This has all the earmarks of a sham “review,” as the author details. I have zero confidence in the AAP and the medical establishment. This madness will end only when physicians, medical associations, and health insurance companies pay tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits.
So, do we believe this systematic review of the evidence will be legit? Or will they find a way to torque the “evidence” to show that “gender-affirming care” is beneficial to minors?
I agree that it looks like this will be a sham review. However, I am hopeful that they see the writing on the wall, and are simply taking the path of least resistance in laying the groundwork that they think they will need to wiggle out of some of those future lawsuits. Their slippery wording and upfront assumptions are, in my opinion, to avoid bringing down the wrath of the TRAs against them right now.
Would love for some of the current lawsuits (e.g., Chloe Cole) to be found in favor of the plaintiffs before this review is completed. I think it would force them to come to a more definitive conclusion.
According to the Affirmation Generation movie, a group of pediatricians who are AAP members already did a systematic review and tried to present it to the AAP leadership, but they refused to look at it. That review must still be in the AAP's possession and they continue to ignore it. Will it ever resurface? Sorry I don't remember the name of the doctor in the movie who talked about this.
I am still shocked that they will continue to provide this so-called "gender affirming care" or, what might be called uncalled for mutilation and sterilization, without having performed a systematic review, and in the face of the systematic reviews that have all resulted in other countries pulling back on these treatments. First do no harm would seem to necessitate that they not provide medical interventions without first determining if they are truly beneficial! What am I missing here?
Before sex Lysenkoism (either as cover for groomers or to save the planet from overpopulation) had reached my life in the form of some of my friends' and husband's colleagues' teenagers, I had noticed that preferred outcome driven interpretation of evidence was corrupting foster care children's dependency cases. Drug rehab graduates are not studied for enough years or with sufficient depth of investigation to justify the blind faith that fuels drug court confidence in the rehabilitative process. One case manger in in Broward County Courthouse told a judge that the urine test could not be adulterated or diluted by drinking a gallon of water and other methods about which I expressed concern (because the drug abuse in that case had bragged about previous success with cheating drug tests). The case worker's statement counted as the voice of science for that specific court case despite the fact that her words directly contradicted the words of the director of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. I was so disturbed by a dilute lan report being overlooked by this court that I later brought scientific journal articles from the International Journal of Toxicology and from John's Hopkins University, us a copy of the transcript from a Congressional hearing to the judge's secretary to ace in the judge's mailbox. I was determined to have real science inform that case and not let it be predetermined by a social worker job performance metrics or a political agenda. The Annie E. Casey Foundation does have reports of findings that DCF and ChildNet do have metrics that pressure social workers to close cases, not based on child safety and well-being but on their own organizational goals.
One huge thing has been left out: put male to female and female to male in separate categories for data analysis. Crazy that they have not been doing this so far.
I’m fascinated by the idea that they will bring in child and adolescent psychiatrists - child and adolescent psychiatrists are NOT pediatricians. They do not seem to have a any whatsoever on their board when I glanced. They are physical doctors generally, and their “support” of a given psychiatric direction is as meaningless as an endocrinologist making psychiatric evaluations, a dentist making psychiatric evaluations, or a podiatrist.
The entire basis for the “assessment” to me is suspect.
The assessment must begin with answering the question why do pediatricians believe they are psychiatrists? What are their qualifications to say anything about child and adolescent psychiatry? And why should we care about their “evaluation” any more than an evaluation by dentists?
I fully expect no change in the policy as a result of this review. The AAP has been captured and will not be brave enough to follow evidence objectively, but will, rather, stick to what is politically correct and "kind."
One must ask them why are advanced European and Scandinavian nations are coming to a very different conclusion, despite similar populations and treatments? Then watch them squirm and fire off accusations of transphobia.
An irony I noticed during my 2 years of searching for any information that could help me understand the current state of child dependency law, trends, and science, is that a medical doctor, who owns a drug rehab in Broward county, openly admitted that many types of drug test cheating occurs. He described all sorts of types of cheating and did not think rehab and drug testing was infallible, which is how the case worker described it to the drug court linked to the child dependency court case I was referring to prior. Judges seem to have to rule based on what presented to them during the court hearings. If what's presented is poor quality, then justice is probably not going to be served. It's the same as with scientific research.
How refreshing to have actual scientists advocating for and specifying the protocol for an evidence-based review. I agree, though, with other commenters, that in these United States, it's likely lawsuits, not evidence, will eventually ashcan "gender-affirming care." The only thing more powerful than politics is profit. When it becomes financially unattractive -- or even financially dangerous -- to providers, they will conclude that gender-affirming care is unsupported by evidence.
We know a good portion of published research is garbage. Now factor in hundreds of millions of dollars to be made off of this and I’m going to bet the scale will be heavily tipped.
Thought this would be of interest.....I suspect you will hear more about this. Thoughts from anyone?
"The Myth Of "Low Quality Evidence" Around Transgender Care
Recent discussions among legislators and think tanks opposed to gender-affirming care highlight a recurring claim: "There is no high-quality evidence." It's time to address this misconception."
This has all the earmarks of a sham “review,” as the author details. I have zero confidence in the AAP and the medical establishment. This madness will end only when physicians, medical associations, and health insurance companies pay tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits.
