#cult review | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 5 months ago

Text

By: Jesse Singal

Published: Jun 27, 2024

In April Hilary Cass, a British paediatrician, published her review of gender-identity services for children and young people, commissioned by NHS England. It cast doubt on the evidence base for youth gender medicine. This prompted the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the leading professional organisation for the doctors and practitioners who provide services to trans people, to release a blistering rejoinder. WPATH said that its own guidelines were sturdier, in part because they were “based on far more systematic reviews”.

Systematic reviews should evaluate the evidence for a given medical question in a careful, rigorous manner. Such efforts are particularly important at the moment, given the feverish state of the American debate on youth gender medicine, which is soon to culminate in a Supreme Court case challenging a ban in Tennessee. The case turns, in part, on questions of evidence and expert authority.

Court documents recently released as part of the discovery process in a case involving youth gender medicine in Alabama reveal that WPATH's claim was built on shaky foundations. The documents show that the organisation’s leaders interfered with the production of systematic reviews that it had commissioned from the Johns Hopkins University Evidence-Based Practice Centre (EPC) in 2018.

From early on in the contract negotiations, WPATH expressed a desire to control the results of the Hopkins team’s work. In December 2017, for example, Donna Kelly, an executive director at PATH, told Karen Robinson, the EPC's director, that the WPATH board felt the EPC researchers “cannot publish their findings independently”. A couple of weeks later, Ms Kelly emphasised that, “the [WPATH] board wants it to be clear that the data cannot be used without WPATH approval”.

Ms Robinson saw this as an attempt to exert undue influence over what was supposed to be an independent process. John Ioannidis of Stanford University, who co-authored guidelines for systematic reviews, says that if sponsors interfere or are allowed to veto results, this can lead to either biased summaries or suppression of unfavourable evidence. Ms Robinson sought to avoid such an outcome. “In general, my understanding is that the university will not sign off on a contract that allows a sponsor to stop an academic publication,” she wrote to Ms Kelly.

Months later, with the issue still apparently unresolved, Ms Robinson adopted a sterner tone. She noted in an email in March 2018 that, “Hopkins as an academic institution, and I as a faculty member therein, will not sign something that limits academic freedom in this manner,” nor “language that goes against current standards in systematic reviews and in guideline development”.

Not to reason XY

Eventually WPATH relented, and in May 2018 Ms Robinson signed a contract granting WPATH power to review and offer feedback on her team’s work, but not to meddle in any substantive way. After WPATH leaders saw two manuscripts submitted for review in July 2020, however, the parties’ disagreements flared up again. In August the WPATH executive committee wrote to Ms Robinson that WPATH had “many concerns” about these papers, and that it was implementing a new policy in which WPATH would have authority to influence the EPC team’s output—including the power to nip papers in the bud on the basis of their conclusions.

Ms Robinson protested that the new policy did not reflect the contract she had signed and violated basic principles of unfettered scientific inquiry she had emphasised repeatedly in her dealings with WPATH. The Hopkins team published only one paper after WPATH implemented its new policy: a 2021 meta-analysis on the effects of hormone therapy on transgender people. Among the recently released court documents is a WPATH checklist confirming that an individual from WPATH was involved “in the design, drafting of the article and final approval of [that] article”. (The article itself explicitly claims the opposite.) Now, more than six years after signing the agreement, the EPC team does not appear to have published anything else, despite having provided WPATH with the material for six systematic reviews, according to the documents.

No one at WPATH or Johns Hopkins has responded to multiple inquiries, so there are still gaps in this timeline. But an email in October 2020 from WPATH figures, including its incoming president at the time, Walter Bouman, to the working group on guidelines, made clear what sort of science WPATH did (and did not) want published. Research must be “thoroughly scrutinised and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense,” it stated. Mr Bouman and one other coauthor of that email have been named to a World Health Organisation advisory board tasked with developing best practices for transgender medicine.

Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a transwoman who is assistant secretary for health, succeeded in pressing WPATH to remove minimum ages for the treatment of children from its 2022 standards of care. Dr Levine’s office has not commented. Questions remain unanswered, but none of this helps WPATH’s claim to be an organisation that bases its recommendations on science.

