Just over a third of respondents opted for “Preventing [minors] from receiving treatment too early that could have lasting consequences”
Those ‘lasting consequences’ are well illustrated in the huge burden of dreadful health outcomes in the US:
….. US Transgender women have a HIV prevalence around 50 times that of the general adult population (WHO)
…. Long-term post transition studies indicate HIV prevalence is approximately 20% for transgender women and 2.6% for transgender men. (CDC)
….Transgender women have disproportionately high rates of gonorrhoea, syphilis and HIV (CDC)
….Transgender men accounted for 0.16% of all adults and 11% of all transgender adults receiving HIV medical care in the US from 2009 to 2014, a multiple of 70 times (US NIH)
…..Transgender individuals face disproportionately high incarceration rates in the U.S. with lifetime incarceration estimates ranging from 16% to over 37% compared to the 2.5% general population rate
….Near one million people (.3%) identify as transgender in the United States and transgender people made up 2% (671) of new HIV diagnoses in the US (CDC)
….US transgender individuals experience near double mortality rate that of cisgender counterpart, driven by factors such as suicide, homicide and accidental poisoning rather than inherent biological differences (NIH).
Even if they feel this way long term, do these medical interventions benefit them long term (the effects are long term)? Or do they do more harm?
There are two questions in my mind...
As far as being honest, soc 8 says:
"Strong recommendations (“we recommend”) are for those interventions/therapy/strategies where:
the evidence is of high quality
estimates of the effect of an intervention/therapy/strategy (i.e., there is a high degree of certainty effects will be achieved in practice)
there are few downsides of therapy/intervention/strategy
there is a high degree of acceptance among providers and patients or those for whom the recommendation applies."
Soc 8 recommends a lot. Even in the adolescent chapter. They did the systematic reviews and then interfered with them. They didn't find good evidence. They don't have high quality evidence. There isn't high quality evidence!
I think the fraud was committed to their (paying) members who believed their soc 8 and who give these treatments based on them.
Just over a third of respondents opted for “Preventing [minors] from receiving treatment too early that could have lasting consequences”
Those ‘lasting consequences’ are well illustrated in the huge burden of dreadful health outcomes in the US:
….. US Transgender women have a HIV prevalence around 50 times that of the general adult population (WHO)
…. Long-term post transition studies indicate HIV prevalence is approximately 20% for transgender women and 2.6% for transgender men. (CDC)
….Transgender women have disproportionately high rates of gonorrhoea, syphilis and HIV (CDC)
….Transgender men accounted for 0.16% of all adults and 11% of all transgender adults receiving HIV medical care in the US from 2009 to 2014, a multiple of 70 times (US NIH)
…..Transgender individuals face disproportionately high incarceration rates in the U.S. with lifetime incarceration estimates ranging from 16% to over 37% compared to the 2.5% general population rate
….Near one million people (.3%) identify as transgender in the United States and transgender people made up 2% (671) of new HIV diagnoses in the US (CDC)
….US transgender individuals experience near double mortality rate that of cisgender counterpart, driven by factors such as suicide, homicide and accidental poisoning rather than inherent biological differences (NIH).
Even if they feel this way long term, do these medical interventions benefit them long term (the effects are long term)? Or do they do more harm?
There are two questions in my mind...
As far as being honest, soc 8 says:
"Strong recommendations (“we recommend”) are for those interventions/therapy/strategies where:
the evidence is of high quality
estimates of the effect of an intervention/therapy/strategy (i.e., there is a high degree of certainty effects will be achieved in practice)
there are few downsides of therapy/intervention/strategy
there is a high degree of acceptance among providers and patients or those for whom the recommendation applies."
Soc 8 recommends a lot. Even in the adolescent chapter. They did the systematic reviews and then interfered with them. They didn't find good evidence. They don't have high quality evidence. There isn't high quality evidence!
I think the fraud was committed to their (paying) members who believed their soc 8 and who give these treatments based on them.
Here's the rest:
"Weak recommendations (“we suggest”) are for those interventions/therapy/strategies where:
there are weaknesses in the evidence base
there is a degree of doubt about the size of the effect that can be expected in practice
there is a need to balance the potential upsides and downsides of interventions/therapy/strategies
there are likely to be varying degrees of acceptance among providers and patients or those for whom the recommendation applies."
Got this from the nih copy of the article. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9553112/