So, do we believe this systematic review of the evidence will be legit? Or will they find a way to torque the “evidence” to show that “gender-affirming care” is beneficial to minors?
I agree that it looks like this will be a sham review. However, I am hopeful that they see the writing on the wall, and are simply taking the path of least resistance in laying the groundwork that they think they will need to wiggle out of some of those future lawsuits. Their slippery wording and upfront assumptions are, in my opinion, to avoid bringing down the wrath of the TRAs against them right now.
Would love for some of the current lawsuits (e.g., Chloe Cole) to be found in favor of the plaintiffs before this review is completed. I think it would force them to come to a more definitive conclusion.
According to the Affirmation Generation movie, a group of pediatricians who are AAP members already did a systematic review and tried to present it to the AAP leadership, but they refused to look at it. That review must still be in the AAP's possession and they continue to ignore it. Will it ever resurface? Sorry I don't remember the name of the doctor in the movie who talked about this.
I am still shocked that they will continue to provide this so-called "gender affirming care" or, what might be called uncalled for mutilation and sterilization, without having performed a systematic review, and in the face of the systematic reviews that have all resulted in other countries pulling back on these treatments. First do no harm would seem to necessitate that they not provide medical interventions without first determining if they are truly beneficial! What am I missing here?
Before sex Lysenkoism (either as cover for groomers or to save the planet from overpopulation) had reached my life in the form of some of my friends' and husband's colleagues' teenagers, I had noticed that preferred outcome driven interpretation of evidence was corrupting foster care children's dependency cases. Drug rehab graduates are not studied for enough years or with sufficient depth of investigation to justify the blind faith that fuels drug court confidence in the rehabilitative process. One case manger in in Broward County Courthouse told a judge that the urine test could not be adulterated or diluted by drinking a gallon of water and other methods about which I expressed concern (because the drug abuse in that case had bragged about previous success with cheating drug tests). The case worker's statement counted as the voice of science for that specific court case despite the fact that her words directly contradicted the words of the director of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. I was so disturbed by a dilute lan report being overlooked by this court that I later brought scientific journal articles from the International Journal of Toxicology and from John's Hopkins University, us a copy of the transcript from a Congressional hearing to the judge's secretary to ace in the judge's mailbox. I was determined to have real science inform that case and not let it be predetermined by a social worker job performance metrics or a political agenda. The Annie E. Casey Foundation does have reports of findings that DCF and ChildNet do have metrics that pressure social workers to close cases, not based on child safety and well-being but on their own organizational goals.
Science and ethics depend on one another.
One huge thing has been left out: put male to female and female to male in separate categories for data analysis. Crazy that they have not been doing this so far.
I’m fascinated by the idea that they will bring in child and adolescent psychiatrists - child and adolescent psychiatrists are NOT pediatricians. They do not seem to have a any whatsoever on their board when I glanced. They are physical doctors generally, and their “support” of a given psychiatric direction is as meaningless as an endocrinologist making psychiatric evaluations, a dentist making psychiatric evaluations, or a podiatrist.
The entire basis for the “assessment” to me is suspect.
The assessment must begin with answering the question why do pediatricians believe they are psychiatrists? What are their qualifications to say anything about child and adolescent psychiatry? And why should we care about their “evaluation” any more than an evaluation by dentists?
I fully expect no change in the policy as a result of this review. The AAP has been captured and will not be brave enough to follow evidence objectively, but will, rather, stick to what is politically correct and "kind."
One must ask them why are advanced European and Scandinavian nations are coming to a very different conclusion, despite similar populations and treatments? Then watch them squirm and fire off accusations of transphobia.
> The AAP has finally agreed to conduct a systematic review of the evidence for “gender-affirming care.” Here’s how they can ensure it’s done right.
The better question is do they want to do it right.
An irony I noticed during my 2 years of searching for any information that could help me understand the current state of child dependency law, trends, and science, is that a medical doctor, who owns a drug rehab in Broward county, openly admitted that many types of drug test cheating occurs. He described all sorts of types of cheating and did not think rehab and drug testing was infallible, which is how the case worker described it to the drug court linked to the child dependency court case I was referring to prior. Judges seem to have to rule based on what presented to them during the court hearings. If what's presented is poor quality, then justice is probably not going to be served. It's the same as with scientific research.
How refreshing to have actual scientists advocating for and specifying the protocol for an evidence-based review. I agree, though, with other commenters, that in these United States, it's likely lawsuits, not evidence, will eventually ashcan "gender-affirming care." The only thing more powerful than politics is profit. When it becomes financially unattractive -- or even financially dangerous -- to providers, they will conclude that gender-affirming care is unsupported by evidence.
We know a good portion of published research is garbage. Now factor in hundreds of millions of dollars to be made off of this and I’m going to bet the scale will be heavily tipped.
I'm just curious anyone's reaction to this latest study, which surprised me:
https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/08/no-regrets-gender-affirming-chest-surgery-in-adults-has-long-term-satisfaction/
Colin et al,
Thought this would be of interest.....I suspect you will hear more about this. Thoughts from anyone?
"The Myth Of "Low Quality Evidence" Around Transgender Care
Recent discussions among legislators and think tanks opposed to gender-affirming care highlight a recurring claim: "There is no high-quality evidence." It's time to address this misconception."
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/the-myth-of-low-quality-evidence