BMA to vote to 'disavow' the Cass review

Dr Crispi (he/they ) strikes me as the sort of person who could have all the evidence he/they/ze wants but it would still be disregarded if it didn’t show what he/they/ze wanted it to.

One TRA council member has gone public, so if he’s on the ballot again sensible BMA members might want to give him the swerve:

www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/64466/1/the-fight-against-britains-trans-healthcare-ban-cass-review-puberty-blockers

I don’t think so, because of “privacy”.
voting to continue the mutilation of children’s bodies - fine
being publicly accountable for so voting - not fine.

Do we know who (specifically) voted against the Cass review? There is a BMA by- election happening atm. I wonder if members will be able to vote accordingly.

Interesting response article from the BMJ the journal of the BMA basically making the council look daft:

Puberty blockers: BMA calls for lifting of ban on prescribing to children

A total of seven papers by the York University systematic review group were published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood in April.4 The papers found that the evidence on the use of puberty blockers and hormones in young people with gender related distress was “wholly inadequate, making it impossible to gauge their effectiveness or their effects on mental and physical health.”5 Nick Brown, editor of the Archives of Diseases in Childhood, told The BMJ, “A common thread in the review findings was the breathtaking dearth of quality evidence to guide care in this vulnerable group of young people.”
Brown is adamant that the York research is robust. “All of the systematic reviews underwent expert, independent peer review, and each was revised accordingly. We were, and remain, entirely confident as to their veracity. Counter to claims to the contrary, rigorous methods were adhered to at every step,” Brown told The BMJ.
Brown continued, “Criticisms of the methodology hold no water. The single search strategy used by the York group is far more yielding than the scattergun approach advocated by those still struggling to come to terms with the findings.”

https://www.bmj.com/content/386/bmj.q1722

The BMA vote is a floundering attempt to keep a leaky ship afloat. Without evidence they are going to fail. There is no evidence.

I was sent a letter about this to sign on Friday - it is being circulated amongst BMA members concerned that the BMA does not have the competence to challenge this review and also about the lack of transparency around the motion (ie that the views of the membership were not sought). So there is pushback, although I don’t know how effective it will be.

Bodeganights was quoting Butterfly. Maybe Butterfly would like to answer your questions?

Which particular elements of the methodology do you consider poor?

Which evidence that was dismissed do you feel should have been included and why?

or are you just regurgitating what TRAs say?

What do you think about the nice cosy peerage for the former CEO of Stonewall, Ruth Hunt. Does that doom her inclusion of straight men with clothing habits?

The Cass review was doomed from the outset - the obfuscation of the selection and appointment process, the dismissal of evidence and the poor methodology was always going to bring it down eventually. The reveal that a nice cosy peerage was all lined up for its creator - only the small cost of enduring a few years of public grief and horror from those actually affected by it - was damning. Too many people cared and noticed.

You got some proof somewhere for that?
Cos if not then you would be up for a court case maybe?

I was confused why they were referencing Yale Law. But this is shocking.

+No, halfwit. The question is what does it cost the CHILD?*

Be-Kindery at its very worst

Yes.
Here is Dr Kaltiala the Finnish adolescent gender expert. This is well worth reading.
That the BMA is trying to contradict people like her who know so much more is ridiculous.

Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’
My country, and others, found there is no solid evidence supporting the medical transitioning of young people. Why aren’t American clinicians paying attention?
By Riittakerttu Kaltiala
October 30, 2023

www.thefp.com/p/gender-affirming-care-dangerous-finland-doctor

From the City Journal article:

“…one thing that I like to say is, ‘what does it cost you, to just affirm who [the child] say they are?”

No, halfwit. The question is what does it cost the CHILD?

Be-Kindery at its very worst.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-deposition-of-meredithe-mcnamara

Just adding this with some more background on the person who lead the Yale study. 2 weeks after the Yale study came out a disclaimer appeared stating these were the author’s own views and did not reflect the official views of Yale. Plus info on her ‘clinical experience’.

Looks like the BMA council are getting serious pushback.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5133412-academy-of-medical-royal-colleges-and-association-of-clinical-psychologists-criticise-bma-on-cass

If anyone fancies asking Emma Runswick from the BMA a question she will be on Radio 4’s Any Questions tonight at 8pm

Ella Whelan in the Telegraph comprehensively demolishes the BMA

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/01/the-militant-bma-is-becoming-an-enemy-of-the-people/

https://archive.ph/ptOjh jump the paywall, it's not rocket surgery

Jeezus wept.

They are a parody now.

😂😂😂😂

It identifies as real. Though give GLP time…

'SEEN in Health is organising a Review of The BMA's Review Of The Cass Review'
No need, lonelywater has already done it:

thing is, there is on the one hand reality (you know, stuff which is demonstrable and provable) and then there is stuff in you head you would like to be true. These things are not the same thing and merely saying stuff does nothing to meet the rigorous standard of proof which most people who aren't bonkers regard as acceptable.

Job done. End of. QED. The job's a good'un. 😄

thing is, there is on the one hand reality (you know, stuff which is demonstrable and provable) and then there is stuff in you head you would like to be true. These things are not the same thing and merely saying stuff does nothing to meet the rigorous standard of proof which most people who aren't bonkers regard as acceptable.

It sounds like someone religious disavowing a particular person or a church or something along those lines

Is this real or a pisstake?

I'm looking forward to the diplomatic language of the review of the review. How are they going to phrase,

Good God! These idiots don't understand the first thing about statistical analysis. Holy cow, there is no evidence for this ridiculous claim...