I suppose you would have to have experts who have the background a qualifications, get them to look into the matter and make recommendation's and go through what has happened and why. That would settle it right...
Mammalian biology? Why so specific? We are mammals but so what?
Because they were correct and not pandering to any non-scientific agenda.
Ironically, in the Bible there are three. Those who are born so, made so (by the cruelty of man), and are so (for the love of God).
But paediatric consultants and research scientists dont tend to be loons or transphobic. But they seem to get given those labels all the same if they come out with anything WPATH dont like.
You've admitted to not having read the report.
True. But reports on what are inexplicably politically contentious subjects akways seem to include right wing biases for "balance".
I can't say anything directly about this report until I read it. And I didn't. But when I have time to read it I will.
No, but on multiple occasions you have indirectly presented it as "pandering" to "right wing biases".
Which reports on trans related issues almost always are. If this turns out to be different I'll say so.
I havent read the report in depth but what trans activists seem to have the biggest problem with is the dismissing of studies that are poor quality and have no controls etc. But evidence based medicine is not a right wing concept.
But this isn't a tabloid report on trans issues.
Maybe.
Eh?
They were only "correct" in as much as they were recommendations pulled together by highly qualified experts, which people like you and I weren't qualified to question. As for "non-scientific agenda", you'd be hard pushed to find any public health measure that would be vulnerable to non-scientific agendas than lockdowns during a pandemic.
And covid stuff didn't?
But no need to tell the loons that.
It did but not with any justification that required any consideration by the adults in the room.
Funny, that’s exactly how I feel now dr Hillary cass has entered the room…
What is exactly the same thing, however, is certain members of redcafe being adamant we should listen to experts and ignore “loons” who criticise those expert opinions throughout the pandemic, only to adopt those exact same loon tactics when it comes to an expert report they don’t want to believe in.
No. Covid loons, who are by-and-large people who tend to ignore all experts and instead believe memes on Facebook, are not the same as people not automatically accepting this as the authorative be-all, end-all report with regards to trans healthcare for minors.
Seriously? You missed the whole rent a quote fringe scientists whose lockdown/vaccine sceptic opinions were vastly inflated by covid loons throughout the pandemic. It’s a piece of piss to find an expert whose opinion aligns with your own on any issue which is even slightly contentious. The thing is, those experts don’t tend to be asked to contribute to a thorough, well researched report like this one.
The loons were finding and quoting no-end of "experts" to support their no lockdown, no masks, no vaccine stances.
there's no need to be so vague about the "bad reports" and "gaps" that cass weeded out since the reasons are given in the report: lack of controls and blindedness.
I’m certainly not arguing that peer review should make a piece of research free from scrutiny. And there’s ignoring a lot of research and ignoring a lot of research. The post of mine you quoted refers to a meta-analysis of 18590 studies, that only considered 24 of them as worthy of consideration! I would say lack of blinding and (certainly) lack of control is a very good reason to ignore the results of a clinical trial, providing similar studies that are controlled (and/or blinded) are available.there's no need to be so vague about the "bad reports" and "gaps" that cass weeded out since the reasons are given in the report: lack of controls and blindedness.
i remember that we - including specifically the two of us - were looking at peer-reviewed covid studies and finding fault with them in the covid thread.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sar...lliness-please.452816/page-1643#post-28441866
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sar...lliness-please.452816/page-1455#post-27403877
the post of yours that i linked to even takes issue with an analysis for ignoring a lot of research! there's no particular reason a one-person govt-comissioned report is free of carelessness or bias, like many of those studies and analyses were.
Point is, few of these loons needed these "experts" to convince them of anything.
These criteria would probably throw out more than 90 % of all medical research.there's no need to be so vague about the "bad reports" and "gaps" that cass weeded out since the reasons are given in the report: lack of controls and blindedness.
Difficult to blind but not impossible. There's a huge range in terms of what is "normal" in terms of the age at which puberty occurs and no one individual could be certain that their own experience isn't part of that normal variarion. And it would obviously not be "extremely unethical" to blind and use control groups because the whole point of these studies is to find out whether these interventions do actually benefit the subjects. As that is currently uncertain, there's no ethical concern about randomly allocating them to the treatment or placebo group, so long as informed consent is obtained.
Nonsense. Blinded RCTs often last several years.
To be honest everyone i know personally who opposed vaccines and lockdowns here in Denmark are far left wing nuts and sometimes spiritual. Its probably meaningless in a broader context. Here at home i don't consider left or right wing more or less scientific unless we are talking about religious conservative nutjobs. In the US, Ireland and Britain i suppose there is a more pronounced difference.
In the US most of them are Trump supporters.
Well the republicans are famous for being the stupid party. So are the dems but less so.
I’m over-simplifying. I just find it interesting that the same people attacking expert medical opinion in this context were highly likely to have been defending expert medical opinion throughout covid. Be nice if we could respect medical experts equally, whether or not their opinion aligns with our side of the culture war.
I completely agree.
Hastily gathered medical opinion a lot of the time too, given it was all relating to a continually evolving and pretty much unprecedented global pandemic.
But isn't their argument precisely that Covid science was generally well done, but the science against medical intervention for trans was sloppy?
Which is why you should stick to reputable sources, the media has a lot to answer for in this respect, using pre-print sources to fit an agenda is disingenuous and dangerous, politicians as well, Trump being a good example
Is that not precisely what Pogue has highlighted?
Robert Malone was operating completely on the fringe. He never represented any kind of mainstream medical/scientific consensus, which is what this report set out to achieve.
