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.

Mmn. This driven by a political agenda that is entirely rooted in and from an inability to cope with reality as it is, and a belief that facts are what you feel they are. (And anyone saying otherwise is a heteronormative phobic bigot scum right wing voting Trump loving Russian bot saggy titted old middle class microaggressing meanie and Other Words Too.)

Quelle surprise.

And has form for utterly questionable bollocks.

Is this the Natacha Kennedy who wrote a paper 'with someone with a male name' but it was actually his old name.

Yes. The paper is by "Natacha Kennedy and Mark Hellen" - one and the same person.

I would not consider eating a sandwich without crisps.

Well unless it was a breakfast sandwich.

Damn. Wrong threat. Please ignore.

Tbh, in the context of the matter under discussion, it's a perfectly sensible comment!

I could make a comment about a picnic being short of a sandwich on this thread.

Well one report was "biased and unreliable* but I don't think that it was Cass.

So it's the Cass Report vs the Crass Report. I'm nonplussed that not much has been made of Kennedy's academic dishonesty and - well - cheating. Ethically, it's a huge faux pas.

But then Cass is just a woman. What does she know? [sarcasm]

Thank you for your comments. It seems that it's the same-old same-old, and people will just continue to believe what they want to believe.

(In fairness, this does also apply to me, but I'm starting from the assumption that you'd need a lot of hard evidence to justify giving unapproved, powerful, and irreversible treatments to children who are in perfect physical health, so...)

I’d be posting this (courtesy of separate post by @fromorbit ) every where I see this referenced or touted.

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-025-00404-w?error=cookies_not_supported&code=95857e5f-ddc6-4a0f-891a-fe681728b378

"It doesn't say what I want it to say so it is biased and unreliable".

Those BMC/Biomed central journals are run on a pay to publish model where you've got to pay to get your stuff in tjem. Generally they're not considred bottom feeder outlets, but it does mean the business model sometimes supervenes over intellectual integrity.

Last time I sent a BMC journal something, as part of the submission process I was invited to select possible referees and name peope I didn't want as reviewers too. I can't guarantee this has happened in the present case, of course, but these things are sometimes more like pal review than peer review. If it was just sent to others who share the same views, it wouldn't be hard to get it through.

Sorry - there were typos in that. I was just trying to be quick and sometimes it feels like I have fingers like bunches of bananas!