stupid enough to accept a report that's so obviously invalid.

"Nominating" the authors to take part in a study that would have fatal consequences half the time isn't a good look either. How about writing to Dr Cass instead, pointing out the rookie mistakes you think she and the team have made?
Or instead of making mistakes, do you think she's corrupt and working to an anti-trans agenda, despite all she's said about her deep concern for these children and desire to ensure they get effective treatment?

Don't you think it would be very strange for the NHS, which has embraced gender ideology very enthusiastically, to commission, accept and act on a flawed or corrupt anti-trans review study?

Death threats have been prominent feature of this movement.

Blocking children’s puberty due to “gender” and putting them onto a pathway to cross sex hormones is not a good thing to do. To support this is bad enough but to infer that Dr Cass who had had no other interest than protecting children should die is just awful. Just what has your belief in this ideology done to you OP? It’s not a normal way to think.

Dr Cass asked for all the available evidence, so presumably she read the evidence you mention very carefully before coming to any conclusions.
I enjoy reading clinical research and review papers, so please would you post a link?

Me too. I've already asked for the specific data OP finds so convincing, so I'm sure it will be forthcoming soon. Look forward to reading it.

This is very much the "Critical X Studies" approach isn't it, X in this case being "Cass Review".

The complaint is that Cass isn't doing it right, but no actual concrete suggestions of something allegedly better that could be criticised in turn.

OP do you understand the difference between ignoring something and listening but being unconvinced?

For example, my niece wanted an ice cream and asked me to buy her one - she promised to eat all of her dinner if I bought it. Her mum told me not to buy it because the last three times the ice cream (and later dinner) went unfinished. I listened to both sides and decided against buying the ice cream. I didn't ignore or discard the request. I just didn't find my niece's argument as convincing as my sister's. I explained to my niece why I felt her mum was more convincing and offered suggestions as to how to improve her argument.

This is exactly what happened with Cass. Some evidence was less convincing, so the report leans towards the more convincing evidence and has offered suggestions of how to improve the evidence base.

Dr Cass asked for all the available evidence, so presumably she read the evidence you mention very carefully before coming to any conclusions.
I enjoy reading clinical research and review papers, so please would you post a link?

It's a shame that TRAs aren't more furious about the horrific waste of time, opportunity and resources caused by conducting these poor studies.

The whole point of optimal study design is to reduce, as far as possible, the risk of bias. Sadly, these low quality studies neglected to do this and so we just can't use them to reach a conclusion - at best they might suggest whether doing a better study might be worthwhile, but really they were a huge waste of everyone's time.

It's a real shame and sadly very, very common in clinical research for many reasons.

One of the reasons of working to the gold standard of well-conducted randomised controlled trials if at all possible, is it is human nature to assume an intervention is going to be positive and it's really difficult for reseachers and participants to accept that it's just as likely it will show no benefit/harm.

The outcry over these low quality studies is a great indicator that a whole lot of people think that PBs didn't need robust research at all - "they work because we know they do".

PBs are just as likely to be a parachute with a massive hole in the top - shame we don't know for sure because the opportunity to find out was squandered.

@NameChangeCass is so frustrated that consent isn’t being muddied and boundaries aren’t being crossed with children so easily. Why, I wonder? Why does the OP have such a strong interest in pushing boundaries with children?

That some children benefit socially and psychologically from the availability of puberty blockers and that there is evidence of this

Which specific study please?

it feels like this is a very long winded pseudo scientific thread from the OP to say “keep giving children PB”

But somehow the op is suggesting that Hilary Cass and her colleagues, tasked with a really difficult job (and I am not talking about the science, I am talking about the strength of feeling), be thrown out of an aeroplane.

It's what trans rights activists do. The nastiness is rarely far away.

Where are the vast numbers of children throughout history who should have died through lack of PBs?

Exactly.

That people die from falling a from a great height is known.

That a subpopulation of children commit suicide during/after puberty is not known.

We're "treating" something that hasn't even been observed.

(Of course the original justification for puberty blockers was purely cosmetic - helping males pass better as adults by avoiding testosterone exposure during puberty. But that wasn't sufficient to attempt to claim ethical justification to give such powerful drugs to children. Hence the invented claim to make them "life-saving").

Where are the vast numbers of children throughout history who should have died through lack of PBs?

Yes, that absence could be considered "evidence" of a lack of need for them, by the same token.

But somehow the op is suggesting that Hilary Cass and her colleagues, tasked with a really difficult job (and I am not talking about the science, I am talking about the strength of feeling), be thrown out of an aeroplane.

Op. You are being very unkind and ridiculous.

The cat is well and truly out of the bag, as it were. There's no going back - we all can see and understand that this country's children were subjected to poor health care administered by ideologically driven doctors funded by our NHS.

No more.

Please describe what is being missed in layman's terms. This is a parenting website, not a medical forum.