Hilary Cass sent a document to every single MP and Peer, justifying and defending the puberty blockers trial

“All participating CYP and their parents/legal guardians will be asked to assent/consent to longer term follow-up, which in the first instance will be for the life of the funding (total period 5.5 years)” page 31

Why does Cass want it then? Is she an idiot, running after crap data?

Not yet applied for and with no obligation on current participants to take part and with no control/comparison group. It will apply to those participants who may continue to be given PBs, not to those who stop after the 1 or 2 years of the Pathways trial, so will not assess if there are longer-term harms from even short exposure.

I mean, I get that you want to nosy around the data and go ‘gosh, lots of them have mental health issues’ but on its own that tells you nothing.

Recording it for some children and not for others doesn’t make it any better! Missing data is a massive problem when it comes to data analysis and wrecks the validity of conclusions.

Wasn’t recorded? At all? In any child? Ever? Of course there will still be useful information to look at.

The NIHR has agreed to fund it. See page 29 of the protocol.

The notes where it wasn’t recorded if a patient had autism or childhood trauma?

What data do you think is being talked about?

Cass is looking for longer-term benefits and risks. This data cannot come from a 2 year trial.

In the protocol posted by noblegiraffe under Secondary Objectives it says:
To allow for future safety, efficacy, and effectiveness data, including rarer adverse effects and long-term effects, pending further funding.

Secondary Objective sounds a rather vague intention especially as, if the funding does not come through, then this objective might not be realised. The whole trial might well end up being piecemeal.

Their clinical notes. From attending the clinic at the Tavistock. What do you mean “what notes”? 🙄

One of the challenges to be overcome is that NHS numbers were changed as they transitioned so in order to link the clinical records of them as children with them as adults this change in number needs to be clarified. It’s the entire point of the linkage study, to link them together and there was a change in legislation to allow research into this change in number.

And in the original Dutch research they asked the boys the boys’ questions at the start. Then at the end they asked them the girls’ questions. And vice versa.

They could have shown the same improvements in scores by just flipping it over to the other questions 5 minutes later, not PBs/CSH/surgery later.

Do we have a guarantee that this proposed trial won’t do the same?

What notes?

IF the early data is missing. If it’s not, then it’s even more useful. It’s perfectly possible to look back at the notes of children who are now adults and look for their other diagnoses.

If the linkage is allowed.

There are plans for a follow-up extension study into adulthood in the protocol.

Thank you.
This is a screen shot for,
a) Utrecht Gender Scale
Questionnaire

https://genderanalysis.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ugds-fm-mf-adolescent.png

I cannot believe that some of the statements here should relate to whether or not a girl is transgender.

“I like to behave sexually as a girl.”
What if a girl is not being sexual because she is young and has not fallen in love?

”I prefer to behave like a boy”
Good for her. Is she concentrating on maths and science? Good at a sport and keen on it? So what.

“I enjoy seeing my naked body in a mirror”
About the last thing any adolescent girl enjoys is seeing her naked body in a mirror.
Many many girls will be full of self-criticism and even possibly disgust when they look.

…. and on it goes.

This should not be serious.

I am not commenting on the boy’s as I have never been one.

Also from the Cass review:

90. When clinicians talk to patients about what interventions may be best for them, they usually refer to the longer-term benefits and risks of different options, based on outcome data from other people who have been through a similar care pathway. This information is not currently available for interventions in children and young people with gender incongruence or gender dysphoria, so young people and their families have to make decisions without an adequate picture of the potential impacts and outcomes.

91. A strand of research commissioned by the Review was a quantitative data linkage study. The aim of this study was to fill some of the gaps in follow-up data for the approximately 9,000 young people who have been through GIDS. This would help to develop a stronger evidence base about the types of support and interventions received and longer-term outcomes.

Cass is looking for longer-term benefits and risks. This data cannot come from a 2 year trial.

Recommendation 5: NHS England, working with DHSC should direct the gender clinics to participate in the data linkage study within the lifetime of the current statutory instrument. NHS England’s Research Oversight Board should take responsibility for interpreting the findings of the research.

Why does Cass want it done, if it is so 'crap'?

Of course it isn’t.

Your idea of useful is if it can tell us that lots of data is missing, which we already know.

I have also given multiple examples of how the data could be useful and the idea of this linkage study is widely supported for these reasons.

Any thoughts on how men saying they're women might distort data, or is that just okidowki?

Shows how little you understand about postmodernism.

Others think that knowledge is power.

If you don’t understand the difference between good data and crap data and how this affects the conclusions you can reliably draw from it then I’m not sure I can be bothered to type it out again.

Which is more or less what they have said to Keira Bell. You wanted it. You got it. Quit moaning.