Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

407 replies

NameChangeCass · 14/04/2024 09:47

“Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.”

https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.short?fbclid=IwAR0hTt57o-yFS61aJE-IGCpKSPaDs--rdrPlbiby_wBCF1czpAWDaCcAEcM_aem_ATiWMtvZxiSzw8pj9CX271gyDByuMHTOKwQskBcCXx9aZOj1IPusHJ_z79olcRiFlhE

Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Objectives To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge. Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Data sources: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library...

https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459.short?fbclid=IwAR0hTt57o-yFS61aJE-IGCpKSPaDs--rdrPlbiby_wBCF1czpAWDaCcAEcM_aem_ATiWMtvZxiSzw8pj9CX271gyDByuMHTOKwQskBcCXx9aZOj1IPusHJ_z79olcRiFlhE

OP posts:
Thread gallery
27
Original poster
NameChangeCass · 14/04/2024 11:12

ArabellaScott · 14/04/2024 11:11

I have posted the thread unroll for anyone who is unable to read the tweets directly.

Show quote history

I meant this mumsnet thread. This particular twitter roll has already been discussed.

OP posts:
Pollyannamex · 14/04/2024 11:12

NameChangeCass · 14/04/2024 11:03

I don’t think comments like this really add to the debate personally

Show quote history

I mean you are literally suggesting that parachutes and paediatric drugs should be tested the same so I’m kind of stooping to your level

TheKeatingFive · 14/04/2024 11:12

Why are you insistent on trying to undercover some nefarious personal agenda?

Because it's the most likely reason why you're so desperately trying to undermine the detailed and comprehensive work of professionals commissioned to engage with it.

Why else would you do that?

ArabellaScott · 14/04/2024 11:11

NameChangeCass · 14/04/2024 11:10

Read the full thread.

Show quote history

I have posted the thread unroll for anyone who is unable to read the tweets directly.

ArabellaScott · 14/04/2024 11:11

OP the scandalous horror of what has been happening over the past few years is unrolling slowly, but it is very clear that children have been failed, and harmed, by unevidenced, unethical, ideologically-driven treatments.

The NHS has a lot of explaining to do.
The government has a lot of explaining to do.

Children have been sterilised, for god's sake, on the basis of homophobia and sexism.

Original poster
NameChangeCass · 14/04/2024 11:10

ArabellaScott · 14/04/2024 11:09

Here's a thread unroll of Benjamin Ryan's patient response to the misleading claim that Cass 'discarded' 101 out of 103 studies:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1779306273701339548.html

Read the full thread.

OP posts:
Rainbowshit · 14/04/2024 11:09

You claim only two studies were considered. Can you explain why this graph clearly displays more than two studies given your assertion?

To nominate the principle authors of the CASS review for this..
Original poster
NameChangeCass · 14/04/2024 11:09

TheKeatingFive · 14/04/2024 11:05

You can disagree all you like, but as you're just a random username on the internet, going up against highly respected experts in clinical medicine, supported by the wider establishment like the BMJ - I'm sure you can see how weak that is.

I would be very interested to know what your agenda is. Is it connected to a child of your own for example?

Show quote history

Why are you insistent on trying to undercover some nefarious personal agenda?

If you want to engage in a substantive debate reflecting on points raised, then engage in one. Trying to discredit me personally is a desperate tactic. And after all I am just “some random username on the internet”, so what on earth is the point? How is this advancing the conversation?

OP posts:
Waitingfordoggo · 14/04/2024 11:09

If people in psychological distress were being prescribed parachute jumps, you might have a point.

As it is, I think you’re clutching at straws.

VickyEadieofThigh · 14/04/2024 11:07

Puberty is essential to a person's physical and cognitive development. Preventing it has a permanent effect on that development, as well as causing problems that will have a long-term impact on their body.

The explosion in the number of children presenting with gender-related issues should be of massive concern to everyone.

ArabellaScott · 14/04/2024 11:06

Your argument is that because we can't do an ethical study on the effects of drugs on children we should just hand them out freely?

