They HAVE the data, they just refused to share it with this ridiculous show trial of a "study"
Why is it a show trial of a study? In the article it seems Mermaids is supportive of the study.
Mermaids are widely distrusted among the trans community as an org targeting trans youth with cis adults in charge. The wider community are mostly opposed to gender clinics however this pushes them in a more hostile direction, specifically because they chose to opaquely work with conversion therapist networks and no trans advocacy organizations.
That looks really, bad, doctors of all people should know that evidence is everything in medicine.
Its important to note that the evidence is there, they just applied an impossible and unethical standard to it to dismiss all but one study. Of those identified to be involved in this report, multiple conversion therapist organisations were consulted but no trans advocacy organizations.
The way in which they dismissed the evidence was notably the exclusion of double blind studies. Imagine if they said the same of cancer treatments.
I'd have to look at their exact rationale to know for sure why they excluded those studies.
Unfortunately disproportionately high standards for evidence isn't a new thing in the UK medical establishment though, NICE's recent rejection of ketamine for depression was pretty shaky IMO.
In this case, they used an adaptation of Newcastle Ottowa scale, however they didn't provide an appendix of what those adaptations actually were. The specific points were raised that the studies weren't double blind, which would obviously be a violation of basic ethics in this case. There were multiple conversion therapists involved in the report so its pretty reasonable to assume malicious intent.
Ah, okay, I misunderstood what you meant by "The way in which they dismissed the evidence was notably the exclusion of double blind studies." I thought you meant they had excluded studies for being double blind, which would obviously be quite weird.
It's frustratingly common in mental health (which gender dysphoria is still officially considered) for regulators to demand double blind studies, no matter how strong the evidence from observational studies is.
The lack of follow up and record keeping at Tavistock was shocking. I'm all for expanding the range of providers to tackle waiting lists but they have to bring a more professional approach to providing care and a more holistic view if the patients.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Adult transgender clinics in England are facing a Cass-style inquiry into how they treat patients after whistleblowers raised concerns about the care they provide.
NHS England has announced that it is setting up a review of how the seven specialist services operate and deliver care after past and present staff shared misgivings privately during a previous investigation.
As a first step, NHS England will send “external quality improvement experts” into each of the clinics to gather evidence about how they care for patients, to help guide the inquiry’s direction.
It was prompted by a lack of reliable evidence on key issues involved in the care of children and young people who are questioning their gender identity, such as the safety and efficacy of puberty blockers and cross-sex – masculinising or feminising – hormones.
The University of York received “significant opposition from all but one of the adult GDCs including refusal to facilitate the initial opt out stage of the study”, she said.
Kate Barker, the chief executive of the LGB Alliance, said it was “deeply troubling that attempts to gather evidence for the Cass review have been deliberately blocked”.
The original article contains 1,096 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 83%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.