TRAs attempting to obstruct Cass review.

[FireFlyBoogaloo]

Saw this on Twitter. It seems that TRAs and captured alphabet groups are co-ordinating to try and stop the Cass review getting access to data that will allow the results of experimental treatment for trans-identifying children to be assessed.

twitter.com/CTransTalks/status/1542834235752448002

Might be worth writing to Javid, Cass and perhaps Baroness Nicholson and any other interested parties to make them aware and also to express support for the review.

I don’t understand why they don’t understand. How can we assess the safety of medical treatments if we can’t look at (anonymised) data to see what effects they’re having on people?

It's really silly. I saw someone who was claiming it was a GDPR breach! We do this kind of research all the time. The only difference is, this time there are some people who don't want to know the answer.

I think Cass/Javid will just ignore them. This is about establishing what is best for children. It needs doing whoever complains.

It's really silly. I saw someone who was claiming it was a GDPR breach! We do this kind of research all the time. The only difference is, this time there are some people who don't want to know the answer.

Exactly!

I'm surprised it's got this far in all honesty. I'd have thought they'd have t*antrummed about this long ago.

What are they so scared of? *

*I know we know, but surely they'd be welcoming it.

Says all we need to kmow doesn't it.

If they aren't welcoming a review to help ensure we are doing the best by trans people then one can only wonder what they are worried we will find.

No one would possibly have built a living on false Information and evidence free advice and care would they...

This sort of study is so important for good health care. You can't shut your eyes and follow a gut reaction.

Was it in Bristol where they thought babies were getting good paediatric heart care and the higher failure rate was obscured due to the babies being very sick to start with?

Children and young people deserve good quality healthcare if they are to become productive and happy adults.

I suspect that this is why their pushback is going somewhat under the radar and grasping at GDPR-shaped straws in the shadows, instead of the usual outrage pieces in the usual captured publications. It's difficult to object to a review into experimental treatment for children without looking very much like you are far more interested in the preservation of an ideology than you are in the safety and wellbeing of children and young people.

Aah but ir would just be so satisfying to see them called out for their transphobia. After all its extremely transphobic to think.that trans people are not entitled to the same standards if healthcare if everyone else.

I thought the NHS already did quite a lot of data sharing. I assume it was how during the Covid pandemic they identified those most at risk. It’s more worrying that patients weren’t followed up after treatment to find out what was and wasn’t successful.

I think it was Deb Cohen ITN/newnight journalist, that Tweeted they are the only group that wants LESS scientific research into a condition.

We all know why.

Am very much looking forward to seeing the letter and the organisations. Gendered Intelligence was trying to sound all reasonable and supportive last week (I think they see the way the wind is blowing and don’t want to alienate themselves from any change in direction) and got slammed for their efforts by the TRAs.

Why anyone would want to put obstacles in front of the Cass Review is a complete mystery. 🤔🤔🤔

<🙄🙄🙄>

Javid likened the issue to the Rotherham child grooming scandal and the fact no one wanted to call it out for fear of being seen to be racist. He has acknowledged that those girls were let down. I think he feels that the children treated under GIDS might be a similar case, so no, I don’t think he will be unduly swayed.

Why am I not surprised?
If gender affirming therapy and drugs/surgery is the marvellous panacea for traumatised, homosexual, gender non conforming, autistic and nuerodiverse children that it's claimed to be why would anyone object to this medical review of patients records?
Surely they would celebrate this research as it will prove everything that they have said and shut up all of those who object and claim that this "treatment" harms children.
What possible reason could anyone have to object to a full scientific study (that will stand up to vigorous scrutiny) of treatments and outcomes for these patients?
Could these people actually have something to hide🤔

All obstacles should be duly noted and explicitly detailed in the Cass review. There should be a whole section about the groups that have attempted to silence it.

Transparency is something trans rights campaigners don't like.

