Finnish study on transition and psychiatric outcomes in sex and gender shows increased psychiatric morbidity

This is shocking.
Why do they want to compromise the study?

It has - I think the suggestion from PPs is that it should go ahead because it would apparently be more controlled and thus more valuable than either the Finnish study or the planned retrospective study of Tavistock patients. I disagree, on the grounds that while lots of precise controlled data would be nice, when the uncontrolled data from Finland already shows such undeniable harms, it seems sadistic to put another group of children through those harms to get cleaner data.

I thought the study has been suspended did I miss something ?

If I understand that summary correctly (it is somewhat vague), what I said is completely true - there is no group of gender confused children who are not receiving treatment in this planned study. There is a “roughly matched” group, who - it appears - will not be gender confused children, just children who “roughly match” on age and some other comorbid mental health issues.

Here it is, the matched control group who aren't taking puberty blockers who would be assessed in the same way as those taking puberty blockers.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/assets/pathways/horizon/pathways-horizon-intensive-easy-read.pdf

Yes it does.

No, it has a group who start blockers now, and a group who start blockers later. It does not have a control group of gender confused children who do not receive blockers at all.

People who are leaping on the badly wrong blog post criticising the Finnish study should probably also be aware that there are criticisms out there of the puberty blocker trial that are similarly poor.

It absolutely 100% swear on my life had a control group.

There's been numerous staff at the Tavistock who quit because of what they were seeing. This left the staff who have done a good job of trying to prevent the data from being looked at.

Odd isn't it?

Garbage in, garbage out.

You cannot pick out gems of wisdom from garbage data. The gems are automatically invalidated by the fact that your data was garbage.

On the other hand, a puberty blockers trial that doesn't have a control group, that has funding for a follow up of only two years, and then (if funding is extended) will rely on the same type of data that the Finnish study has relied on, is poorly designed in terms of questionnaires that capture psychological well-being, can equally be disregarded as flawed even before starting it, ethical considerations aside.

Grubbing around for data from different sources recorded in different formats and collected in different ways, with large gaps is not how you end up with a reasonable statistical analysis.

I mean, you can write the 'we should disregard this analysis as flawed' posts before it is even conducted. Absolute bobbins.

A reminder.

This person's qualifications are threatening women with spiralisation with a rolling pin if they don't agree with him.

Sorry but when you do this you undermine all your credibility as a serious person.

My understanding of these retrospective studies are: if you want detailed information about a patient (e.g. reasons for psychiatric support, investigation of unwanted physical effects...) you need to ask for consent to the participation to the study, because there are issues of privacy, so you are tightly entitled to opt out.
if you want to study that type of information, it's a bigger, more costly effort, with a high rate of people which will not participate in the study.
If you limit the study to fully anonymous data (e.g. number of contacts with psychiatric care present in a health system database) the information is much less granular and based on some assumptions, but you study ALL the subjects, no drop outs.

The 'excellent study' would be the puberty blocker trial and its sister studies, however that seems to be going nowhere.

The NHS Tavistock study wouldn't be excellent, even if people weren't now trying to sabotage it by withdrawing consent.

The pictured text is the rationale for not doing it in the first place, and it wasn't about concealing the truth. It's because their data is shit.

The Tavistock did not record cognition, childhood adverse experiences or neurodiversity. How can you compare outcomes in any sort of valid way if you haven't registered starting points?

The NHS is asserting it’s political, social and medical priorities.

I’d opt out if I could

A study doing a deeper dive into the Finnish data would be good, longer time frame to see how clinic contact levels change longer term, if there's a pattern to this increased psychiatric contact e.g. do any particular conditions get diagnosed more often post GAC or are there certain conditions that resolve

Or perhaps you could not use ABA to backup your claims or refer to it as training the autism away

I am not derailing this thread but feel free to start a new one.

Do you have any idea what real ABA involves?
Because its not training away the autism its full blown torture. You are beaten every single time you stim or show any sign of asd, you are forced into situations that trigger meltdowns and asd overload so they can beat you for your reaction until you completely shutdown.
Please don't minimise it as training or claim that its training the autism away as the life long harms are way beyond your comprehension

It really upsets me. The NHS was perfectly positioned, as a national health service with a huge database, to produce high quality research in this field. We could have been 'world-leading' in exposing the failure of gender-affirming care years ago. Many children and young adults would have been spared medical interventions and we would have been well on the way to identifying alternative, productive clinical pathways. Instead of which we have the current shitshow, because cowards in positions of power wouldn't say no to activists, even after the harms became obvious.