WPATH blocked publication of its own research?

[lcakethereforeIam]

This has just popped up on an Unherd round up

https://unherd.com/newsroom/wpath-blocked-publication-of-its-own-gender-research/

I'm not on twiX so can't read the tweet thread. I'm also unfamiliar with the account holders, i don't know how trustworthy they are.

If it's true I'd like to say it would be seismic but this world isn't completely sane or WPATH would never have had any credibility.

I really hope that the mainstream media pick this up

Here are the tweets:

Info re: the org making the tweets:

https://donoharmmedicine.org/

And here’s the document from the court case:

https://donoharmmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/email.pdf

Bl-uu-ddy hell.

I have been reading some tweets about this. It is highly suspicious that WPATH blocked publication of these reviews. And it seems to be numerous reviews. Surely, if the findings were only that there was little evidence disovered (ie not positive or negative in outcome) WPATH would have issued a statement saying that more research was needed.

We can only draw conclusion that WPATH needed positive conclusions so therefore gagged the studies and the reviewers from reporting anything at all. Obviously, we can draw another conclusion that the outcomes could be negative too. But the emails don’t suggest that.

How interesting though. That WPATH findings could have duplicated the Cass findings about the lack of evidence. I wonder if all those promoting Reed’s and Urquhart’s very weak reports about the WPATH leaks understand the ramifications of this. Particularly considering Reed’s reaction to the Cass report. It is uncanny isn’t it, how supposed ‘investigative journalists’ seem to be really not what they, and others keen to promote their work, declare they are and in more ways than one ?

It is almost like if someone is prepared to support something so clearly based in falsity, why would anyone believe them about anything else they insist is true!

I've not seen anything about this on the websites of the Times or the Telegraph, even Unherd only had it included in a news round up. Very disappointing.

Holy crap, if true. Though I would not think it out of character for that organization.

It would be good to have some other information though. I suppose it could take some time to pin it down enough for something like The Times to publish.

After several weeks Wpath has responded to The Cass Review

They are standing firmly behind SOC8 which they say is based on systematic reviews although in SOC8 it is stated that for adolescents a systemic review is not possible.

These people are the world experts ??

"In contrast to what the Cass Review recommends, WPATH and USPATH firmly stand by the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People – version 8, which was published in 2022—and based on far more systematic reviews that the Cass Review—in collaboration with The School of Evidence-based Practice Center at Johns Hopkins University and considers that the (research and consensus- based) evidence is such to recommend that providing medical treatment including puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapy is helpful and often life-saving for young TGD people"

https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/Public%20Policies/2024/17.05.24%20Response%20Cass%20Review%20FINAL.pdf?_t=1715983810

"Despite the slowly growing body
of evidence supporting the effectiveness of early
medical intervention, the number of studies is still
low, and there are few outcome studies that follow
youth into adulthood. Therefore, a systematic
review regarding outcomes of treatment in ado-
lescents is not possible."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644

Anyone using a screen reader/who finds screenshots hard to read, the thread has been “unrolled” & can be read (without a TwiX account) here.

Absolutely scandalous - I mean, the eunuch business alone should have seen them disbanded, but this should absolutely end them.

So on one hand:

"In contrast to what the Cass Review recommends, WPATH and USPATH firmly stand by the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People – version 8, which was published in 2022—and based on far more systematic reviews that the Cass Review—in collaboration with The School of Evidence-based Practice Center at Johns Hopkins University and considers that the (research and consensus- based) evidence is such to recommend that providing medical treatment including puberty-blocking medication and hormone therapy is helpful and often life-saving for young TGD people"

And on the other hand:

the researchers at John Hopkins saying they haven’t been able to publish multiple studies.

WPATH are looking more and more like they are completely unscrupulous in pushing their political agenda. Surely their credibility has been lost.

I don't know if this article might deserve its own thread

https://unherd.com/newsroom/us-medical-establishment-rejects-cass-report/

I think there's a major two fold problem as mentioned in the article and/or the comments. The people writing guidelines and reacting to the Cass report are in an echo chamber. The vast, vast majority of Doctors have feck all to do with gender, and no interest in finding out. They can see what a noxious pit it is and want nothing to do with it. I can't say I blame them.

The rest, the gender crew, can't row back. They'll essentially be pleading guilty to all the harm they've done.

@Thingybob this is a 'never mind the quality feel the width' approach to research that deserves ridicule. What role has consensus got here and who is agreeing with each other? Was circular citation pointed out as a weakness in this area within the Cass Review.