|
|
|
|
|
|
by vivock
663 days ago
|
|
|
Cass and her team did an excellent job assessing the available evidence and current clinical practice. Anyone who has read the Review with an open mind, and considers the wellbeing of children first and foremost, can see that. There's a great deal of ideologically-driven pushback to her team's work, mostly from people without expertise in the field. But that can be safely ignored due to not being based upon evidence nor reason. |
|
|
And the Cass Review cites a lot of studies in alignment with the study quality in a minority population -- oh wait, it disregards over 100 studies outright, putting a bar where it can't possibly be met, and then ignored that requirement for the body of studies that agree with her preexisting ideas.
Because it's so easy to defend the Cass review, you used your established HN account and not a sockpu-- wait you didn't.
And Cass totally didn't consult with Patrick Hunter. Almost like she wanted advice on how to replicate the ban in Florida. Not at all.
If you want the cherry on top, before the review, Cass supposedly recommended clinicians read the culture-war work "Irreversible Damage" - a book that compares doctors providing gender affirming care with nazi human experimentation (godwin's law in full force here), completely eliminating the notion that she was a neutral party when the review started.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by. I appreciate you addressing the actual problems with the work instead of a blind reaffirmation that it is scientific and everyone else is paid off by big pharma or something (or what's the implication here?)