The failure of researchers proposing the early intervention study at the Tavistock to include a control group led an ethics approval committee to withhold approval. The researchers got clearance from a second ethics committee (as the rules allowed).
It is difficult to believe that history will be kind to those promoting invasive, irreversible, sterilising ‘gender change’ in young people.
The arguments in favour of continuing on this pathway are becoming ever less plausible with much of the initial supportive ‘science’ eroded.
Also of concern is that many of the practitioners involved in the process of ‘transition’ are also campaigning politically for support of the interventions. This is an inappropriate invasion a domain that should be based on sound, irrevocable science, by which I mean satisfaction of the gold standard clinical trial.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
this certainly applies to Dr Annelou de Vries. Cass said her 2011 study on blockers was at "high risk of bias,” and of “poor quality overall.” then she used 50 or so of the participants from the 2011 study and published a 2014 study, omitting most of the 2011 participants. how were the 2014 study participants chosen? certainly de Vries knew which participants would yield the intended result.
her comments from this article say it all. a classic DARVO comment, in complete denial of the Iatrogenic effects of the meds she promotes.
de vries obtained a PhD in 2010 on Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents. her entire life has been spent in circular thought patterns where social therory forms a sort of xenophobic bias against gays and kids, who, like migrant foreigners of the past, are just another vulnerable group for the ivory tower to further marginalize with their organized deception.
The failure of researchers proposing the early intervention study at the Tavistock to include a control group led an ethics approval committee to withhold approval. The researchers got clearance from a second ethics committee (as the rules allowed).
It is difficult to believe that history will be kind to those promoting invasive, irreversible, sterilising ‘gender change’ in young people.
The arguments in favour of continuing on this pathway are becoming ever less plausible with much of the initial supportive ‘science’ eroded.
Also of concern is that many of the practitioners involved in the process of ‘transition’ are also campaigning politically for support of the interventions. This is an inappropriate invasion a domain that should be based on sound, irrevocable science, by which I mean satisfaction of the gold standard clinical trial.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
this certainly applies to Dr Annelou de Vries. Cass said her 2011 study on blockers was at "high risk of bias,” and of “poor quality overall.” then she used 50 or so of the participants from the 2011 study and published a 2014 study, omitting most of the 2011 participants. how were the 2014 study participants chosen? certainly de Vries knew which participants would yield the intended result.
her comments from this article say it all. a classic DARVO comment, in complete denial of the Iatrogenic effects of the meds she promotes.
de vries obtained a PhD in 2010 on Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents. her entire life has been spent in circular thought patterns where social therory forms a sort of xenophobic bias against gays and kids, who, like migrant foreigners of the past, are just another vulnerable group for the ivory tower to further marginalize with their organized deception.