Letter from academics concerned about the Cass Review

[MidsomerMurmurs]

Sally Hines et al have written a letter…
https://uncommon-scents.blogspot.com/2024/04/letter-from-academics-concerned-about.html?m=1

Worth a read, both for the quality of its argument and for the list of signatories.

https://twitter.com/lecanardnoir/status/1779535066944634919
When your letter against the Cass Review is signed by Andrew Wakefield, then some alarm bells ought to go off that you are on the wrong side

Yes coincidentally I just posted this on another thread:

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) is a tool designed to assess the quality of non-randomized studies, particularly observational studies such as cohort and case-control studies. It provides a structured method for evaluating the risk of bias in these types of studies and has become widely used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
The NOS consists of a set of criteria grouped into three main categories: selection of study groups, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome of interest. Each category contains several items, and each item is scored based on predefined criteria. The total score indicates the overall quality of the study, with higher scores indicating lower risk of bias.
This scale is best applied when conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses that include non-randomized studies. By using the NOS, researchers can objectively assess the quality of each study included in their review, allowing them to weigh the evidence appropriately and draw more reliable conclusions.
One of the strengths of the NOS is its flexibility and simplicity. It provides a standardized framework for evaluating study quality, yet it can be adapted to different study designs and research questions. Additionally, the NOS emphasizes key methodological aspects that are crucial for reducing bias in observational studies, such as appropriate selection of study participants and controlling for confounding factors.
Another advantage of the NOS is its widespread use and acceptance in the research community. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses rely on the NOS to assess the quality of included studies, making it easier for researchers to compare and interpret findings across different studies.

As for future studies, Cass makes no demand only DBRCTs are conducted. What is highlighted is at the very least that service providers build a research capacity to fill in the evidence gaps.
^www.quackometer.net/blog/2024/04/breaking-down-cass-review-myths-and-misconceptions-what-you-need-to-know.html^

From what I'm reading in this thread it's a self report of morons.

It's worth countering any of these claims by TRAs with this well written blog post.

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

A good comment from sceptic Alan Henness

The comments about the quality of evidence are exactly the same as those spouted by homeopaths who claim that if you look at all the evidence, then homeopathy works. By ‘all the evidence’ they include all the badly conducted, highly biased, small-scale trials and pilot studies, customer satisfaction surveys, patient-reported outcomes, return customers, sales of their sugar pills and, of course, Dana Ullman’s personal testimony – if you include of them with no filter for quality, then homeopathy ‘works’ (apparently). Unfortunately, when you set aside all the crappy evidence because it cannot be trusted, homeopathy just doesn’t work.

I was actually going to make the same point on the AIBU thread.

10 and 41 are also the same, as are 13 and 44.

I cracked up when I opened it to Natacha Kennedy at the top (the Goldsmiths employee whose post transition ladyself ‘co authored’ a paper with their pre transition manself).

Natacha mate, I don’t think your opinions on paediatric medicine are relevant!

Starting to think we need a new at-a-glance way of signifying Dr-Medical-Dr from Dr-PhD …

I've been reminded of the homeopathy discussions I used to have as well. Especially the "science doesn't know everything (thank god, I'd be out of a job otherwise) so I fill those gaps with this shit I made up and claim it's true and if you don't go along with it it's because you're paid by Big Pharma". Swap the US Religious Right for Big Pharma.

Well, I think it's quite good of them all to sign a receipt effectively confirming that they're fine with sterilising proto-gay and autistic children.

I'm sure people are archiving the fuck out of it.

I love how they say the report is written is "reasonable sounding language" but is totally unreasonable. Really cunning that is. To write a 300 plus page report that sounds totally reasonable but actually isn't.

A skill that the likes of Grace Lavery sadly lack. Lavery could write their address and make it sound entirely batshit.

