I expect, as we all should, that the highest standards will apply and therefore any whiff of bias will be dealt with….I would agree with anyone being recused who showed bias.
If only that were true. It’s not a good article IMO only because it describes Prof George being biased without acknowledging any bias on the part of those accusing him of bias. Or indeed, any acknowledgment that those advocating for this trial are absolutely biased. For example, Dr Max Davie is quoted extensively in the article accusing Prof George of bias.
This Dr Davie: Dr Max Davie - Consultant Paediatrician and former Education Lead for the new child and adolescent gender services at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH).
Who wrote a critique of the Cass Report: https://www.crossdreamersidebars.com/2024/08/the-cass-report-good-bad-critical.html
Note from Max Davie: I have co-authored this post with my colleague Dr Lorna Hobbs. We have been dismayed at the uncritical way in which the deeply flawed Cass report has been accepted both professionally and in the wider political conversation. We wanted an alternative view, from experienced clinicians, to be out there in the public conversation. We have chosen to publish this on a blog, rather than in a journal or other publication, so that we can publish in a timely way and maximise access for people who might find our writing helpful.
They list many criticisms of the Cass Review and this is the number one:
*Minimising benefits of medical intervention. The Cass team consistently emphasises that medical transition has “remarkably weak evidence", and that it was introduced on the basis of a single study. This is untrue. The systematic reviews of medication found over 100 studies. These reviews do emphasise that most of the evidence is ‘low quality’, but it is important to understand what this actually means. From an academic perspective this means that there is low certainty that any of the benefits shown were caused by the treatment rather than just an association. The Cass review is highly misleading in its reporting of these results. For instance, the vast majority of the data on mental health and gender affirming hormones suggests a benefit, often quite significant. Yet the review will only say that there is insufficient evidence, which could mean anything, unless the reader digs into the detail of the systematic review. Furthermore, the review team do not describe any of the observed positive outcomes of gender-affirming medical intervention (e.g. improved body satisfaction, congruency of appearance, improved quality of life, mental health and psychosocial functioning, and reduced suicidality). We are not saying that no more research is needed or that the benefits of medical intervention are certain for an individual, but the review team clearly minimise the potential benefits of puberty-pausing and gender affirming treatments throughout the review, and the consequences of this has been a legal ban on puberty-pausing medication that will, in our view, cause significant harm to trans young people
How could anyone claim that this man is not biased given his starting position that ‘puberty-pausing’ drugs are helpful to ‘trans young people’? How is this any different from Prof George? In my view, Dr Davie’s hypocrisy is off the charts.
As for Cass, I’m not saying she is irrelevant, I’m saying she’s human. As welcome as her report was, this one puzzling recommendation has been extensively critiqued on these threads.