The WPATH website defines the ‘Mission’ of the institution as 'to promote ‘evidence based care’, education, research, public policy, and respect in transgender health”.
Obviously the most relevant criteria as it relates to an intervention in otherwise healthy children who are to be subjected to an endocrinological barrage as a prelude to irreversible mutilating sterilising surgery is that the evidence justifying such an invasive process is of the strongest possible order, there is absolutely no room for doubt!
The ‘quality’ or ‘strength’ of the evidence (the evidence base) applied in medical interventions is hierarchical one, from the strongest down to the weakest. The list below summarises the relative strengths of the evidence-base in descending order.
• Level I: Evidence from a systematic review of all relevant randomized controlled trials.
• Level II: Evidence from a meta-analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials.
• Level III: Evidence from evidence summaries developed from systematic reviews
• Level IV: Evidence from guidelines developed from systematic reviews
• Level V: Evidence from meta-syntheses of a group of descriptive or qualitative studies
• Level VI: Evidence from evidence summaries of individual studies
• Level VII: Evidence from one properly designed randomized controlled trial
The current evidence-base applied in the ‘affirmative’ model of gender ‘care’ might qualify for level IV or V. Hardly the heady goal suggested by WPATH
Perhaps an oversimplification but we might regard the impasse as the result of the triumph of empathy over empirical evidence. Once the ideology of gender identity metastasized from our social science based clinical colleagues’ therapeutic aspirations it is proving difficult to put the genie back in the ideological bottle. Unfortunately there was enough empathetic fertile ground within the , largely young and female members ( look at the demographics of the gender clinic lead clinicians and their teams) of the relevant branches of the medical community who have been able to occupy key powerful positions. Basically just misplaced compassion on a grand scale, which is proving to be a stain on the medical profession.
It would be hard to beat this one I recently came across:
"A recent ABC article praised Dr Michelle Telfer for saving the lives of hundreds, even thousands of children – without ‘ever picking up a scalpel or treating a disease".
In the context of 'gender-nonsense-contagion' it would be difficult to beat this one:
"A recent ABC article praised Dr Michelle Telfer for saving the lives of hundreds, even thousands of children – without ‘ever picking up a scalpel or treating a disease"
In the context of nonsense-contagion It would be hard to beat this one:
"A recent ABC article praised Dr Michelle Telfer for saving the lives of hundreds, even thousands of children – without ‘ever picking up a scalpel or treating a disease".
The WPATH website defines the ‘Mission’ of the institution as 'to promote ‘evidence based care’, education, research, public policy, and respect in transgender health”.
Obviously the most relevant criteria as it relates to an intervention in otherwise healthy children who are to be subjected to an endocrinological barrage as a prelude to irreversible mutilating sterilising surgery is that the evidence justifying such an invasive process is of the strongest possible order, there is absolutely no room for doubt!
The ‘quality’ or ‘strength’ of the evidence (the evidence base) applied in medical interventions is hierarchical one, from the strongest down to the weakest. The list below summarises the relative strengths of the evidence-base in descending order.
• Level I: Evidence from a systematic review of all relevant randomized controlled trials.
• Level II: Evidence from a meta-analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials.
• Level III: Evidence from evidence summaries developed from systematic reviews
• Level IV: Evidence from guidelines developed from systematic reviews
• Level V: Evidence from meta-syntheses of a group of descriptive or qualitative studies
• Level VI: Evidence from evidence summaries of individual studies
• Level VII: Evidence from one properly designed randomized controlled trial
The current evidence-base applied in the ‘affirmative’ model of gender ‘care’ might qualify for level IV or V. Hardly the heady goal suggested by WPATH
Perhaps an oversimplification but we might regard the impasse as the result of the triumph of empathy over empirical evidence. Once the ideology of gender identity metastasized from our social science based clinical colleagues’ therapeutic aspirations it is proving difficult to put the genie back in the ideological bottle. Unfortunately there was enough empathetic fertile ground within the , largely young and female members ( look at the demographics of the gender clinic lead clinicians and their teams) of the relevant branches of the medical community who have been able to occupy key powerful positions. Basically just misplaced compassion on a grand scale, which is proving to be a stain on the medical profession.
It would be hard to beat this one I recently came across:
"A recent ABC article praised Dr Michelle Telfer for saving the lives of hundreds, even thousands of children – without ‘ever picking up a scalpel or treating a disease".
In the context of 'gender-nonsense-contagion' it would be difficult to beat this one:
"A recent ABC article praised Dr Michelle Telfer for saving the lives of hundreds, even thousands of children – without ‘ever picking up a scalpel or treating a disease"
In the context of nonsense-contagion It would be hard to beat this one:
"A recent ABC article praised Dr Michelle Telfer for saving the lives of hundreds, even thousands of children – without ‘ever picking up a scalpel or treating a disease".