3 ms·

The content of the article does not support the claim in the headline. No specific evidence is presented that any particular study was changed or suppressed at

The content of the article does not support the claim in the headline. No specific evidence is presented that any particular study was changed or suppressed at WPATH's request. The article presents evidence that WPATH requested the authority to approve publications, but also notes that the request was refused by Johns Hopkins. Everything else in the article, including the title, is speculative.

readthenotes1 2y ago
Otoh, WPATH stating "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,” and there only being one paper published after the checklist came into existence seems to indicate otherwise.
- vannevar 2y ago
  You're speculating here. Let me speculate as well: if I were a research institution working with an advocacy group, and the group decided it wanted review and veto authority over my research, I would go ahead and publish my research to that point and stop working with the advocacy group. Which speculation is right? There's no way to tell from the evidence in the article. Which is my point. Research manipulation is a strong claim, and requires strong evidence. There is none in this article.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    > You're speculating here Its not, wanting to review before publication is done to manipulate the research, that is strong evidence of manipulation so you don't have to speculate any longer. The speculation is whether that manipulation was good or bad or even what kind of manipulation they are doing, but we don't have to speculate whether it happens or not.
    - Supermancho 2y ago
      > Its not, wanting to review before publication is done to manipulate the research, This is not fact. There are multiple possibilities that do not include manipulation. If there was manipulation, there would be a recourse to pursue for fraud.
      - Jensson 2y ago
        > If there was manipulation, there would be a recourse to pursue for fraud. Its legal to manipulate research except some extreme levels of manipulation. Legal manipulation is still manipulation, there is a reason companies pays so much to publish their own science, its so they can manipulate it. This is just the same as that. Example of legal way to manipulate research: Stop anything you don't like from getting published. There is nothing illegal about that but that can massively hurt science.
        Supermancho 2y ago
        > This is just the same as that. You are making another baseless assumption. > Example of legal way to manipulate research: Stop anything you don't like from getting published. What I think you are implying, is that it won't be popularized enough, soon enough, to serve some interest. I only think this because, well...how would you stop someone from posting the original on torrent? Your concern has nothing to do with the science, per se, but how it's perceived. What if it passed through with 0 manipulation? The inverse thinking is being casually dismissed, which is bad faith. Good luck with that.
gwern 2y ago
The content does support it? They show with quotes that WPATH demands pre-publication review & approval for the purposes of making sure any publication is “thoroughly scrutinised and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense,” that output has cratered in the way you would expect from pre-publication approval requirements intended to create publication bias: > 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. (Where are those other 6 systematic reviews if it is purely 'speculative' that WPATH has not been approving them?) that their guidelines are not based on systematic reviews as claimed but other motivations: > Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman 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. and that WPATH-approved articles have been publishing fraudulent claims about their involvement: > 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.) (Which at the least implies that a correction needs to be issued by the journal which published that article if the disclosures are false...) >> but also notes that the request was refused by Johns Hopkins. No, it didn't? The article specifically says, repeatedly, that that policy was implemented: > 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...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.
- vannevar 2y ago
  >> 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. >(Where are those other 6 systematic reviews if it is purely 'speculative' that WPATH has not been approving them?) Does "material for six systematic reviews" actually mean they were planning to publish six distinct reviews? The author doesn't say, leaving us to speculate. When in the six years since was the material provided? The author doesn't say. They could've only intended to publish the single review that in fact did get published. We can only speculate. Did WPATH provide any feedback on the material submitted? The author doesn't say, leaving us to speculate. >> Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman 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. This is irrelevant to the question of whether Johns Hopkins' research was manipulated, which is the contention of the article. Even then, it only makes an unsubstantiated a claim an unspecified court document supports the idea that WPATH was pressured to change their standard of care, which even if true doesn't support the claim that research anywhere has been manipulated. >> 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.) >(Which at the least implies that a correction needs to be issued by the journal which published that article if the disclosures are false...) The existence of a WPATH checklist does not mean that any changes were made at their request, which is the evidence you have to have to support the claim that research was manipulated. >>> but also notes that the request was refused by Johns Hopkins. >No, it didn't? The article specifically says, repeatedly, that that policy was implemented... Yes, it does, in the very section you quote: 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. WPATH tried to change their policy, and Johns Hopkins refused to go along with it. Which might go a long way towards explaining why they stopped publishing work sponsored by WPATH. With regard to whether the one paper they did publish was manipulated, as noted above, there is no evidence that WPATH made any changes---only that they reviewed it. Maybe they did request changes and Johns Hopkins refused and published anyway. If you want to prove manipulation of research (a very strong claim), you'd need to show that they requested changes, that those changes constituted academic fraud, and that Johns Hopkins made the changes. Handwaving about reviews doesn't cut it.

readthenotes1 2y ago

Otoh, WPATH stating "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,” and there only being one paper published after the checklist came into existence seems to indicate otherwise.

vannevar 2y ago
You're speculating here. Let me speculate as well: if I were a research institution working with an advocacy group, and the group decided it wanted review and veto authority over my research, I would go ahead and publish my research to that point and stop working with the advocacy group. Which speculation is right? There's no way to tell from the evidence in the article. Which is my point. Research manipulation is a strong claim, and requires strong evidence. There is none in this article.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > You're speculating here Its not, wanting to review before publication is done to manipulate the research, that is strong evidence of manipulation so you don't have to speculate any longer. The speculation is whether that manipulation was good or bad or even what kind of manipulation they are doing, but we don't have to speculate whether it happens or not.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    > Its not, wanting to review before publication is done to manipulate the research, This is not fact. There are multiple possibilities that do not include manipulation. If there was manipulation, there would be a recourse to pursue for fraud.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      > If there was manipulation, there would be a recourse to pursue for fraud. Its legal to manipulate research except some extreme levels of manipulation. Legal manipulation is still manipulation, there is a reason companies pays so much to publish their own science, its so they can manipulate it. This is just the same as that. Example of legal way to manipulate research: Stop anything you don't like from getting published. There is nothing illegal about that but that can massively hurt science.
      - Supermancho 2y ago
        > This is just the same as that. You are making another baseless assumption. > Example of legal way to manipulate research: Stop anything you don't like from getting published. What I think you are implying, is that it won't be popularized enough, soon enough, to serve some interest. I only think this because, well...how would you stop someone from posting the original on torrent? Your concern has nothing to do with the science, per se, but how it's perceived. What if it passed through with 0 manipulation? The inverse thinking is being casually dismissed, which is bad faith. Good luck with that.

gwern 2y ago

The content does support it? They show with quotes that WPATH demands pre-publication review & approval for the purposes of making sure any publication is “thoroughly scrutinised and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense,” that output has cratered in the way you would expect from pre-publication approval requirements intended to create publication bias: > 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. (Where are those other 6 systematic reviews if it is purely 'speculative' that WPATH has not been approving them?) that their guidelines are not based on systematic reviews as claimed but other motivations: > Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman 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. and that WPATH-approved articles have been publishing fraudulent claims about their involvement: > 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.) (Which at the least implies that a correction needs to be issued by the journal which published that article if the disclosures are false...) >> but also notes that the request was refused by Johns Hopkins. No, it didn't? The article specifically says, repeatedly, that that policy was implemented: > 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...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.

vannevar 2y ago
>> 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. >(Where are those other 6 systematic reviews if it is purely 'speculative' that WPATH has not been approving them?) Does "material for six systematic reviews" actually mean they were planning to publish six distinct reviews? The author doesn't say, leaving us to speculate. When in the six years since was the material provided? The author doesn't say. They could've only intended to publish the single review that in fact did get published. We can only speculate. Did WPATH provide any feedback on the material submitted? The author doesn't say, leaving us to speculate. >> Another document recently unsealed shows that Rachel Levine, a trans woman 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. This is irrelevant to the question of whether Johns Hopkins' research was manipulated, which is the contention of the article. Even then, it only makes an unsubstantiated a claim an unspecified court document supports the idea that WPATH was pressured to change their standard of care, which even if true doesn't support the claim that research anywhere has been manipulated. >> 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.) >(Which at the least implies that a correction needs to be issued by the journal which published that article if the disclosures are false...) The existence of a WPATH checklist does not mean that any changes were made at their request, which is the evidence you have to have to support the claim that research was manipulated. >>> but also notes that the request was refused by Johns Hopkins. >No, it didn't? The article specifically says, repeatedly, that that policy was implemented... Yes, it does, in the very section you quote: 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. WPATH tried to change their policy, and Johns Hopkins refused to go along with it. Which might go a long way towards explaining why they stopped publishing work sponsored by WPATH. With regard to whether the one paper they did publish was manipulated, as noted above, there is no evidence that WPATH made any changes---only that they reviewed it. Maybe they did request changes and Johns Hopkins refused and published anyway. If you want to prove manipulation of research (a very strong claim), you'd need to show that they requested changes, that those changes constituted academic fraud, and that Johns Hopkins made the changes. Handwaving about reviews doesn't cut it.