News commentary on the Cass Report

[HagoftheNorth]

Thread to record where and when to find tv/radio commentary on the Cass report, so that it is easy for people to find it on catchup. If you’re listening/watching and it comes up, please record the channel/show and the time

“This scandal happened because too many adults put their desire for social approval above the welfare of children" - Bloody well said Miriam Cates MP”

This.

That's a very clear rejection of the Cass Review, and not by randoms either.

"[Dr Tehseen] Ladha [paediatrician and assistant professor at the University of Edmonton] wondered if the review was "coming from a place of bias."

It's well worth paying attention to what specialists overseas are saying.

These people, as is common in North America, are likely to view medicine as a social justice endeavour and not something that should be based on scientific evidence - I think that they’re ignoring the fact the Cass review was conducted in keeping with recognised international best practice standards for carrying out systematic reviews of evidence.

Here’s an easily digestible breakdown for the layperson:

https://www.quackometer.net/blog/2024/04/breaking-down-cass-review-myths-and-misconceptions-what-you-need-to-know.html

edited to add this link to the BMJ as well:

https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q837

A quick look at Ladha's CV doesn't begin to match Cass' experience as a paediatrician etc.

Did Ladha mean Risk of BIas as in the tool that is used to evaluate clinical studies or is Ladha delivering ad hominems and using the vernacular sense of bias without giving an example?

ETA: rejection on what grounds?

So what you are saying is that people who have been putting children on harmful drug regimes as a way of boosting their bank accounts, and are at risk of litigation as a result, are trying to discredit the review, in order to save their own skin/ their commercial enterprise / their bank balance…..

I'm not sure I'd put much value on what Canadians are saying, given that that's where a nurse is potentially facing being struck off for saying that she believes in the reality of biological sex.

They're completely crackers over there.

Surely anyone who is acting in good faith will want to know that the evidence of benefit to GNC kids in taking PBs or hormones is there to outweigh the harms. If GI adherents are right and it is beneficial , then presumably the (withheld but soon to be released) adults who were treated as kids data will show this. Cass is saying “evidence first before radical treatments” - how can this be wrong?

@MissScarletInTheBallroom

@LoobiJee

@RethinkingLife

I'm not advocating for the Canadian point of view. I'm posting the comment here because the discussion here isn't as utterly one-sided as it is everywhere else I can think of. My interest is that I have one (possibly) non-binary DD and an autistic DD. I think I've managed to steer them through all this but I don't feel in the clear yet.

The way the report is received overseas will probably affect its durability in the UK too.

novaramedia.com/2024/04/15/spare-a-thought-for-hilary-cass/

Spare a Thought for Hilary Cass
Few have dared to fail so publicly.
by Gemma Stonee*

lol. Norovirus media doing what they do best and being completely out of touch.

Isn't there a quote somewhere about fanatics doubling down when they get twinges of doubt?

It's the basis of golden bridges, you should never trap an enemy with no way out because it means they'll double down and fight to the death.

It's also a tenet of social psychology. When a belief or ideology starts to fail, people ratchet up their devotion.

Cialdini:

The power of belief is illustrated by the participant-observer research carried out by Festinger, Riecken and Schachter into a doomsday cult known as the Guardians, and documented in their 1956 book When Prophecy Fails. After their prediction that a flood would inundate the world and they would be carried away by spaceships did not transpire, cult members exhibited increased fervor in their beliefs. So invested were they in their beliefs that they could not risk giving them up: "The group members had gone too far, given up too much for their beliefs to see them destroyed; the shame, the economic cost, the mockery would be too great to bear" (127). In Freudian terms, their defensive behavior protected them from recognizing an unbearable truth. Cialdini explains that the moment the physical proof contradicted their beliefs, the cult members turned to the only other proof that would save them: social proof--they turned from "secretive conspirators to zealous missionaries" in an attempt to gain other converts, even though their beliefs had been shown to be baseless. "The greater the number of people who find any idea correct, the more the idea will be correct" (128). Without saying so directly, Cialdini's example of religious social proof could be considered an allegory for all the examples of millennial belief down through the ages of human civilization.

https://www.media-studies.ca/articles/influence_ch4.htm

Are you seriously trying to tell us that the discussion in Canada isn't one sided?

Are we talking about the same Canada?

You're not talking about, I don't know, a city named Canada in a non insane country?

Equally there will always be some people who would never be able to change their mind on certain issues even if given a Golden Bridge because this is their Hill To Die On.

So you look to who are the 'soft' believers and give them Golden Bridges and identify the 'hard' believers who continue to do harm and act accordingly.

Some people won't give themselves the reason to row back because they have such high sunk costs invested and its too much to believe the truth. Parents who trans their kids would have to believe they may have harmed their kids. Teachers who signposted to Mermaids would have to believe they'd failed to safeguard. Doctors who prescribed drugs would have to believe that they'd done unethical medical experimentation. CEOs of Certain Charities would have to believe that they weren't personally selected by God to carry out a righteous crusade. They can't allow themselves mentally that they were that responsible so they will deny it until they end. All perhaps truly believe they were acting with good faith, but it doesn't stop the reality that they took part in the harm of children. Psychologically its too much.

Thats where the law ultimately comes in. To stop get them to take responsibly and to stop them from doing futher harms.

Follow the money and the wrecked career and legal liabilities if the Cass Review is correct.

There is no incentive for any North American doctor currently practising gender affirming care to acknowledge the legitmacy of the Cass Review.

Of course many will double down.

This PROVES the Cass Review IS having affect outside the UK. Think about their medicial practice insurance for starters. Do you think this is going to stay low in the wake of Cass?? Insurers aren't daft. They will take Cass seriously, even if gender affirming doctors don't.

If they didn't think it was significant, why the desparation to discredit the Cass Report?

They are scared they are about to be found out. They are scared people are going to start sueing. They are scared the house built on sand is about to collaspe.

Cass review being debated in parliament today (3hours in on YTvideo) Dawn Butler making a t*t of herself even her fellow MP is shaking her head in disbelief at her stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/live/8Rr0wl-3on8?si=8KJi4vQPTUrVunlz

Journalist Jesse Singal tweeting about the CBC article regarding the Cass Review:

twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1779893479667081340

1/ The Cass Review explains, in detail, why we need to trust systematic reviews over both doctors' anecdotal evidence and low-quality standards published by professional associations. The CBC responds by publishing an article that cites professional associations and is dominated by doctors' anecdotal accounts.

2/ This might be the worst bit:
"Surveys and interviews are considered low-quality evidence in medicine, said [Pediatrician Dr. Tehseen Ladha], but that might be misleading to the general public. 'Many people would see low-quality evidence and think well, that means this could harm our children. But that's not what it means.' "

That's... exactly what low-quality evidence for a major intervention means. It means we don't know if the intervention offers a net benefit, because the true effects might differ significantly from what the studies in question present.

3/ Stuff like this isn't just the normal incompetence and sloppiness that plagues this subject. It is critically dangerous science miscommunication disseminated by the most important outlet in Canada. It's absolutely inexcusable and has to stop.

4/ Just wanna be clear about this: Let's say "low-quality" studies seem to tell us that an intervention improves things .5 points on a 10-point scale for patients. Doesn't matter what you're measuring. What that means, to oversimplify, is that we don't have confidence the intervention in question will actually have that effect on people. It could be higher, but it could be lower, changing the direction of the sign entirely.

I'd argue more structural forces within science publishing nudge us toward overstating rather than understating benefits, but whether or not you agree, the idea of this intervention being harmful is absolutely on the table in this sort of situation. The CBC is spreading rank BS here -- it's so, so bad. I don't understand how this keeps happening.

I don't think they'd accept any kind of evidence.

And the CBC is happy to lie outright to maintain a narrative.

😃

Just went to archive that one for posterity (because it’s gonna age like milk) and was pleased to see someone else had already archived it.

’Gemma Stone’ has a thread on the farms, btw.

Your post/Jesse Singal’s commentary reminded me of the existence of ‘Science Media Centre’ (housed in the Wellcome Collection, whatever ‘housed’ means!) which I first came across during the Archie Battersbee court cases. It’s aim is to generate accurate, non-misleading quotes from relevant scientists for the press to use rapidly whenever a science story hits mainstream media.

here’s the topics from the last few days:

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/

That is a fascinating website – thank you for posting the link.

The comments on the Cass Review, that are provided for the use of journalists, were very positive about the review’s evidential rigour.

"Gemma Stone"
https://x.com/KarrieboKarrie/status/1779962446213533780

Lol, no, I mean the discussion on this board isn't one-sided! I'm not expecting to be called a transphobe here.

Ahhh! That makes much more sense, yes. Although we do sometimes still get called transphobes here.

Good grief. What a wanker.

By the sound of it, quite literally a wanker. A wanker in women's toilets no less. Who uses the toilets as a way to get at those who use the toilets. Great example about how it's NOT 'just wanting to pee' it's about using any abusing the women who use the toilets and an outlet for misogynistic belief.