Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

I am being urged by N to be open about the state of my health and to do so in order to help others.

A few years ago I was sent a letter by my GP. I forget the fine detail, but essentially I was invited to put a stool sample in a tube with a blue cap and send it off to a private company for testing. Well I didn't.

Later I complained to my GP about problems. She said she would refer me for 'cameras up' and 'cameras down'. Long story short, Covid came along and it never happened. The problems worsened. Eventually, and after many tries I got a GP appointment, this time with a different GP. Again I was referred for camera work and there was blood work. Bowel cancer was confirmed. I've had surgery, and I'm in a better place.

The blood work has revealed another problem. I have leukaemia. I've been waiting for a consultation for a while, but at the hospital they wanted to deal with the bowel cancer before investigating the leukaemia. As a result I suffer from pretty acute fatigue some days and a growing weariness of idiots bleating on, telling lies and as N puts it, 'being deeply unpleasant as people'.

Anyway, if you have an invitation to poop in a tube, put it in an envelope and send if off - just do it.

 

[CXRAndy]

I'd recommend you stop messing around on a tiny forum, get out see family, friends, visit places before it's too late

 

[multitool]

I'd recommend you stop messing around on a tiny forum, get out see family, friends, visit places before it's too late

Probably you should too, Andy.

You might get run over by a turnip lorry tomorrow.

 

[CXRAndy]

Probably you should too, Andy.

You might get run over by a turnip lorry tomorrow.

Never can tell what's around the corner

 

[AuroraSaab]

Editorial in the British Medical Journal, highlighting the poor science behind paediatric gender medicine:

"The evidence base for interventions in gender medicine is threadbare, whichever research question you wish to consider—from social transition to hormone treatment. For example, of more than 100 studies examining the role of puberty blockers and hormone treatment for gender transition only two were of passable quality".

Rightly, the editorial sees the Cass Report as an opportunity for unity and a recalibration: evidence based care for children and adolescents rather than health care driven by activism.


https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q837

 

[multitool]

Rightly, the editorial sees the Cass Report as an opportunity for unity and a recalibration:

Yes it does

evidence based care for children and adolescents rather than health care driven by activism.

No. It doesn't say this AT ALL.

This is typical of your dishonesty.

 

[AuroraSaab]

No. It doesn't say this AT ALL. This is typical of your dishonesty.

Direct quotes from the piece:

"Without doubt, the advocacy and clinical practice for medical treatment of gender dysphoria had moved ahead of the evidence—a recipe for harm.

The best way to support them, however, is not with advocacy and activism based on substandard evidence. The Cass review is an opportunity to pause, recalibrate, and place evidence informed care at the heart of gender medicine".

You are free to interpret the words of the BMJ Editor as you wish. They seem quite clear to me. Ideology and activism were leading the treatment pathway rather than the evidence.

 

[monkers]

Could this be CXRAndy?

A weird fetish but each to his own.

View attachment 5775

Direct quotes from the piece:

"Without doubt, the advocacy and clinical practice for medical treatment of gender dysphoria had moved ahead of the evidence—a recipe for harm.

The best way to support them, however, is not with advocacy and activism based on substandard evidence. The Cass review is an opportunity to pause, recalibrate, and place evidence informed care at the heart of gender medicine".

You are free to interpret the words of the BMJ Editor as you wish. They seem quite clear to me. Ideology and activism were leading the treatment pathway rather than the evidence.

That sentence could equally apply to you as any other activist.

 

[multitool]

Direct quotes from the piece:

"Without doubt, the advocacy and clinical practice for medical treatment of gender dysphoria had moved ahead of the evidence—a recipe for harm.

The best way to support them, however, is not with advocacy and activism based on substandard evidence.

He is not making the link between advocacy and treatment that you are. The implication is not that treatment was driven by advocacy or activism. It is that advocacy and activism were nit evidence led. .and neither was treatment.

