4 ms·

looks like Mrs. Littman still believes in validity of her research and validity of methods and materials used. Her research view is considered toxic, only becau

by slt2021 4y ago

looks like Mrs. Littman still believes in validity of her research and validity of methods and materials used. Her research view is considered toxic, only because its against mainstream consensus in media, that completely ignores medical errors in diagnosing and treating ROGD. she not only included parents, but asked patients as well, and their opinion does carry some weight in my book. there are commentaries in support of her continued research for sake of current and future patients https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334530426_In_Support_of_Research_Into_Rapid-Onset_Gender_Dysphoria https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334530426_In_Suppor... https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00185-8/fulltext https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00185-8/fulltext

pseudalopex 4y ago
The ROGD paper was parents only. Littman included patients in the paper not on ROGD. Her recruiting focus was a problem though. Even she didn't think 1 paper made a valid medical diagnosis and treatment guidelines. The 1st letter didn't dispute the critique of her methods. It said the question was important and should be studied more. The 2nd letter writer didn't understand the 2nd paper apparently. Littman predicted ROGD and childhood onset were 2 different groups. The distribution in the 2nd paper didn't look like 2 different groups. 80% of the parents in Littman's paper said their adolescents had 0 gender dysphoria criteria in childhood. But gender knowledge is 1 of the criteria. n = 173 isn't much smaller than n = 256. The paper didn't say what she said it said about anxiety. It speculated long standing gender dysphoria or social complications could lead to more anxiety. And her speculation about why recent awareness was associated with lower anxiety scores ignored it was everyone's 1st visit.

pseudalopex 4y ago

The ROGD paper was parents only. Littman included patients in the paper not on ROGD. Her recruiting focus was a problem though. Even she didn't think 1 paper made a valid medical diagnosis and treatment guidelines. The 1st letter didn't dispute the critique of her methods. It said the question was important and should be studied more. The 2nd letter writer didn't understand the 2nd paper apparently. Littman predicted ROGD and childhood onset were 2 different groups. The distribution in the 2nd paper didn't look like 2 different groups. 80% of the parents in Littman's paper said their adolescents had 0 gender dysphoria criteria in childhood. But gender knowledge is 1 of the criteria. n = 173 isn't much smaller than n = 256. The paper didn't say what she said it said about anxiety. It speculated long standing gender dysphoria or social complications could lead to more anxiety. And her speculation about why recent awareness was associated with lower anxiety scores ignored it was everyone's 1st visit.