[ Via: https://archive.today/wJCI7 ]

So, there are 6 completed reviews sitting somewhere, that WPATH knows shows undesirable (to them) results. And they know it. And despite - or perhaps, because of - that, they wrote the insane SOC8 anyway. And then, at the behest of Rachel Levine, went back and took out the age limits, making it even more insane.

This isn't how science works, it's how a cult works.

When John Templeton Foundation commissioned a study on the efficacy of intercessory prayer, a study which unsurprisingly found that it's completely ineffective, it was forced to publish the negative results.

So, even the religious are more ethical than gender ideologues when it comes to science. This is outright scientific corruption.

#Jesse Singal #Johns Hopkins #Johns Hopkins University #WPATH #World Professional Association for Transgender Health #anti science #gender cult #corruption #medical malpractice #medical corruption #medical scandal #systematic review #Cass review #Cass report #gender affirming care #gender affirming healthcare #gender affirmation #ideological corruption #religion is a mental illness

267 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 7 months ago

Text

Following publication of the final report there have been a number of questions and points for clarification about the findings and recommendations. We have collated those questions, along with our answers, on this page.

Did the Review set a higher bar for evidence than would normally be expected?

No, the approach to the assessment of study quality was the same as would be applied to other areas of clinical practice – the bar was not set higher for this Review.

Clarification:

The same level of rigour should be expected when looking at the best treatment approaches for this population as for any other population so as not to perpetuate the disadvantaged position this group have been placed in when looking for information on treatment options.

The systematic reviews undertaken by the University of York as part of the Review’s independent research programme are the largest and most comprehensive to date. They looked at 237 papers from 18 countries, providing information on a total of 113,269 children and adolescents.

All of the University of York’s systematic review research papers were subject to peer review, a cornerstone of academic rigour and integrity to ensure that the methods, findings, and interpretation of the findings met the highest standards of quality, validity and impartiality.

Did the Review reject studies that were not double blind randomised control trials in its systematic review of evidence for puberty blockers and masculinising / feminising hormones?

No. There were no randomised control studies identified in the systematic reviews, but other types of studies were included if they were well designed and conducted.

Clarification:

The Review commissioned the University of York to undertake an independent research programme to ensure the work of the Review and its recommendations were informed by the most robust existing evidence. This included a series of systematic reviews which brought together, analysed and evaluated existing evidence on a range of issues relating to the care of gender-questioning children and young people, including epidemiology, treatment approaches and international models of current practice.

Randomised control trials are considered the gold standard in relation to research, but there are many other study designs that can give valuable information. Explanatory Box 1 (pages 49-51 of the final report) discusses in more detail the different kinds of studies that can be used, and how to decide if a study is poorly designed or biased.

Blinding is a separate issue. It means that either the patient or the researcher does not know if the patient is getting an active treatment or a ‘control’ (which might be another treatment or a placebo). Patients cannot be blinded as to whether or not they are receiving puberty blockers or masculinising / feminising hormones, because the effects would rapidly become obvious. Good RCTs can be conducted without blinding.

The University of York’s systematic review search did not identify any RCTs, blinded or otherwise, but many other studies were included. Most of the studies included were called ‘cohort studies’. Well-designed and executed high quality cohort studies are used in other areas of medicine, and the bar was not set higher for this review; even so the quality of the studies was mostly only assessed as moderate.

Did the Review reject 98% of papers demonstrating the benefits of affirmative care?

No. Studies were identified for inclusion in the synthesis (conclusions) of the systematic reviews on puberty blockers and masculinising/feminising hormones on the basis of their quality. This was assessed using a standard quality assessment tool appropriate to the types of study identified. All high quality and moderate quality reviews were included in the synthesis of results. This totalled 58% of the 103 papers.

Clarification:

The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (a standard appraisal tool) was used to compare the studies. This scores items such as participant selection, comparability of groups (how alike they are), the outcomes of the studies and how these were assessed (data provided and whether it is representative of those studied). High quality studies (scoring >75%) would score well on most of these items; moderate quality studies (scoring >50% – 75%) would miss some elements (which could affect outcomes); and low-quality studies would score 50% or less on the items the scale looked at. A major weakness of the studies was that they did not have adequate follow-up – in many cases they did not follow young people for long enough for the long-term outcomes to be understood.

