Research results will be weaponised

[NImumconfused]

...is the reason given for not publishing the data from this multi-mullion dollar study.

NY Times article

Couldn't possibly be because the study didn't support the outcome they hoped for?

She is married to a trans man.

🤣

In the UK many of the national funding bodies require academics to deposit their data in various repositories afterwards as a condition of funding - the idea behind this is that others can then use it so the funders get more bang for their buck. No idea if this is also the case in the US or with this funder, but it would be really interesting to see this data unfiltered through JOK's analysis.

Realistically though, this is easily avoided here - for good and bad reasons.

I think this Twitter thread has some relevance here.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1849311372007428181.html

Leor Sapir has also been reporting very thoroughly on this subject so I thought I’d post a link to his most recent thread discussing the NYT article:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1849116908877984172.html

JKR not impressed, and judging by the likes and comments, lots of people agree with her.

https://nitter.poast.org/jk_rowling/status/1849207760463757564#m

“We must not publish a study that says we're harming children because people who say we're harming children will use the study as evidence that we're harming children, which might make it difficult for us to continue harming children.'”
Oct 23, 2024 · 9:54 PM UTC
145,751 likes

JOK doesn't want the study published for the same reason GIDS didn't want to publish their study and withheld it for about 5 years. They were both trying to replicate the Dutch protocol which purported to show puberty blockers are beneficial.

The reason they couldn't replicate the Dutch findings is because the Dutch corrupted their study by switching the follow up surveys between male and female. E.g. At the outset a female participant is asked a series of questions relating to dysphoria around their female body. Then after several years on blockers followed by cross-sex hormones, instead of measuring their dysphoria in relation to femaleness they were then given the male scale which asked how dysphoric they felt about male traits.

So they started with one set of measurements and then assessed against a completely different set.

You can hear them try to justify this in this podcast from Gender: a wider lens, from about 22 minutes in.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=fISYeDL38tQ&t=1652s&pp=ygUgR2VuZGVyIHdpZGVyIGxlbnMgZHV0Y2ggcHJvdG9jb2w%3D

Article in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/28ea444f-3fdd-4dc9-ade7-b673d735be41?shareToken=32b5abb2ac9bd943b724f49f24867594

I read this quote from Dr Not-OK in another article

“They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years.”

Assuming that's true, what were they being treated for. I thought gender dysphoria was unbearable mental distress and puberty blockers were used to stop them killing themselves.

How does a study pass an ethics committee when they have decided the outcome they want before they start?

Presumably they didn't rock up saying "we think the results will show X but if they show Y we'll just refuse to publish."

I wonder why that when Ben Goldacre and the other, now shy, sceptics were exposing trials that hid their disappointing results, the shamed researchers didn't just pull the "bad actors will use our negative results for evil" card?

They're literally admitting that they're manipulating the evidence base. In print. In a major newspaper. And yet it's not being widely decried by the bad science gang. Why is that do you think?

I know somebody who is undergoing reconstructive surgery after a double mastectomy needed to save her life because she had cancer.

If it was ever as casual as the good doctor suggests, it's actually very difficult now - they no longer use breast implants [I don't know if that's true in the US], so the flesh has to be taken from some other part of the body, and skin from another part of the body...
It's awful, in a word, and she would probably advise other women in the same situation to think twice and three times about reconstructive surgery

Is that what Dr O-K is suggesting as the simple solution for making the wrong decision as a teenager?

This seemed like the best thread to add this to:

Benjamin Ryan has begun adding a series of leaked audio presentations of Olson-Kennedy training sessions for mental health providers, to his podcast.

Infuriating. But interesting to hear the utter confidence with which glaring contradictions are outlined- and how people not using deep critical thinking might be persuaded.

If you can bear to listen all the way through this first one- also includes misrepresentation of Cass too.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6RYGYELcxKE0Pzt5Z5Hi6t?si=PA9SvJqXTFCm3xRltss14Q

Thank you - will take a listen to this.

It's worth repeating that this whole ideology is based on lies, untruths and fantasies. From TWAW, to men can have periods and at every point in between. None of it stands up to intellectual scrutiny. Which if course is why it's enforced via threats, intimidation and bullying.

Indeed.
Sadly and disturbingly, I've witnessed, first hand, how qualified and otherwise thoughtful professionals, have bypassed intellectual scrutiny when presented with this ideology confidently as fact.
Not dissimilarly to this.

This is just totally unacceptable. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.

I don't understand how the wider medical profession and the scientific research community aren't engaging with the impact this is going to have on public trust in the longer term. They're sleepwalking into serious issues.

Not just sleepwalking. they're bawling, threatening and intimidating everyone who dares to challenge this. The harm being done by those in the medical profession ioenly experimenting on children and young people is off the scale.

The harm being done by those in the medical profession ioenly experimenting on children and young people is off the scale.

This.

As we get closer to the public recognising that trusted medical professionals have muddled up sex and gender identity (the recent articles in the press show a positive direction of travel here) we're going to see the full exposure of this scandal for exactly what it is. It's unclear when we'll hit that tipping point, but we're definitely on the way to it. The only supporters of these experiments will then be the raging genderist medical professionals who are too far in to reverse out and the people (and parents of children) who need to carry on believing that they made the right decision, when they irreversibly changed their body to match their belief.

I still think that for a very limited number of adults, their belief that they have an inner gendered soul runs so deep that transition may be the only answer (e.g. Buck Angel). But those adults need therapy to unpick their thoughts and need to recognise reality. They need to recognise that their deeply held feelings are a personal belief that they hold - and one that doesn't require participation and validation from others. Buck Angel does know the difference between males and females, but equally seems to think it's perfectly acceptable to advocate that gay men should try "Buck's beaver"* and to use men's toilets.

*To be fair, I don't know if Buck still does say this. I really do hope not. I fully accept that Buck worked in porn, so likely has a different world view from me on many things, but coercing gay men into straight sex is crossing a line.

The activists are, yes, totally agree.

But there are plenty of non activists sleepwalking. And in a way, I find this more concerning, because there will always be a lunatic fringe. But at the moment, the moderate types seem to have lost all ability (and will?) to keep these lunatics in check.

The prospect of criminal trials lurks on this one.

It's not about 'weaponising results politically' it's about revealing the evidence of reckless harmful and illegal experimentation on children.

Naturally this very much is also on the agenda of some Trumpian Big Wigs so will be lauded as political but actually it's not.

There are criminal level issues here.

I wonder what a threshold for criminal proceedings should look like?

Well if you knew it did harm, at the very least that's negligence.

Definitely.

I really hope there will be.

Anyone involved in the continuation of these medical experiments, once they have been shown where the harm sits, needs to be held accountable under criminal law.

And I include Wes Streeting in this, if he continues to champion the puberty blocker trials. He's been fantastic on so much of what's happening to expose this mess but frankly, having new data by experimenting on a new cohort should be viewed through the same lens as Mengele's work. He collected data too, to understand the outcome of unknown interventions on people's brains and bodies. We have enough data from the thousands of children who have already been experimented upon, in both GIDS and outside the UK. If we can't track the UK data down, perhaps Streeting could lobby Trump for the Johanna Olsen data from her 9 year PB trial. She had federal funding for this and is holding the results secret.

No more experiments should be done.

Agreed.

It starts there. The rest is simply degrees of accountability.

If it's your line of work and you were complicit in continuing the harm once it had been flagged to you, you're on the hook for criminal investigation.

Yes, I fully accept that many people are fearful for their careers but that's not a good enough excuse for continuing to be an active part of the harm.

Yes. The 'only following orders' defence. I thought that had been completely shot out of the water.