Dr. Hilary Cass Defends Cass Review Against Misinformation: 'Unforgivable' Risk to Young People
The author of a report on gender identity services for young people in the NHS, Dr Hilary Cass, expressed her anger over misinformation spread about her work.
The Cass review found the evidence for treatments like puberty blockers to be weak.
Dr Cass stated that some claims about her evidence circulating online were incorrect and put young people at risk.
She strongly condemned adults who deliberately spread misinformation.
The report concluded that gender medicine in the NHS was operating on shaky foundations regarding the evidence for medical treatments.
The text discusses a review conducted by Dr. Cass on interventions for managing gender-related distress, which she stated in an interview on the BBC's More or Less: Behind the Stats podcast, revealed that there is a lack of solid evidence on the long-term outcomes of these interventions.
She clarified that claims online, such as 98% of the evidence being ignored or dismissed, were incorrect.
In total, 103 scientific papers were analyzed, with only 2% deemed high quality, and the remaining 98% considered moderate quality and included in the analysis.
Approximately 60% of the studies were included in the analysis.
In the context of double-blind studies, where patients are unaware of whether they are receiving a treatment or placebo, it was noted that young people cannot be blinded to hormone therapy or the onset of puberty.
However, this is not a significant issue as there are other areas where similar limitations apply.
Dr Cass stated that some claims about her evidence circulating online were incorrect and put young people at risk.
She strongly condemned adults who deliberately spread misinformation.
The report concluded that gender medicine in the NHS was operating on shaky foundations regarding the evidence for medical treatments.
The text discusses a review conducted by Dr. Cass on interventions for managing gender-related distress, which she stated in an interview on the BBC's More or Less: Behind the Stats podcast, revealed that there is a lack of solid evidence on the long-term outcomes of these interventions.
She clarified that claims online, such as 98% of the evidence being ignored or dismissed, were incorrect.
In total, 103 scientific papers were analyzed, with only 2% deemed high quality, and the remaining 98% considered moderate quality and included in the analysis.
Approximately 60% of the studies were included in the analysis.
In the context of double-blind studies, where patients are unaware of whether they are receiving a treatment or placebo, it was noted that young people cannot be blinded to hormone therapy or the onset of puberty.
However, this is not a significant issue as there are other areas where similar limitations apply.
