Bureau of Investigative Journalism: trans patients having prescriptions stopped because of "controversial" Cass Review

[IwantToRetire]

... Others, in their responses to a survey by Transactual, a trans-led research group, said their GPs had cited a lack of policy or personal beliefs as reasons why they had withdrawn or refused their HRT prescriptions.

The issue appears to reflect a wider rollback of access to gender-affirming healthcare in the wake of April’s publication of the controversial Cass Review into health services for trans young people. This review claimed that the evidence base of using puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones for young people was “weak”. Some of the same medicines are used in adult care.

The review did not recommend a ban on puberty blockers but resulted in one for young people experiencing gender dysphoria (they are still permitted for children experiencing early puberty). The ban was extended by the new Labour government in August. Adult gender services are now also under review.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health said the refusal or withdrawal of HRT for trans patients raised “ethical and clinical” concerns. ...

Full article at https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2024-12-07/trans-people-finding-it-harder-to-access-life-saving-treatment/

It is not ‘HRT’, nor is it ‘lifesaving’.

GPs do not have the expertise to safely prescribe puberty blockers in children with precocious puberty, for whom they are actually clinically indicated. They certainly don't have the expertise to do so for gender dysphoria, and as such they are right to refuse.

Thanks for posting OP, that made for interesting reading: it seems the attacks on, and attempts to disparage, the Cass Review continue apace.

I think that GPs have seen the massive cock up that prescribing to underage children based on poor quality evidence was and are now, understandably, nervous about the same happening with prescribing for adults. GPs probably want the outcome of the review of adult services to advise them on best practice, and I can’t say that I blame them.

Here’s an archive version of the article for those who prefer that:
https://archive.is/p896z

Citing WPATH as evidence is a dead giveaway that this is unscientific, ideological bullshit.
greenwomensdeclaration.uk/webinars/on-the-wpath-with-guest-speaker-mia-hughes/

I think the problem is with this report is that this so called Bureau of Investigative Journalism, is highly regarded, so this will be picked up by newspapers etc..

And from the news stories I have seen based on this so far, no one has queried why it needs it own trans department, let alone how they claim (and they dont use quotes) that the Cass Review is contraversial.

So many news papers just use stuff like this and repeat it without editing or commentating.

This how alternative realities are created.

And you can bet that even if all of us wrote in, or commented on how flawed it is, it will now become a news "fact".

Ok I have an issue with the paragraph I've screenshoted below (well I have issues with the whole article really but thus jumped out), we know that real hrt in women (rather than cross sex hormones) has some pretty serious side effects and not all women are able to take it. We also know that taking cross sex hormones increases your risk of stroke, heart attack and cancer to name but a few of the many well documented consequences, yet this article claims that it's perfectly safe for transwomen (men) to take hrt (in this case they mean cross sex hormones) and that unnamed studies have found it to be beneficial to their health. This statement contradicts all medical evidence, any reasonable journalist/publication must surely have to atleast name these studies when making such a radical claim if they expect anyone to take them seriously.

@Hoardasurass I'd love to see all these supposed studies that show it's safe. That's a dangerous thing to publish

My two main points have been made; cross sex hormones are known to increase risks to health and it's laughable to quote WPATH. Surely an investigative journalist group should know of the very serious problems regarding them?

Si the review was ' controversial ' but giving hormones to youngsters isn't?

I had a look on the IPSO site and they aren't a regulated online outlet. So presumably they can write whatever they like, regardless of it being factual or the "investigation" being free of bias.

Case in point, I also had a look on their website to see what kind of investigations they did.

This one is...... interesting:

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2024-07-02/one-day-they-may-thank-us-for-that-abuse-inside-the-bayswater-support-group/

I'm not a Bayswater member myself but I have found their information useful to help make sense of everything when it all felt up in the air. My daughter is no longer actively gender questioning but she remains at risk of the conflation of autism (particularly sensory and cognitive processing) and gender identity. School is the "front line".

Here's Bayswater's top 10 tips for parents:

https://www.bayswatersupport.org.uk/toptentips/

It's sensible and measured. It makes sense that there would be a parents' forum where experiences and ideas regarding support could be shared. TBH I was too overwhelmed when I first started investigating how to support my daughter. I went on an information gathering spree (as per one of the top tips) but if I'd been firefighting a later stage of her being gender questioning by the time I knew about it, I think this forum would have been a welcome oasis of sense.

The common theme in the excerpts and reporting on the in the TBIJ article is that parents are being positioned as abusers if they don't affirm their child's identity. It's DARVO on acid when you consider the wider context, that these parents are desperately trying to understand how to support their child when healthcare and schools are pulling them towards irreversible medical interventions that have no evidence base.

Suffice to say, I won't be reading any "investigations" on any other subjects by them with these examples that showcase the low quality of their work.

So many news papers just use stuff like this and repeat it without editing or commentating.

Does anyone know how influencial they are within journalism?

the journalists email address is billiegayjackson @ tbij.com

email her and explain calmly the points above

rwfer to their official values in the letter

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/about-us/

I need to read the whole article again but from a cursory read they seem to have been reliant upon self-selected people answering surveys via a transactivist website. Its the low level research that the Cass review could not use because its unreliable as research. Its sort of proving the need for better quality research.

