It is disheartening to see an important research institution corrupted by the anti-science activism of the trans lobby. It sounds as though the problem is also spinelessness on the part of this well-respected researcher who is willing to sacrifice the principles of evidence-based medicine he once championed, in order to avoid confrontation with a loud, irrational mob.
THE SLOW DEMISE OF THE AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (AMA)
In 1962 95% of Australian doctors were members of the AMA, by 1987 it was down to 50% and is currently hovering somewhere around 20%.
The British Medical Association (BMA)’s current membership rate around 65%.
…There exists significant differences in positions taken by the two Associations in relation to poorly evidenced treatments and even basic human anatomical and gender terminology. A few examples:
• Gender Affirming Care
AMA: Supports and advocates gender-affirming care for trans children.
BMA: Will conduct its own "evidence-led" evaluation
• What is Woman?
AMA: Defines "woman" as all individuals who identify as women.
BMA: Follows the ‘Equality Act 2010’ that defines a women as per her biological sex.
• What is Man?
AMA: An adult who identifies their gender as male
BMA: The presence of a Y chromosome and male reproductive organs.
. . . Perhaps the most profound differences between the two is the AMA’s indorsement and practice of questionable medical interventions that have the reality and potential to irreversibly damage the lives of those thus treated.
The AMA’s Pelvic Mesh debacle is a case in point and has been described as the worst medical scandal since Thalidomide:
. . . Given the experience of this disaster it would be reasonable to assume that the AMA would have adopted a more cautious approach to the support of ‘inadequately-evidence based therapies’, particularity those that involve children.
. . .The Affirmative Model of Gender Care is an irreversible sterilising and mutilating ‘therapy’ in children with a well-documented long-term history (30+ years) of high suicide, mental health comorbidities and early death rates.
. . . Perhaps the AMA’s tumbling memberships has something to do with the Association’s support of untrialled, unsound and damaging medical interventions. Then there’s the ‘Man/Woman interchange’ concept that some medical professionals might find difficult to take seriously
It is disheartening to see an important research institution corrupted by the anti-science activism of the trans lobby. It sounds as though the problem is also spinelessness on the part of this well-respected researcher who is willing to sacrifice the principles of evidence-based medicine he once championed, in order to avoid confrontation with a loud, irrational mob.
THE SLOW DEMISE OF THE AUSTRALIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (AMA)
In 1962 95% of Australian doctors were members of the AMA, by 1987 it was down to 50% and is currently hovering somewhere around 20%.
The British Medical Association (BMA)’s current membership rate around 65%.
…There exists significant differences in positions taken by the two Associations in relation to poorly evidenced treatments and even basic human anatomical and gender terminology. A few examples:
• Gender Affirming Care
AMA: Supports and advocates gender-affirming care for trans children.
BMA: Will conduct its own "evidence-led" evaluation
• What is Woman?
AMA: Defines "woman" as all individuals who identify as women.
BMA: Follows the ‘Equality Act 2010’ that defines a women as per her biological sex.
• What is Man?
AMA: An adult who identifies their gender as male
BMA: The presence of a Y chromosome and male reproductive organs.
. . . Perhaps the most profound differences between the two is the AMA’s indorsement and practice of questionable medical interventions that have the reality and potential to irreversibly damage the lives of those thus treated.
The AMA’s Pelvic Mesh debacle is a case in point and has been described as the worst medical scandal since Thalidomide:
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/australian-medical-association-president-confirms-ama-was-role-in-pelvic-mesh-scandal-20170822-gy1hzj.html
. . . Given the experience of this disaster it would be reasonable to assume that the AMA would have adopted a more cautious approach to the support of ‘inadequately-evidence based therapies’, particularity those that involve children.
. . .The Affirmative Model of Gender Care is an irreversible sterilising and mutilating ‘therapy’ in children with a well-documented long-term history (30+ years) of high suicide, mental health comorbidities and early death rates.
. . . Perhaps the AMA’s tumbling memberships has something to do with the Association’s support of untrialled, unsound and damaging medical interventions. Then there’s the ‘Man/Woman interchange’ concept that some medical professionals might find difficult to take seriously
Do these research scientists care more for accolades from politically active interest groups or for truth in science?