Because the ranking was based on how the studies were undertaken (their quality and execution), low quality research was removed before the results were analysed as the findings could not be completely trusted. Had an RCT been available it would also have been excluded from the systematic review if it was deemed to be of poor quality.

The puberty blocker systematic review included 50 studies. One was high quality, 25 were moderate quality and 24 were low quality. The systematic review of masculinising/feminising hormones included 53 studies. One was high quality, 33 were moderate quality and 19 were low quality.

All high quality and moderate quality reviews were included, however as only two of the studies across these two systematic reviews were identified as being of high quality, this has been misinterpreted by some to mean that only two studies were considered and the rest were discarded. In reality, conclusions were based on the high quality and moderate quality studies (i.e. 58% of the total studies based on the quality assessment). More information about this process in included in Box 2 (pages 54-56 of the final report)

Has the Review recommended that no one should transition before the age of 25 and that Gillick competence should be overturned.

No. The Review has not commented on the use of masculinising/feminising hormones on people over the age of 18. This is outside of the scope of the Review. The Review has not stated that Gillick competence should be overturned.

The Review has recommended that:

“NHS England should ensure that each Regional Centre has a follow through service for 17-25-year-olds; either by extending the range of the regional children and young people’s service or through linked services, to ensure continuity of care and support at a potentially vulnerable stage in their journey. This will also allow clinical, and research follow-up data to be collected.”

This recommendation only relates to people referred into the children and young people’s service before the age of 17 to enable their care to be continued within the follow-through service up to the age of 25.

Clarification:

Currently, young people are discharged from the young people’s service at the age of 17, often to an adult gender clinic. Some of these young people have been receiving direct care from the NHS gender service (GIDS as was) and others have not yet reached the top of the waiting list and have “aged out” of the young people’s service before being seen.

The Review understands that this is a particularly vulnerable time for young people. A follow-through service continuing up to age 25, would remove the need for transition (that is, transfer) to adult services and support continuity of care and continued access to a broader multi-disciplinary team. This would be consistent with other service areas supporting young people that are selectively moving to a ‘0-25 years’ service to improve continuity of care.

The follow-through service would also benefit those seeking support from adult gender services, as these young people would not be added to the waiting list for adult services and, in the longer-term, as more gender services are established, capacity of adult provision across the country would be increased.

People aged 18 and over, who had not been referred to the NHS children and young people’s gender service, would still be referred directly to adult clinics.

Is the Review recommending that puberty blockers should be banned?

No. Puberty blocker medications are used to address a number of different conditions. The Review has considered the evidence in relation to safety and efficacy (clinical benefit) of the medications for use in young people with gender incongruence/gender dysphoria.

The Review found that not enough is known about the longer-term impacts of puberty blockers for children and young people with gender incongruence to know whether they are safe or not, nor which children might benefit from their use.

Ahead of publication of the final report NHS England took the decision to stop the routine use of puberty blockers for gender incongruence / gender dysphoria in children. NHS England and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) are establishing a clinical trial to ensure the effects of puberty blockers can be safely monitored. Within this trial, puberty blockers will be available for children with gender incongruence/ dysphoria where there is clinical agreement that the individual may benefit from taking them.

Clarification:

Puberty blockers have been used to suppress puberty in children and young people who start puberty much too early (precocious puberty). They have undergone extensive testing for use in precocious puberty (a very different indication from use in gender dysphoria) and have met strict safety requirements to be approved for this condition. This is because the puberty blockers are suppressing hormone levels that are abnormally high for the age of the child.

This is different to stopping the normal surge of hormones that occur in puberty. Pubertal hormones are needed for psychological, psychosexual and brain development, and there is not yet enough information on the risks of stopping the influence of pubertal hormones at this critical life stage.

When deciding if certain treatments should be routinely available through the NHS it is not enough to demonstrate that a medication doesn’t cause harm, it needs to be demonstrated that it will deliver clinical benefit in a defined group of patients.

Over the past few years, the most common age that young people have been receiving puberty blockers in England has been 15 when most young people are already well advanced in their puberty. The new services will be looking at the best approaches to support young people through this period when they are still making decisions about longer-term options.

Has the Review recommended that social transition should only be undertaken under medical guidance?

The Review has advised that a more cautious approach around social transition needs to be taken for pre-pubertal children than for adolescents and has recommended that:

“When families/carers are making decisions about social transition of pre-pubertal children, services should ensure that they can be seen as early as possible by a clinical professional with relevant experience.”

Parents are encouraged to seek clinical help and advice in deciding how to support a child with gender incongruence and should be prioritised on the waiting list for early consultation on this issue. This should include discussion of the risks and benefits and the voice of the child should be heard. It will be important that flexibility is maintained, and options remain open.

Clarification:

Although the University of York’s systematic review found that there is no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has positive or negative mental health outcomes, there are studies demonstrating that for a majority of young children presenting with gender incongruence, this resolves through puberty. There is also evidence from studies of young people with differences of sex development (DSD) that sex of rearing seems to have some influence on eventual gender outcome, and it is possible that social transition in childhood may change the trajectory of gender identity development for children with early gender incongruence. Living in stealth from early childhood may also lead to stress, particularly as puberty approaches.

There is relatively weak evidence for any effect of social transition in adolescence. The Review recognises that for adolescents, exploration is a normal process, and rigid binary gender stereotypes can be unhelpful. Many adolescents will go through a period of gender non-conformity in terms of outward expressions (e.g. hairstyle, make-up, clothing and behaviours). They also have greater agency in how they present themselves and in their decision-making.

Young people and young adults have spoken positively about how social transition helped to reduce their gender dysphoria and feel more comfortable in themselves. They identified that space to talk about socially transitioning and how to handle conversations with parents/carers and others would be helpful. The Review has therefore advised that it is important to try and ensure that those already actively involved in the young person’s welfare provide support in decision making and that plans are in place to ensure that the young person is protected from bullying and has a trusted source of support.

Further detail can be found in Chapter 12 of the Final Report.

Did the Review speak to any gender-questioning and trans people when developing its recommendations?

Yes, the Review has been underpinned by an extensive programme of proactive engagement, which is described in Chapter 1 of the report. The Review has met with over 1000 individuals and organisations across the breadth of opinion on this subject but prioritised two categories of stakeholders:

People with relevant lived experience (direct or as a parent/carer) and organisations working with LGBTQ+ children and young people generally.

Clinicians and other relevant professionals with experience of and/ or responsibility for providing care and support to children and young people within specialist gender services and beyond.

A mixed-methods approach was taken, which included weekly listening sessions with people with lived experience, 6-weekly meetings with support and advocacy groups throughout the course of the Review, and focus groups with young people and young adults.

Reports from the focus groups with young people with lived experience are published on the Review’s website and the learning from these sessions and the listening sessions are represented in the final report.

The Review also commissioned qualitative research from the University of York, who conducted interviews with young people, young adults, parents and clinicians. A summary of the findings from this research is included as appendix 3 of the final report.

What is the Review’s position on conversion therapy?

Whilst the Review’s terms of reference do not include consideration of the proposed legislation to ban conversion practices, it believes that no LGBTQ+ group should be subjected to conversion practice. It also maintains the position that children and young people with gender dysphoria may have a range of complex psychosocial challenges and/or mental health problems impacting on their gender-related distress. Exploration of these issues is essential to provide diagnosis, clinical support and appropriate intervention.

The intent of psychological intervention is not to change the person’s perception of who they are but to work with them to explore their concerns and experiences and help alleviate their distress, regardless of whether they pursue a medical pathway or not. It is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy as it may prevent young people from getting the emotional support they deserve and make clinicians fearful of providing this group of children and young people the same care as is afforded to other children and young people.

No formal science-based training in psychotherapy, psychology or psychiatry teaches or advocates conversion therapy. If an individual were to carry out such practices they would be acting outside of professional guidance, and this would be a matter for the relevant regulator.

Like any religious fanatics, pathological liars like "Erin" Reed and "Alejandra" Carballo still won't stop lying, since it's all they have. But their disciples should really be noticing how they've been directly refuted.

57 notes · View notes