We all know that the interim Cass review said treatmentbwas a dogs dinner, and that it was because of a lack of research. This isn't necessarily the fault of GIDS but the result of inadequate funding. We also know that Cass said GIDS could not cope with demand.

 

[monkers]

The Daily Mail reported a couple of days ago how this young trans woman was beaten and robbed by teenage boys while on a bus.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...attack-saw-targeted-beaten-group-men-bus.html

The Daily Mail are among the worse for their attacks on trans people.

The Cass report makes comment on the influence of the media on young people.

If we are to learn from the Cass report, then it is quite wrong to cherry-pick those parts that support the narrative of trans women are violent males and paedophiles. The hate must stop.

 

[AuroraSaab]

That sentence could equally apply to you as any other activist.

I'm not a doctor deciding whether children get put on drugs for years or sent for surgery though. People who are shouldn't let ideology and/or activism lead their clinical decisions, whatever field they work in .

We wouldn't let anti-vax doctors bring their ideology to bear on their clinical decisions or nurses who believe in homeopathy direct ill patients down that route. We should all support evidence led health care.

We all know that the interim Cass review said treatmentbwas a dogs dinner, and that it was because of a lack of research.

It wasn't lack of research. It was taking pisspoor research at face value and deliberately ignoring the lack of evidence of benefit. And ignoring whistle-blowers and staff who did speak out like David Bell, Marcus Evans, and Sonia Appleby.

This isn't necessarily the fault of GIDS but the result of inadequate funding. We also know that Cass said GIDS could not cope with demand.

It is the fault of GIDS if they took up a course of treatment without sound evidence of its efficacy and then failed to do follow ups for 20 plus years so they had no idea whether their treatment worked or not. That's nothing to do with funding. It was a clinical decision.

You need to ask why demand went from 50 referrals a year to 5,000. As Hilary Cass said in the Guardian interview it wasn't because biology had changed, because it hasn't.

I can't think of any other area of medical care where experimental treatment with zero follow up was considered normal.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If we are to learn from the Cass report, then it is quite wrong to cherry-pick those parts that support the narrative of trans women are violent males and paedophiles. The hate must stop.

There's nothing in the Cass Report about anything like that. It's a review of gender care provision for children ...

Cass suggests dropping the word gender from the service's name altogether which is an excellent idea.

 

[monkers]

I'm not a doctor deciding whether children get put on drugs for years or sent for surgery though. People who are shouldn't let ideology and/or activism lead their clinical decisions, whatever field they work in .

We wouldn't let anti-vax doctors bring their ideology to bear on their clinical decisions or nurses who believe in homeopathy direct ill patients down that route. We should all support evidence led health care.

Yes, I note your whataboutery in order to deflect from recognising the point. You could well be one of those activists being referenced by Cass's words. I, on the other hand, despite your inventions to the contrary, am not engaged in any activism.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's not whataboutery to suggest a private individual pursuing advocacy outside work is very different from someone allowing unevidenced ideology to lead the direction of their work.

You haven't even looked at the Cass Report by the sounds of it.

 

[icowden]

No. It doesn't say this AT ALL.
This is typical of your dishonesty.

This is what I really don't understand. @AuroraSaab is giving you her opinion. You disagreed with it and said:-

He is not making the link between advocacy and treatment that you are. The implication is not that treatment was driven by advocacy or activism. It is that advocacy and activism were nit evidence led. .and neither was treatment.

We all know that the interim Cass review said treatmentbwas a dogs dinner, and that it was because of a lack of research. This isn't necessarily the fault of GIDS but the result of inadequate funding. We also know that Cass said GIDS could not cope with demand.

Why the need to accuse someone who interpreted something differently to you of being dishonest, when you had a perfectly good point to make?

Can't we all just try being a bit nicer to each other instead? It just gets a bit wearing after a while. This includes @CXRAndy @AuroraSaab and @monkers too. Shall we try a reset and answer points with points?

(the answer's probably no, but it's worth a try)