Letter from academics concerned about the Cass Review

Yes and no, Cochrane's processes allow for RCTs that are randomised in allocation to an intervention (active, inactive, placebo) but nobody is blinded thereafter or you can have levels of blinding (participants, clinical investigators, outcome assessors etc.) This is where the various tools kick in that then grade the quality of evidence based on things like the trial design, how the randomisation was done (that matters enormously), how many arms to the trial, the type of placebo etc.

It can depend on a number of relevant variables and the evidence base.

Thread on the false claims about Cass and the studies. It's outrageous that a review in our country is being undermined from abroad, using the wrong information. Some of the timings set out here, certainly open up the question as to whether this was done on purpose.

x.com/benryanwriter/status/1779671152148857212?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

I love how they say the report is written is "reasonable sounding language" but is totally unreasonable. Really cunning that is. To write a 300 plus page report that sounds totally reasonable but actually isn't.

A skill that the likes of Grace Lavery sadly lack. Lavery could write their address and make it sound entirely batshit.

Well, I think it's quite good of them all to sign a receipt effectively confirming that they're fine with sterilising proto-gay and autistic children.

I'm sure people are archiving the fuck out of it.

I've been reminded of the homeopathy discussions I used to have as well. Especially the "science doesn't know everything (thank god, I'd be out of a job otherwise) so I fill those gaps with this shit I made up and claim it's true and if you don't go along with it it's because you're paid by Big Pharma". Swap the US Religious Right for Big Pharma.

I cracked up when I opened it to Natacha Kennedy at the top (the Goldsmiths employee whose post transition ladyself ‘co authored’ a paper with their pre transition manself).

Natacha mate, I don’t think your opinions on paediatric medicine are relevant!

Starting to think we need a new at-a-glance way of signifying Dr-Medical-Dr from Dr-PhD …

10 and 41 are also the same, as are 13 and 44.

A good comment from sceptic Alan Henness

The comments about the quality of evidence are exactly the same as those spouted by homeopaths who claim that if you look at all the evidence, then homeopathy works. By ‘all the evidence’ they include all the badly conducted, highly biased, small-scale trials and pilot studies, customer satisfaction surveys, patient-reported outcomes, return customers, sales of their sugar pills and, of course, Dana Ullman’s personal testimony – if you include of them with no filter for quality, then homeopathy ‘works’ (apparently). Unfortunately, when you set aside all the crappy evidence because it cannot be trusted, homeopathy just doesn’t work.

I was actually going to make the same point on the AIBU thread.

It's worth countering any of these claims by TRAs with this well written blog post.

www.quackometer.net/blog/2024/04/breaking-down-cass-review-myths-and-misconceptions-what-you-need-to-know.html

From what I'm reading in this thread it's a self report of morons.

Yes coincidentally I just posted this on another thread:

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) is a tool designed to assess the quality of non-randomized studies, particularly observational studies such as cohort and case-control studies. It provides a structured method for evaluating the risk of bias in these types of studies and has become widely used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
The NOS consists of a set of criteria grouped into three main categories: selection of study groups, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome of interest. Each category contains several items, and each item is scored based on predefined criteria. The total score indicates the overall quality of the study, with higher scores indicating lower risk of bias.
This scale is best applied when conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses that include non-randomized studies. By using the NOS, researchers can objectively assess the quality of each study included in their review, allowing them to weigh the evidence appropriately and draw more reliable conclusions.
One of the strengths of the NOS is its flexibility and simplicity. It provides a standardized framework for evaluating study quality, yet it can be adapted to different study designs and research questions. Additionally, the NOS emphasizes key methodological aspects that are crucial for reducing bias in observational studies, such as appropriate selection of study participants and controlling for confounding factors.
Another advantage of the NOS is its widespread use and acceptance in the research community. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses rely on the NOS to assess the quality of included studies, making it easier for researchers to compare and interpret findings across different studies.

As for future studies, Cass makes no demand only DBRCTs are conducted. What is highlighted is at the very least that service providers build a research capacity to fill in the evidence gaps.
^www.quackometer.net/blog/2024/04/breaking-down-cass-review-myths-and-misconceptions-what-you-need-to-know.html^

So there’s even an objective tool to measure the quality of studies, if I’m interpreting the Newcastle-Ottawa scale correctly. And the Cass review used that tool in their determination of which studies should me used in their overall analysis. That’s fairly strong proof that they didn’t cherry pick which studies they liked.

They moan about how the horrid Cass person used 'the impossibly high bar of a double-blind trial'. I can't be sure without going and looking it up, but I'm pretty sure that Cochrane reviews chuck out anything that isn't double-blind.

In any case, it's not an 'impossibly high bar'. Double blind trials are standard when bringing new drugs to market.

Plus, Grace Lavery has signed it. I'm not forgetting GL's miscarriage comment in a hurry.

As academics and experts in the field, we regard The Cass Review as potentially harmful to trans children

Experts in the field

Trans Goldsmiths lecturer Natacha Kennedy behind smear campaign against academics

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eb941d92-b2ec-11e8-8fb1-ac438dd6af00?shareToken=7d7476010262063807ca2a795c5e380a

How has Sally Hines become an academic?
Apart from the astounding disinformation, it's so poorly written.
Too many gins perhaps, as per her status quo?

First name on the list is familiar ...sorry don't know if it's possible to get sharetoken for an old piece

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-goldsmiths-lecturer-natacha-kennedy-behind-smear-campaign-against-academics-f2zqbl222

Was that the one whose conclusions (from the above quoted research) was about how to take selfies better?

Or in order of their academic department’s REF ranking. If that’s what it’s still called (research evaluation framework).

Or their institution’s ranking in one of the many annual evaluation exercises designed to help parents understand if their child is going to be landed with £60k+ of debt at an absolute dud of an institution.

What I can’t understand (but I suppose is probably explained by the fact many of the supporters and signatories have skin in the game) is how prepared they are to just dismiss any/ all concerns for children’s well-being. Even if you support gender ideology, surely a report like this and the fact everyone’s talking about it should mean that you consider your position and the evidence. And instead of statements which essentially amount to ‘we don’t like it’ from people with unrelated qualifications, shouldn’t there be some focus on why a report like this has been produced and what its findings may mean?

I just can’t get my head around the ‘we care about children so we’re dismissing this out of hand’ approach.

For those of you on Xitter, this analytic takedown by Benjamin Ryan of the complaints about Cass is worth a read.
https://twitter.com/benryanwriter/status/1779003988647494097#

TLDR: they haven't read the report properly and they are talking rubbish

I think my favourite signatory was the one whose subject area is in “the politics of music in public spaces and the workplace”.

Maybe they should improve they methodology when compiling a protest letter.

Maybe they could, I dunno, use alphabetical order.

No, 3 and 49, and 14 and 45, are exactly the same names.

Presumably the letter came back around and they forgot, and didn't check, they'd already signed. And the writer/editor failed to check.

Is that because they used male and female names or because whoever compiled the list, couldn't do it properly despite their academic credentials?