(Cass Review)
... for transgender childten took a very similar approach, rejecting over 700 highly relevant research studies and pretending that only one type of research has validity, which, to no one's surprise, let them make garbage conclusions.
The approach to a subject taken by scientists is always political. And sometimes illegitimate and deceitful.
@TheSkeptic
Would love to see a similar article that explains how science had SARS-CoV-2 as "not airborne" and N95 masks as "not working" when Covid started and for years (?) afterwards.
While the deaths and injuries that CAMs cause are regretable, they don't number in the hundreds of millions as the deaths and injuries caused by Covid do.
This Briefing has the #CassReport in part following the path taken by the #CochraneReviewOfMasking where much research was rejected from consideration on the grounds that it didn't meet the very high standards that the authors felt were necessary.
It is fair to ask, "What was the standard of research that these authors provided to show that their chosen standard would produce the best results for real-world trans children in the nearer future?"
@jmcrookston
I'd appreciate more context.
Is your concern about the apparent ignorance by the authors of the #CochraneReviewOfMasking of, "Even more importantly, the submerged material ...".
Or was Jefferson involved in that Review or similar work?
skua