I think it’s related to their feeling that transition makes them into new people, rather than having particular physical effects. That’s why they call it a ‘dead name’ - they believe they’ve cast off the person they were, and that’s why they dislike anything that suggests a continuity between their ‘old’ self and their ‘new’ self. But obviously people can’t become new people.

But if it’s as safe as they say, surely they would welcome the review. It would prove all the ‘haters’ wrong and confirm that this is the right way forward.

Lost my comment (fab upgrade this has been, MN).

I'm interested in the impartiality of the NHS LGBT+ team. If we recall this story from earlier this year.

The NHS review into single-sex wards is being carried out by a "trans advocate" who has said that rules that allow patients to self-identify their gender will not be changed, The Telegraph can reveal.

Dr Michael Brady, the national adviser for LGBT health at NHS England, has written to campaign groups telling them that there is “no plan to reduce existing rights of trans people”. Controversial charities Stonewall and Mermaids had contributed “very helpfully” to the process, Dr Brady told the Trans NHS Staff Network in emails seen by The Telegraph.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/03/15/fears-flawed-nhs-single-sex-wards-review-carried-trans-advocate/

Also: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10618541/Womens-groups-claim-EXCLUDED-flawed-NHS-review-single-sex-hospital-wards.html

MN thread: We might also recall that the NHS denied that he was chairing the review, a claim that he made.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4506395-Fears-over-flawed-NHS-single-sex-wards-review-carried-out-by-trans-advocate

I saw someone on Twitter saying 'how would people feel if anyone who had an abortion had their private medical records examined by strangers looking for abortion 'regret''' or words to that effect.

I thought about that for a minute and then thought that they're only going to identify 'regret' by interviewing me. That's not something you'll see in a medical record. You might see mental health issues, you could see if there were any complications, or whether there were births afterwards, miscarriages etc.... All interesting worthwhile data.

Surely this will be a matter of Tavistock Patient A's records being accessed then if that Patient A changed to Patient A2 (new NHS number) their records would be reviewed which would contain details of past and current medications, any surgical procedures undertaken and in some cases records of death. All this data could be crunched to show that x amount of patients continued on a medicalised path or x amounts of patients continued with therapy or x amount of patients are no longer receiving any treatments etc... It will be looking for patterns but will all be totally anonymised surely?

I know if an insurance company wants access to your patient records they need you to sign a form allowing such access - but that's because it's not anonymised.

My question to anyone who is working within the NHS or who knows about these things:

Are records routinely used for research in this way providing an ethics committee has approved the purpose and legitimacy of the research project/inquiry?

Could someone be directly contacted by the NHS after such research had taken place and be asked 'as a former patient of the Tavistock clinic would you be prepared to complete a follow up questionnaire'?

What is the main issue that certain Trans organisations are upset about? Is it that some people will be upset that their former patient status such as 'male child' has been linked to their current NHS record that is now 'adult female'? Is this the crux of the issue? Or are they not happy that they're instigating a retrospective follow up (which should have happened in the first place)?

Many of the above are very good questions. The Cass Review has published the outline of a research plan: they need to publish the entire protocol for it to assure people about anonymisation/pseudonymisation, the training and accreditation of the people with access to these anonymised/pseudonymised data, whether the data will be leaving its location or all handled within a trusted research environment etc.

HDR:UK needs to hold discussions and publish comments in response to any research protocol.

The GLP has been given permission to bring a JR in respect of trans healthcare, particularly waiting times and including trans children. It will be interesting to see what Cass etc establishes as actually being the best route and type of healthcare.

I spent years in medical research and drug safety auditing. Everything is carefully anonymised. We can't have any kind of safe health care without well designed, thorough clinical audit.

I would like to see an acknowledgment that "social transition" and "affirmation" are part of a mental health treatment approach to gender distress in children, and a strong recommendation that unqualified persons (such as teachers) not embark on any mental health intervention without the instruction of a mental health professional in each individual case.

Amazing how some people thinking that preventing ethical research into currently dodgy medical treatment of children is the side of history they want to be on? And as so many others have said - we know why that is.