TheKeatingFive · 14/04/2024 11:05

NameChangeCass · 14/04/2024 10:57

This is not what's happening

well on that we will have to agree to disagree

Show quote history

You can disagree all you like, but as you're just a random username on the internet, going up against highly respected experts in clinical medicine, supported by the wider establishment like the BMJ - I'm sure you can see how weak that is.

I would be very interested to know what your agenda is. Is it connected to a child of your own for example?

Original poster
NameChangeCass · 14/04/2024 11:04

Rainbowshit · 14/04/2024 11:01

The fact that 6 out of the 7 adult gender clinics refused to share follow up data on patients who had been treated as children is very suspicious don't you think?

Surely if it was absolutely clear that these treatments were vital and life saving then they would be keen to provide the evidence of that, no?

The clinics are incompetent- I wouldn’t dispute that. They don’t have follow up data because they neglect to follow up.

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/04/2024 11:03

It's a ridiculous analogy and nowhere near as clever a "gotcha" as you seem to think.

That's about the level of most trans rights activists, though.

Original poster
NameChangeCass · 14/04/2024 11:03

Pollyannamex · 14/04/2024 10:43

Cringing for you OP

I don’t think comments like this really add to the debate personally

OP posts:
Rainbowshit · 14/04/2024 11:01

The fact that 6 out of the 7 adult gender clinics refused to share follow up data on patients who had been treated as children is very suspicious don't you think?

Surely if it was absolutely clear that these treatments were vital and life saving then they would be keen to provide the evidence of that, no?

Original poster
NameChangeCass · 14/04/2024 11:01

Rainbowshit · 14/04/2024 10:57

I'm not sure what you think your blurry unreadable picture shows but everyone is free to look through the Twitter thread I posted which shows the graphs of how the studies were included in the review. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Sorry I don’t know why it came out blurry. Will try to zoom out a bit and see if this works. The evidence from these studies was discounted on the basis of being judged “low quality” , largely on grounds that these studies were not blinded and had no control group. Hence my original posed Aibu reflecting on the feasibility of gathering blinded , randomised evidence in certain contexts , and obvious value in some cases of evidence, even if it is “only” observational.

To nominate the principle authors of the CASS review for this..
OP posts:
Comtesse · 14/04/2024 10:59

What is your point? Parachutes are nothing like puberty blockers.

Validus · 14/04/2024 10:57

Stop trying to pedal quackery. while the ‘kind’ lies held sway for a time, reality always catches up.

Original poster
NameChangeCass · 14/04/2024 10:57

TheKeatingFive · 14/04/2024 10:47

However, I do not support the manipulation of evidence to promote the current political agenda to place further restrictions on a group of very vulnerable children’s access to vitally needed health services

This is not what's happening.

So what is your agenda that you're determined to present it as such?

This is not what's happening

well on that we will have to agree to disagree

OP posts:
Rainbowshit · 14/04/2024 10:57

I'm not sure what you think your blurry unreadable picture shows but everyone is free to look through the Twitter thread I posted which shows the graphs of how the studies were included in the review. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Original poster
NameChangeCass · 14/04/2024 10:54

Rainbowshit · 14/04/2024 10:40

Erm did you read a different thread?

It literally says they examined ALL the studies.

yes examined and discounted for the reasons specified in my pp. Here’s a snapshot from the paper.

To nominate the principle authors of the CASS review for this..
OP posts:
Rainbowshit · 14/04/2024 10:49

Your assertion that studies were excluded for not being double blinded is also false.

To nominate the principle authors of the CASS review for this..
BibbleandSqwauk · 14/04/2024 10:48

I think the last thing very vulnerable children need is permanent changes to their physiology at an age they cannot possibly comprehend the implications of. They need protection and therapy to help them accept the reality of their biological sex until such times as they are sufficiently mature to take responsibility for their choices in this area.
If we could encourage more opposition to gender norms and stop telling little girls that if they don't like pink they must be boys, that might help.