Cass Report biased and unreliable?

[theilltemperedqueenofspacetime]

Can anyone comment on this recent article?

https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7

From the abstract:

We identified a high risk of bias in each of the systematic reviews driven by unexplained protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, inadequate study identification, and the failure to integrate consideration of these limitations into the conclusions derived from the evidence syntheses. We also identified methodological flaws and unsubstantiated claims in the primary research that suggest a double standard in the quality of evidence produced for the Cass report compared to quality appraisal in the systematic reviews. ... The Cass report’s recommendations, given its methodological flaws and misrepresentation of evidence, warrant critical scrutiny to ensure ethical and effective support for gender-diverse youth.

what are the qualifications of these people? For example, Natacha Kennedy has education and sociology qualifications according to their Goldsmiths profile, but doesn’t appear to be a biologist, paediatrician or endocrinologist.

and after checking their qualifications, I’d be looking at their political agendas…

"Dr Natacha Kennedy is trans and has known she was a girl since she was around 5 years old."
Sussex Bylines

So not biased at all then 🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️.

More hot air

This Natasha Kennedy?

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/trans-goldsmiths-lecturer-natacha-kennedy-behind-smear-campaign-against-academics-f2zqbl222

I think they are not qualified to comment and ideologically motivated.

Chris Noone.
"Beyond academia, I serve as a board member for the National LGBTQ+ Federation and the Professional Association for Trans Health in Ireland. These roles have offered further opportunities to influence policy and practice. For example, I was part of the implementation committee for Ireland’s first National LGBTI Inclusion Strategy."

From CN's LinkedIn profile

Alex Ashman

A tweet from AA
"Are you a BMA member? Would you like to support your trans colleagues by calling out recent coverage in the BMJ? If so, please join me and opt out from receiving the fortnightly BMJ."

I'll go on finding out about the authors later, if I have time.

Natasha Kennedy who “co-authored” a paper with himself under his male name as well as his trans name? That tower of honesty and openness?

Oh that is utter class, that is!

Damn, I so missed a trick back in my paper authoring days.

I think the Cass report is considered "Biased" because it excluded from its evidence base any trial or study that wasn't run according to rigorous scientific principles. And for some reason all the trials and studies that the genderist lobby wanted to be included were not run according to rigorous scientific principles. It's an unfair bias against fantasy and ideologically-lead data-generating.

Says it all really. A bit like editing Wikipedia, and then quoting your own sections on Wikipedia in support of your own arguments.

It has obvious flaws and has been debunked. Basically it is arguing Cass should have used a bunch of extra low evidence reports, while failing to turn up any high quality evidence the Cass reviewers missed. So this just reinforces the Cass Report we already knew there were lots of bad science claiming false things. Just turning up MORE weak evidence doesn't show anything.

Detailed examination
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlockedAndReported/comments/1kk0fnj/critically_appraising_the_cass_report/

Cass doesn't need to worry.

Some background

Main author -- "The author of this paper, Dr. Chris Noone (he/him) is a Psychologist, who's research subject is "experiences of health and wellbeing in the LGBT+ community". He lectures in the College of Arts, Social Sciences and Celtic Studies at the tiny, but very pretty, University of Galway on the west coast of Ireland. He has several papers on mindfulness. Veterans might remember him from pre-Elon Twittex where he specialised in having his arse handed to him."

"If you look at the authors its the exact same scenario as seen with Stanford and all these other critiques, I could easily publicly find the sexuality/gender identity of 14/21 researchers:

-Florence Ashley - openly Trans radical activist from Canada covered in the Mail for pushing blockers

-Natacha Kennedy - openly trans self-described "bolshy trans woman" - was accused by The Times and Spiked of running a smear campaign against trans critical academics

-Rachel Heath - openly trans

-Dori Grijseels - openly trans

-Alex Southgate - speculative but does appear to have written letters to Stonewall (activist) as trans identifying

-Ed Kiely - they/them researcher in feminist geography with focus on geography of gender affirming care

-Jo Hartland - self-described "queer/they/them"

-Quinnehtukqut McLamore - they/them researcher on gender affirming care

-Chris Noone - self described "queer" - specialist interest in LGBT research and health equity.

-Alex Ashman - they/them advocate for gender affirming care

-Ryan Goulding - Self-described they/them

-David Comer - Age 25 - HIV researcher with focus on LGBT space, very much appears to be gay (attending pride, casually using the word "queer", progress pride flags etc)

-Duncan Shrewsbury - Brighton based self-described "queer" GP

-Dr John Gilmore - self-described gay he/they"

Given this is a paper dealing with ethics and statistics, do you not think at least 66% of the named researchers coming from demographics seen in max 5-10% of the population is highly improbable by chance occurrence? No less than 5 being nonbinary and 5 being trans? Do you not see any risk of bias here?"

Propaganda, need to keep the kids and the parents captured

The BMJ called the Cass review the gold standard of medical reviews. That’s good enough for me

Is this true? Ha ha ha ha ha! 😂

Do they see no irony in the fact they are calling the Cass Review biased? 🫤Their article is political activism (badly) disguised as academic work.

I have seen it being shared gleefully by TRAs, so I've no doubt it will contribute to the misinformation that is spouted about the Cass Review.

The editors which allow this shite to be published need to be fired. It is absolutely unethical.

i used to think that peer-reviewed published papers were the best we had in terms of understanding a subject. Authoring a paper with yourself; quoting your own work under a different name (without noting that fact); and making claims, about the quality of data, which you know to be false; all undermine this important academic structure. Any of these should be sufficient to get any papers you have written or reviewed labelled as delinquent or removed from all academic digital libraries and therefore any qualifications based on them rescinded.

its high time the academic world took more care of its legitimacy

edited to remove extra word!

For you, @TwoLoonsAndASprout and @lechiffre55 , I present Natacha/Mark’s stunning work in two names from one person:

https://itgl.lu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Kennedy-and-Hellen-Transgender-Children.pdf

Oh my gosh @MoistVonL I'm crying😂

Just saw this about him and laughed even more
https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Natacha_Kennedy/Mark_Hellen&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop

I have a question.
I sort of understand changing your christian name if you have gender dysphoria. I might not think it's a good way of dealing with it, but I sort of understand it.

What's with changing your surname as well? You seem like two utterly different people then. Is that in itself the goal? Do you get two votes in any election?

People do change their surnames for all sorts of reasons

Women often change their surnames on marriage, and sometimes on divorce.

Some people change them to reflect their cultural background e g. less Anglicised spelling.

Some change them when becoming estranged from their family.

But in this case I would guess it is often precisely in order to "become an entirely different person", with an entirely different sex. Delusional, I know.

They just needed to get something in print to give themselves plausible deniability to ignore a heavyweight medical study. Doesn't matter if the authors are in a completely non medical field or obviously politically motivated. Doesn't matter if it's published in gardeners monthly. They can now say "the discredited Cass review" and quote an academic sounding reference at the majority of the public and politicians who know no better.

They don't have love themselves don't they, not one of them has the relevant qualifications or expertise to criticise the Cass Report, but they still think they're entitled to voice an 'professional' opinion on it. 🤣