Thread on the false claims about Cass and the studies. It's outrageous that a review in our country is being undermined from abroad, using the wrong information. Some of the timings set out here, certainly open up the question as to whether this was done on purpose.

x.com/benryanwriter/status/1779671152148857212?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Yes and no, Cochrane's processes allow for RCTs that are randomised in allocation to an intervention (active, inactive, placebo) but nobody is blinded thereafter or you can have levels of blinding (participants, clinical investigators, outcome assessors etc.) This is where the various tools kick in that then grade the quality of evidence based on things like the trial design, how the randomisation was done (that matters enormously), how many arms to the trial, the type of placebo etc.

It can depend on a number of relevant variables and the evidence base.

I disagree, I think it’s perfectly fine for those who want to challenge it to do so, no matter where they are located in the world. It’s how science works.
The fact that their challenges are so laughably feeble just makes the report end up looking stronger.

(Tbh I would rather it was coming from abroad because it makes me sad to see idiots bringing our universities into disrepute.)

Challenge it using the right information though. Surely?

The fact that their challenges are so laughably feeble just makes the report end up looking stronger.

To an extent, but it's allowing the spread of disinformation by trans rights activists.

Yes, disagree. Frame that disagreement in objections to the methods, processes, tools, etc.

However, we've seen the harm of people who disagree on the grounds of not liking the results. They're claiming their objection is to the methods, processes, tools and trial design.

This is leaving the vast numbers of people who've outsourced their thinking on this matter to believe that the Cass Review is flawed when it did exactly what is said on the tin. That is active misinformation and disinformation and the harms of that are substantial. We've been living with them in the social and civic arena and none of this will end well for anyone.

@Ereshkigalangcleg yes but they are just talking amongst themselves in reality matters not accept for giving us all a laugh.

Ta.
DH is a scientist, but sadly I am not!

Thanks Rethinking - I love Mumsnet, such a wide variety of interesting and informed posters.

I’ve got two pointless arts degrees (one from Goldsmiths!) so am about as clued up on this stuff as Sally Hines is 😆

‘I cracked up when I opened it to Natacha Kennedy at the top (the Goldsmiths employee whose post transition ladyself ‘co authored’ a paper with their pre transition manself). ‘

Natacha describes Natacha as a ‘feisty GIRL’ .

And here is another ( more famous) bearer of that spelling

This is leaving the vast numbers of people who've outsourced their thinking on this matter to believe that the Cass Review is flawed when it did exactly what is said on the tin.

I can see a lot of the usual suspects breathing a huge sigh of relief that they can fall back on these ridiculous TRA interpretations to dismiss the Cass report and prop up their own cognitive dissonance. See Bragg, Jones etc.

I won’t be thanked for this, but…I really think this is another example of posturing academics, many in frankly Mickey Mouse social ‘sciences’, parading ‘Dr’ in public and expecting to be thought some sort of maven.

AFAIC this just shows why we should ignore academics unless they work in core disciplines and have genuine standing: someone like, say, Professor Robert Winston.

Testing Treatments is one of the best guides you could ever read or listen to on this. So straightforward and I recommend it to everyone.

Free download of the book and audiobook: https://www.testingtreatments.org/

English: https://en.testingtreatments.org/

I don’t think this is new thread worthy but it’s in my recent browser history so will throw it in here.

GenderGP have published critique of Cass on their blog, written by this person, who is apparently employed by GenderGP:

This person claims to have a medical degree from Cambridge but does not appear to have practised as a qualified medical doctor after graduation (no GMC registration, at least not under the name used online).

I will post archive links in a separate post as they may get temporarily stuck in Mumsnet’s spam filter…

I won’t be thanked for this, but…I really think this is another example of posturing academics, many in frankly Mickey Mouse social ‘sciences’, parading ‘Dr’ in public and expecting to be thought some sort of maven.

I don't know why you think you won't be thanked, it seems dead on accurate to me! I can't use the MN thanks feature because I'm on the app though.

Thank you.

I feared that there would be many social science academics and grads on MN who might harrumph at my view of their fields of study - not that that would preclude them holding GC views of course.