That briefing was written by people who clearly do not understand what they're reading. For a start, this is factually incorrect: > The Cass Report reveals th

That briefing was written by people who clearly do not understand what they're reading. For a start, this is factually incorrect: > The Cass Report reveals that it discarded huge amounts of medical evidence, both from the UK and across the world. Out of 102 studies into puberty blockers and hormones, only 2 were included by the Cass Review team. Actually, a total of 60 studies were included: 26 in the review on puberty suppression and 34 in the review of masculinising/feminising hormone interventions. Only the lowest quality studies (43 of them) were excluded from the authors' synthesis. You can confirm this by reading chapters 14 and 15 in the overall Review: https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CassReview_Final.pdf https://cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/0... And the systematic reviews that those chapters reference (in paragraphs 14.19 and 15.15): https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326669 https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-20... https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-2023-326670 https://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/09/archdischild-20... This briefing that attempts to critique the Review can't even get the basics right. It has unravelled only itself.