One thing that struck me was that the people quoted as being turned down by doctors seem to have bee prescribed and diagnosed outside the NHS system (GenderGP?) and their doctors had been fulfilling prescriptions for a while and then deciding not to. Could this be about the discrediting of GenderGP and greater awareness of that? Its loosely written but it does not sound as though the people complaining were diagnosed within the NHS and then cut loose.

The 'Bureau of Investigative Journalism' is not an impartial organisation doing investigative journalism. It has a political and ideological mission.

About Us | TBIJ

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism is an independent, not-for-profit organisation that holds power to account. Founded in 2010 by David and Elaine Potter, we tackle big subjects through deep reporting that uncovers the truth. We tell the stories that matter.

Our mission: Journalism driving change
We believe investigative journalism plays a key role in keeping democracy strong, power accountable and societies more just. That is why we focus on in-depth, rigorous investigations that can make a real difference at a global, national or local level.

We look beyond the short term news agenda, and the need to generate clicks. Instead we take time to dig deep, led by the facts not by political or corporate agendas. We do not cower from difficult stories and we seek to listen to voices that are often overlooked.

Our motivation is to drive change. This means we go beyond just words on a page to work directly with those who can use what we reveal to make a difference in the world.

They haven't done what they say they do in this article.

They may identify as investigative journalists who are led by the facts, but they don't seem to be interested in facts about this particular issue. Yes, their motivation is to drive change, but they shouldn't be pretending to be impartial investigative journalists when they are so clearly ideologically driven with their own agenda.

This is the website of the founders of TBIJ, David and Elaine Potter.
Home - The David and Elaine Potter Foundation

I think it is conflating itself with the ICIJ (the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists). While I have issues with their reporting it has its own agenda the ICIJ does have ethics code of practice.

In the quoted paragraph, there is mention of "trans+" people. I don't think I've seen that before - what is the + there for?

'Safe' is a weasel word anyway when it comes to any medicine. Any medication taken by the wrong person might not be safe.

Look at the wording for the NHS on HRT:

https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/hormone-replacement-therapy-hrt/benefits-and-risks-of-hormone-replacement-therapy-hrt/

Benefits and risks of hormone replacement therapy (HRT)

The benefits of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) usually outweigh the risks. Recent evidence says that the risks of serious side effects from HRT are very low.

Older studies found potential risks of HRT, and made many people reluctant to take or prescribe it. But this view is now seen as out of date because it does not take account of the benefits as well as the risks.

The benefits and risks of taking HRT depend on your age, your menopause symptoms and any risk factors you have.

If you're under 60 years old, have menopause symptoms, and are not at high risk of breast cancer or blood clots, the benefits of HRT are likely to outweigh the risks.

Its notable. There is a discussion of benefits and risks and individual circumstances.

The evidence for cross sex use is, at best, shaky. To term it 'safe' is quite the stretch.

It's a good catch.

Presumably another boundary blur with the Q. I'm guessing there will be people who identify as queer rather than trans who want access to "affirming care", similar to the "embodiment goals" idea that WPATH introduced in SOC8.

It's the next shift:

https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/when-embodiment-goals-outlast-trans

It pushes all responsibility onto the person taking the "treatment", dressed up to look empowering. Obviously it's quite the opposite, it's just a slopey shoulder manoeuvre from the pharmaceutical/medical industry to avoid accountability for the care pathway.

Made some changes:

The issue appears to reflect a wider rollback of access to gender-affirming transgender healthcare in the wake of April’s publication of the controversial Cass Review into health services for trans young people gender questioning children. This review claimed discovered that the evidence base of using puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones for young people children was “weak”. Some of the same medicines are used in adult care for treating cancer.

Aargh. Acronyms. They stand for words. HRT =/= hormones. HRT = Hormone Replacement Therapy. Replacement. If you put in something completely different it's not called "replacement." ................... HRT can have side effects. And that's when you're replacing like with like. ............ Cross sex hormones are another issue entirely. The unwanted effects are an order of magnitude greater. (You can't really call them "side" effects since they overwhelm the supposedly desired effect of looking like the opposite sex.)

Don't forget, there are a few "trans style guides for journalists" out there, not least the Trans Journalists Association Stylebook and Coverage Guide, that 'helpfully' tell journalists what they're allowed to report on and how they're allowed to report on it. Additionally, existing style guides like the AP style guide have guidelines for how and what to report. Are they required per se to adhere to the guides? Maybe not technically. Will things be easy for them if they choose not to go by them? Probably not.

If they're going to call Cass controversial then the same must be applied to WPATH, who the NHS have partially distanced themselves from.

On the basis of the TBIJ's self-ID mission statement, I think a feminist outlet like Reduxx has a better claim to the title Bureau of Investigatve Journalism.🤔😏

I used to think it was an interesting outlet for in depth reports, but quite honestly when I heard they had created their own trans investigation team, or something, I just thought there's another one been co-opted.

But as I said early on in the thread, many mainstream media outlets quote them as though a trusted source.

So totally agree with the suggestion of emailing them direct to point out errors, but if you have the time and will power, please also email news outlets that have used them uncritically.

And yes, even if I hadn't know anything about them such an obvious give away that they were biased in their claim the the Cass Review was contraversial.

Their ‘report’ on Bayswater is quite something - apparently it is abusive if you monitor the (not officially prescribed) medication your child is taking and remove it if you feel it is causing harm, or if you prevent them accessing Stonewall or Mermaids via the internet 😵‍💫

I’d have thought, given some of the issues with both Mermaids and Stonewall, it is a requirement of decent parenting that you don’t let your children access these sites!