Jessđź‘ľMay 20, 2023

A truly amazing and exhaustively cited act of investigative journalism by the phenomenal @zinnia

It turns out that virtually ALL of the sham "science" behind the anti-trans movement can be traced directly back to a very small number of purely ideologically driven "doctors" citing one another over and over again to try to give the impression that standard evidence based trans healthcare is controversial.

It's basically the scientific equivalent of writing a blog with nothing more than your own opinions, your friend writes an article citing your blog, another friend writes an article citing both of you, and then showing up in front of public health boards saying "see, here's 3 articles showing how I'm right!"

In any normal and reasonable political environment, these quacks would be laughed out of the room with such flimsy "evidence". Yet because the far right has captured statehouses across the country, they're laundering this junk science into "real" science.

https://genderanalysis.net/2023/05/the-far-right-law-firm-alliance-defending-freedom-offered-a-florida-anti-trans-hate-group-15000-to-refute-the-wpath-standards-of-care-for-use-in-litigation/

The far-right law firm Alliance Defending Freedom offered a Florida anti-trans hate group $15,000 to “refute” the WPATH Standards of Care “for use in litigation”

A wider lens on the American College of Pediatricians.

Gender Analysis
Show threadDark Matter Zine
@JessTheUnstill @zinnia If the Lancet won’t publish it, it’s not credible IMO. A blog post is one person’s opinion. Rigorous peer review is more likely to reflect current understandings.
May 21, 2023 at 1:17amWeb
Show threadZinnia JonesMay 21, 2023
@DarkMatterZine @JessTheUnstill Even then, sometimes it's dicey: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831678/
Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines

PubMed Central (PMC)
Show threadDark Matter ZineMay 21, 2023
@zinnia @JessTheUnstill True, there’s never a guarantee, but it’s reasonable to assume that publication in the Lancet implies a reasonable degree of support/agreement with academic understanding at the time of publication.
Show threadKathy E. Gill 🇺🇦May 21, 2023

@DarkMatterZine @zinnia @JessTheUnstill

In defense of The Lancet’s original green light … peer reviewers could not know that Wakefield fabricated his nonsense. It was a more innocent time in science. The fraud and ethical breeches were unimaginable.

I know it was 1998, but even then a 12-person sample should not have made it past peer review.

That said, 12 years was far too long to wait for official mea culpa. Robert Kennedy, Jr is still riding this hobby horse.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/

The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud

PubMed Central (PMC)
Show threadDark Matter ZineMay 22, 2023
@kegill @zinnia @JessTheUnstill Mistakes were made and later acknowledged. It's interesting that the mistake was ... caused by bigotry and ableism. Not surprised.
My basic premise still stands: if it's in the Lancet, an article has more authority than on someone's personal blog.
Show threadKathy E. Gill 🇺🇦May 22, 2023

@DarkMatterZine

Absolutely. The Lancet has more authority on heath-related science and research than most journals.

Show threadOhioCherylMay 21, 2023
@DarkMatterZine @JessTheUnstill @zinnia
Was it The Lancet or BMJ that published the Wakefield nonsense? Even good journals can make mistakes. Or people can use a toehold in a respectable journal to roll out a whole lot more than is justified by what they wrote.
Show threadDark Matter ZineMay 21, 2023
@CRSG @JessTheUnstill @zinnia True. But the example I was replying to was about people blogging BS because politics.
Show threadJasmineMay 21, 2023

@CRSG @DarkMatterZine @JessTheUnstill @zinnia

It was the Lancet. Never should have been published. Caused massive harm and death.