Some Science

[Roseformeplease]

www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/indulging-transgender-ideology-has-deadly-consequences

From America and I am no scientist but it seems to suggest men taking oestrogen is harmful.

50 is young!!

Have a lovely birthday

Despite its title WPATH is just an American pro-trans activist organisation. It is not WHO or anything like it.

Which bulks out its citation lists to make it look more impressive by citing its own journal repeatedly on all its papers.

Bowl there is already an NHS database that is used for research.

I have an Arts degree. I love coming on here where women Science the shit out of stuff.

NBC have a good article about the study

www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/study-finds-health-risks-transgender-women-hormone-therapy-n890031

Interestingly the paper also looks as if it compares the effect on HRT on women to the effect of cross sex hormones on men, finding that risks decrease with time for women on HRT but rise for cross-sex hormones on men. This is particularly concerning if the trend holds true over longer time periods given that younger and younger people are now taking cross sex hormones which they are then expected to stay on for life.

“This is a great study and I’m not surprised by its conclusions,” he* told NBC News. “But my concern is that doctors who are inclined to deny hormone therapy will use this study as a reason to do so.”

*Dr. Richard Greene, an associate professor of medicine and director of health disparities education at the New York University School of Medicine, is a primary care doctor who treats many transgender patients

I'm particularly interested that a 80-90% increased risk (from a relatively low baseline granted) is thought to be not a reason to think about stopping prescription for this group of patients, but any increased risk is considered a contraindication for people like my daughter who are told they can't go on the pill despite months of acute pain (because of migraines with aura) even when there is nothing else on offer by way of treatment.

There are a couple I think moss? there’s CPRD which includes various ones like GPRD? There are also smaller ones that are indication specific and larger ones like the Icelandic database which is fairly hard to get access to but amazing.

I now work in clinical trials so access to various databases is a bit of an issue - I think there are privacy concerns still with some aspects...

Privacy protections are generally much lower in the States (emphasis on opting out of any sharing rather than opting in as in the EU, which has introduced some of the strongest privacy protections in the world).

Definitely. I do have ethical concerns about database usage for commercial gain (academic and research usage I’m Ok with.)

The big ancestry databases for example will all sell your data - one sold a set of complete genomes of a couple of hundred Parkinson’s patients for a few hundred million dollars to a pharmaceutical effort example. When you consider that a trial based on such data is twice as likely to succeed and that the average drug costs a billion dollars to bring to market, that’s a lot of cash. And those patients saw none of it.

If it’s well coded and totally anonymised and not for profit then Ok. A lot of patient data is hard to truly anonymise though.

I feel mixed about commercial companies using this data - I think it needs to be carefully monitored but a lot of research just wouldn’t be done without the commercial incentive. I remember hearing a talk by a chap charged with making academics commercial: apparently they were a nightmare about telling people about their research. It only took one short mention at an obscure foreign conference and any chance of patenting it went out the window. Academics like to talk and publish (they also know they wouldn’t see any commercial returns whereas their professional standing was based on publishing).

There used to be an all-encompassing Swedish database with everything linked in but I think it might have had to be halted.

Absolutely. Some sort of patient incentive or payment? Alas not legal here also for ethical reasons. It’s a tough one - that Parkinson’s drug could save lives, but the company who make it, if it’s approved, will profit hugely. But then are we risking pressurising patients if there’s money on offer?

It’s a really difficult one.

Does anyone know where the DeclarationofHelsinki fits into this? Article 8 is about vulnerable people and would seem particularly relevant.