3 ms·

The recent UK Cass Review concluded "It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evid

by beejiu 1y ago

The recent UK Cass Review concluded "It has been suggested that hormone treatment reduces the elevated risk of death by suicide in this population, but the evidence found did not support this conclusion." Do you have any counter-evidence?

kennywinker 1y ago
Yes: the cass review is very badly done and misinterprets the data available.
- beejiu 1y ago
  So you have no counter evidence?
  - mandmandam 1y ago
    If you actually wanted counter evidence I'm sure you could find it yourself. There's enough of it out there. So, what is it that you're actually looking for?
  - kennywinker 1y ago
    Let me google that for you: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/hormone-therapy-linked-lower-suicide-risk-trans-youths-study-finds-rcna8617 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/horm... And on the subject of the (methodologically trash) cass report: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk_v1 https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk_v1 CRITICALLY APPRAISING THE CASS REPORT: METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS
uv-depression 1y ago
Not the person you were replying to, but the Cass review was quite clearly bunk. Its main thrust is essentially: "there are no double blind studies on the effects of affirming care for minors, so we should stop prescribing it immediately". Aside from the fact that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, how exactly could one do a double blind study on puberty blockers? So the report throws out essentially the entire body of research for failing to meet an impossible to meet standard. Here's more information: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7
- bobalob 1y ago
  > So the report throws out essentially the entire body of research for failing to meet an impossible to meet standard. This is disinformation that is easily shown to be false if you read the final report. In fact this lie was so widely disseminated that the authors felt they had to address it in the FAQs on the Review website: https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/final-report-faqs/#accordion-default-1-heading-2 https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-r... > 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.
  - kennywinker 1y ago
    https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk_v1 https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk_v1 CRITICALLY APPRAISING THE CASS REPORT: METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS

by beejiu 1y ago

kennywinker 1y ago

Yes: the cass review is very badly done and misinterprets the data available.

beejiu 1y ago
So you have no counter evidence?
- mandmandam 1y ago
  If you actually wanted counter evidence I'm sure you could find it yourself. There's enough of it out there. So, what is it that you're actually looking for?
- kennywinker 1y ago
  Let me google that for you: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/hormone-therapy-linked-lower-suicide-risk-trans-youths-study-finds-rcna8617 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/horm... And on the subject of the (methodologically trash) cass report: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk_v1 https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk_v1 CRITICALLY APPRAISING THE CASS REPORT: METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS

uv-depression 1y ago

Not the person you were replying to, but the Cass review was quite clearly bunk. Its main thrust is essentially: "there are no double blind studies on the effects of affirming care for minors, so we should stop prescribing it immediately". Aside from the fact that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, how exactly could one do a double blind study on puberty blockers? So the report throws out essentially the entire body of research for failing to meet an impossible to meet standard. Here's more information: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-025-02581-7

bobalob 1y ago
> So the report throws out essentially the entire body of research for failing to meet an impossible to meet standard. This is disinformation that is easily shown to be false if you read the final report. In fact this lie was so widely disseminated that the authors felt they had to address it in the FAQs on the Review website: https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/final-report-faqs/#accordion-default-1-heading-2 https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-r... > 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.
- kennywinker 1y ago
  https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk_v1 https://osf.io/preprints/osf/uhndk_v1 CRITICALLY APPRAISING THE CASS REPORT: METHODOLOGICAL FLAWS AND UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS