[_cenw]

That's why the British Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society and the Canadian Pediatric Society all were in total agree-- wait they weren't.

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?)

[vivock]

A telling response. I can see which bubble of social media complainers you've been listening to on this, based of which of their talking points you've picked up.

[_cenw]

Yep, keep it vague. Keep attacking me and my supposedly biased media diet instead of the actual points listed. Totally makes you look reasonable and logical and enlightened.

So, did you sign up for HN just for this? Do you have a Google Alert for "Cass review"? Can one follow (block) you on X?