Finnish study on transition and psychiatric outcomes in sex and gender shows increased psychiatric morbidity

[anyolddinosaur]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/apa.70533 Finnish study shows transition did not help psychiatric morbidity. It got worse.

The Finland study, good though it is, doesnt cover all contacts with psychiatric services and doesnt cover other health risks. An NHS study probably wont produce statistically valid information because of the people who will boycott it. We might be better spending the money on expanding the Finnish study.

The NHS could do an excellent study if it got co-operation. The only reason for not co-operating is to conceal the truth.

A study doing a deeper dive into the Finnish data would be good, longer time frame to see how clinic contact levels change longer term, if there's a pattern to this increased psychiatric contact e.g. do any particular conditions get diagnosed more often post GAC or are there certain conditions that resolve

The NHS is asserting it’s political, social and medical priorities.

I’d opt out if I could

The 'excellent study' would be the puberty blocker trial and its sister studies, however that seems to be going nowhere.

The NHS Tavistock study wouldn't be excellent, even if people weren't now trying to sabotage it by withdrawing consent.

The pictured text is the rationale for not doing it in the first place, and it wasn't about concealing the truth. It's because their data is shit.

The Tavistock did not record cognition, childhood adverse experiences or neurodiversity. How can you compare outcomes in any sort of valid way if you haven't registered starting points?

Explain to me how the puberty blocker trial as designed was ethical. It should never have got ethical approval.

You assume that not only the Tavistock but everyone involved in the care of the young people who went there had crap records. It's possible to get information from more than one source if there is the will to do it. Yes the information will have been recorded at different time points and may not be complete - that means it's not perfect, not that you cant still get valuable information.

My understanding of these retrospective studies are: if you want detailed information about a patient (e.g. reasons for psychiatric support, investigation of unwanted physical effects...) you need to ask for consent to the participation to the study, because there are issues of privacy, so you are tightly entitled to opt out.
if you want to study that type of information, it's a bigger, more costly effort, with a high rate of people which will not participate in the study.
If you limit the study to fully anonymous data (e.g. number of contacts with psychiatric care present in a health system database) the information is much less granular and based on some assumptions, but you study ALL the subjects, no drop outs.

A reminder.

This person's qualifications are threatening women with spiralisation with a rolling pin if they don't agree with him.

Sorry but when you do this you undermine all your credibility as a serious person.

Grubbing around for data from different sources recorded in different formats and collected in different ways, with large gaps is not how you end up with a reasonable statistical analysis.

I mean, you can write the 'we should disregard this analysis as flawed' posts before it is even conducted. Absolute bobbins.

The NHS has standardised coding systems and increasingly standardised computer systems. The physical damage that has been done to these young people could be picked out even if poorer records of psychiatric comorbidity did turn out to be more widespread than the Tavistock. Those who dont want the data examined do so because they fear it would reveal too much.

On the other hand, a puberty blockers trial that doesn't have a control group, that has funding for a follow up of only two years, and then (if funding is extended) will rely on the same type of data that the Finnish study has relied on, is poorly designed in terms of questionnaires that capture psychological well-being, can equally be disregarded as flawed even before starting it, ethical considerations aside.

Garbage in, garbage out.

You cannot pick out gems of wisdom from garbage data. The gems are automatically invalidated by the fact that your data was garbage.

There's been numerous staff at the Tavistock who quit because of what they were seeing. This left the staff who have done a good job of trying to prevent the data from being looked at.

Odd isn't it?

It absolutely 100% swear on my life had a control group.

People who are leaping on the badly wrong blog post criticising the Finnish study should probably also be aware that there are criticisms out there of the puberty blocker trial that are similarly poor.

No, it has a group who start blockers now, and a group who start blockers later. It does not have a control group of gender confused children who do not receive blockers at all.

Yes it does.

Here it is, the matched control group who aren't taking puberty blockers who would be assessed in the same way as those taking puberty blockers.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/assets/pathways/horizon/pathways-horizon-intensive-easy-read.pdf

If I understand that summary correctly (it is somewhat vague), what I said is completely true - there is no group of gender confused children who are not receiving treatment in this planned study. There is a “roughly matched” group, who - it appears - will not be gender confused children, just children who “roughly match” on age and some other comorbid mental health issues.

I thought the study has been suspended did I miss something ?

It has - I think the suggestion from PPs is that it should go ahead because it would apparently be more controlled and thus more valuable than either the Finnish study or the planned retrospective study of Tavistock patients. I disagree, on the grounds that while lots of precise controlled data would be nice, when the uncontrolled data from Finland already shows such undeniable harms, it seems sadistic to put another group of children through those harms to get cleaner data.

This is shocking.
Why do they want to compromise the study?

No, you don’t understand the summary correctly. You appear to not know what the Pathways Horizon study of gender confused children is.

That you were unaware of its existence and this subgroup which would act as a control group to the puberty blocker trial demonstrates the poor analyses of the trial on social media I mentioned earlier.

Nope, that’s not what I said or think.

It would certainly provide better data than the Tavistock retrospective study.

Read the exclusion criteria. If they are clinically eligible for puberty blockers and wish to receive them, they are not eligible. Not a control group.

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ioppn/assets/pathways/trial/pathways-trial-protocol.pdf

Ok, I just cannot be arsed with this. You are clearly possessed of a much superior intellect to me - and indeed to the multiple medical professionals who spoke up against the Pathways trial.