Benjamin Ryan(@benryanwriter) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Tracy Slater Dr Erica Anderson SEGM All the systematic literature reviews on which the Cass Review was partially based are here:

adc.bmj.com/pages/gender-iโ€ฆ

account_circle
GJ2(@Kindun526) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Dr Erica Anderson Tracy Slater SEGM So you admit your own history councilling children being abused into opposite sex impersonation was based on insufficient evidence?

account_circle
Benjamin Ryan(@benryanwriter) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Tracy Slater Dr Erica Anderson SEGM Actually, the University of York systematic literature reviews that fed into the Cass Review did break up their analysis by blockers and hormones. So did the NICE review in England in 2020.

account_circle
BrizaFridata(@BrizaFridata) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Tracy Slater Dr Erica Anderson SEGM Because clinics didnโ€™t follow up once the minors either left the clinic or reached adulthood. If there is no long term follow up, there, obviously, canโ€™t be data on long term outcomes.

account_circle
Tracy Slater(@fourstories) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Dr Erica Anderson SEGM One honest question, Dr. E, re: something that confuses me: Why does this study combine data from studies on blockers vs THT? In terms of kiddos, especialy younger ones, access to blockers seems like a different issue than access to THT, and it seems unhelpful to conflate the two

account_circle
Tracy Slater(@fourstories) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Dr Erica Anderson SEGM Another confusion: 'Research found some serious health consequences of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, particularly when treatments are started in minors'--but none of the citations/studies referenced lead to any new evidence of serious consequences from blockers.??

account_circle
Dr Erica Anderson(@eanderh) 's Twitter Profile Photo

Tracy Slater SEGM There is too little research on both. Cass commission reported on systematic evidence reviews of each which were separated. They were published in BMJ.

account_circle