[chownie]

Because they set an unrealistic bar by excluding all research which wasn't double blind, in the knowledge that there's barely any research you can perform on trans youth with that criteria that an ethics board will allow and there's barely any research anyone would attempt — because your blind is immediately nullified by the obvious continuing signs of puberty, or the obvious continuing signs of body produced hormones.

By doing this they have excluded the vast majority of the extant research, leaving what's essentially the most biased remaining sample.

Now add in the government of the UK's current attack angle on trans people, and Cass herself exclusively operating with anti-trans groups on social media.

[foodlock]

No, they did not do that. This is disinformation. As Cass herself says in this BBC News article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68863594

> Dr Cass was asked about particular claims spread online about her review - one that "98% of the evidence" was ignored or dismissed by her, and one that she would only include gold-standard "double-blind randomised control" trials in the review.

> She said the 98% claim was "completely incorrect".

> A total of 103 scientific papers were analysed by her review, with 2% considered high quality, and 98% not.

> "There were quite a number of studies that were considered to be moderate quality, and those were all included in the analysis," she said.

> "So nearly 60% of the studies were actually included in what's called the synthesis."

> And on the "double-blind" claim - where patients are randomly assigned to a treatment or placebo group, getting either medicine or nothing - she said "obviously" young people could not be blinded as to whether or not they were on puberty blockers or hormones because "it rapidly becomes obvious to them".

> "But that of itself is not an issue because there are many other areas where that would apply," she said.

> "If you were doing a trial, say, of acupuncture, people would know exactly what treatment that they were getting."

You can of course confirm this yourself by reading the report and the systematic reviews commissioned to inform it, rather than listening to social media bullshitters.

Also, Cass has talked to a variety of different groups with different views. For example, this is a Q&A she did with The Kite Trust, an LGBTQ+ charity: https://thekitetrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Cass-...

Please try harder not to spread such easily disprovable falsehoods.

[chownie]

Please try harder not to succumb to the strawman fallacy, you're arguing a point I didn't make.

The base truth is that the Cass review excluded a large portion of the research based on evidenciary standards which are higher than we'd apply otherwise.

Citing her Q&A with the Kite Trust is great but that doesn't undo the fact that she designed her review to exclude trans people as much as possible. There were zero trans clinicians, trans academics or even trans users of healthcare services included in any part of the study.

Within her purview for study quality she decided to include the work of a known transphobe who was caught out in 2018 posting essentially hate screeds on an anonymous twitter account[1] -- why was his work included but not a >> SINGLE << trans person could sit in on the review?

1: https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2018/10/26/transphobic-tweets-...

> You can of course confirm this yourself by reading the report and the systematic reviews commissioned to inform it, rather than listening to social media bullshitters.

And now I see why you decided to spin up a fresh account for this. I'm done, I don't believe in debate with people who mistake debate for online shitfling. Have a good one.

[foodlock]

I'm directly addressing your claims, not arguing a point you didn't make.

You said:

> Because they set an unrealistic bar by excluding all research which wasn't double blind,

To which I replied with a BBC News article quoting Cass, which refutes this falsehood. While noting that you could also confirm this yourself by actually reading the publications you're so misinformed about.

The problem is that you'd rather listen to liars like Erin Reed and Alejandra Caraballo, who have apparently made it their mission to sow as much disinformation about the Review as they possibly can, and those who amplify their mendacious nonsense.

I mean, all you've been doing in this thread is further spreading their lies, and then doubling down when proven wrong. Are you really so in the thrall of these prevaricators?

[chownie]

Uninterested in a sockpuppet's views, sorry. If you're serious come back on your main and we'll discuss without all the creative attempts you've made to answer sentence A while ignoring sentence B.

[foodlock]

You've know you've been called out on your bullshit and are attempting to deflect. That's fine, you can do that if you want. But there's really no point in continuing any sort of exchange with you on this, because it's very clear that you'd rather spread lies than discuss facts.