Read on Twitter
Michael Biggs response to the published Tavistock Early Intervention paper: ‘More questions than answers about the outcomes of puberty suppression’ https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comment?id=10.1371%2Fannotation%2F71faadb8-de18-4c65-9482-93ded40984b6&s=08
‘Whether it is ethical for researchers to give an experimental drug to children if they expect the drug to provide no relief to their condition deserves reflection’
‘In both datasets [...] girls’ body image worsened following GnRHa, while boys’ body image improved. By combining both sexes, the paper makes it impossible to discern such patterns. The dataset released by the authors omits the variable for sex.’
‘The dataset released by the authors omits their indexes of self-harm and the questions used to construct them.’
‘The authors have thus, perhaps inadvertently, undermined a significant portion of the overall evidence supporting the use of GnRHa to treat gender dysphoria.’
‘The paper confirms the detrimental effect of GnRHa on bone mineral density’
‘Considered as a treatment in its own right, the suppression of puberty with GnRHa might be the only treatment provided by the NHS for which there is no objective evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks—as the authors themselves admitted in their statistical plan.’