Identifying the researchers awarded $5 million in taxpayers' money for a gender clinic study could expose them to harm, according to an Australian funding agency
The ethics of using a control group to measure effectiveness is well established, so that statement by the groups reeks of motivated reasoning and obfuscation. Of course pouring attention, love bombing children and offering them a simple answer to complex mental anguish is already a powerful placebo in the short term. We desperately need new treatments funded equivalently.
We're very close to gender researchers just confirming their biases through a myriad of ways (they clearly already have formed a view and will be desperate to confirm it) and then claiming they have reached a higher evidence standard and have settled the matter.
The issue is upstream from medicine and requires strong leadership across institutions and a strong fourth estate. Both have been sorely lacking.
Oh Bernard, this is so very concerning. When FOI officers are so indoctrinated and politicised they’re failing to do their job on previously partially released information - we are in a whole world of pain.
“chief executive Professor Steve Wesselingh hails”… non-binary nonsense in last years annual report this is just awful. Head, wall, bang.
Thankyou for doing this painstaking work Bernard. I hope you can stand appealing to the OAIC or Ombudsman- whomevers next.
For those who may have missed the impressive report on ‘Binary’ by Kiralie Smith I post part herewith:
Justice Strum took issue with the “concerning” evidence given by Professor Telfer in relation to the landmark UK Cass review, which recommended restrictions on medication for children with gender dysphoria.
He said Professor Telfer “disagrees with much” of the Cass review, which “manifestly runs contrary to her life’s work as an ‘advocate’ for the cause in relation to which the Cass Report urges, at least, greater caution”.
He also raised concerns over Professor Telfer’s suggestion that “trans people and their families are best placed to know what is in their best interests”.
“One is left to wonder how that is so, given the complexity of the expert medical evidence adduced in this case,” he said. “Further, even if that be so, in circumstances where the parents are in disagreement as to what is in the best interests of their child and turn to the court, it is for the court to so decide, based on the evidence adduced.”
Prof Telfer tried the Nazi association line that so many trans activists attempt to employ. The judge refused to be drawn in.
Justice Strum said the characterisation had “no place whatsoever in the independent evidence that should be expected of such an expert”.
“It demonstrates ignorance of the true evils of Nazism and cheapens the sufferings – and mass murder – of the millions of the victims thereof, which included, but were most certainly not limited to, transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, amongst other groups of people,” he wrote. “I consider there to be no comparison whatsoever.”
A few little points. Notice the sleight of hand by using the word people in "trans people" instead of children. This is a trick that has been used by the woman who recieved the large research grant in California, who delayed releasing the results.
Also, making comparisons to Nazis invokes Godwins Law, which means the one making the comparison has run out of ideas, and therefore loses the debate.
"A clinical trial would make explicit to under-age participants and their families that the medical interventions are experimental." All patients receiving "affirming care" from any health provider should be informed of the experimental nature of this treatment; without any evidence to support the treatment, all patients are essentially part of a vast uncontrolled experiment, aren't they?
I wonder why Bernard was not included? And Kirralee Smith, Dr Jillian Spencer, or anyone else who might not be willing to go with flow and question the other members of the enquiry? Or any of the contributors to Devastated’ - Kirralee’s book of testimonies from distraught parents and question doctors?
These people visiting this evil on our children seem so afraid of transparency and truth. It’s like the vaccine debate, the advocates won’t have it because they might be found out. All health and medicine should be up for debate and a robust one at that.
What kind of system do we have in healthcare that allows a doctor whose practices and words were questioned in a court of law to continue to receive medical research funds?
And such a biased set of ‘researchers’ to boot in this enquiry . Why don’t they ask Dr Jillian Spencer and other doctors who question the trans narrative to join him?
The ethics of using a control group to measure effectiveness is well established, so that statement by the groups reeks of motivated reasoning and obfuscation. Of course pouring attention, love bombing children and offering them a simple answer to complex mental anguish is already a powerful placebo in the short term. We desperately need new treatments funded equivalently.
We're very close to gender researchers just confirming their biases through a myriad of ways (they clearly already have formed a view and will be desperate to confirm it) and then claiming they have reached a higher evidence standard and have settled the matter.
The issue is upstream from medicine and requires strong leadership across institutions and a strong fourth estate. Both have been sorely lacking.
Oh Bernard, this is so very concerning. When FOI officers are so indoctrinated and politicised they’re failing to do their job on previously partially released information - we are in a whole world of pain.
“chief executive Professor Steve Wesselingh hails”… non-binary nonsense in last years annual report this is just awful. Head, wall, bang.
Thankyou for doing this painstaking work Bernard. I hope you can stand appealing to the OAIC or Ombudsman- whomevers next.
You either have FO1 or you don't. Blocking FOI requests using lame, incoherent and vague excuses is unacceptable.
For those who may have missed the impressive report on ‘Binary’ by Kiralie Smith I post part herewith:
Justice Strum took issue with the “concerning” evidence given by Professor Telfer in relation to the landmark UK Cass review, which recommended restrictions on medication for children with gender dysphoria.
He said Professor Telfer “disagrees with much” of the Cass review, which “manifestly runs contrary to her life’s work as an ‘advocate’ for the cause in relation to which the Cass Report urges, at least, greater caution”.
He also raised concerns over Professor Telfer’s suggestion that “trans people and their families are best placed to know what is in their best interests”.
“One is left to wonder how that is so, given the complexity of the expert medical evidence adduced in this case,” he said. “Further, even if that be so, in circumstances where the parents are in disagreement as to what is in the best interests of their child and turn to the court, it is for the court to so decide, based on the evidence adduced.”
Prof Telfer tried the Nazi association line that so many trans activists attempt to employ. The judge refused to be drawn in.
Justice Strum said the characterisation had “no place whatsoever in the independent evidence that should be expected of such an expert”.
“It demonstrates ignorance of the true evils of Nazism and cheapens the sufferings – and mass murder – of the millions of the victims thereof, which included, but were most certainly not limited to, transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, amongst other groups of people,” he wrote. “I consider there to be no comparison whatsoever.”
A few little points. Notice the sleight of hand by using the word people in "trans people" instead of children. This is a trick that has been used by the woman who recieved the large research grant in California, who delayed releasing the results.
Also, making comparisons to Nazis invokes Godwins Law, which means the one making the comparison has run out of ideas, and therefore loses the debate.
Dear Bernard, thank for your continued efforts to turn this madness around.
Please keep up your good work, even in the face of such adversity, please.
In trying to keep up with what is happening in this strange sphere we find
ourselves in, your writings and your work is invaluable. I come here first.
I read and research what I can, and in another person's writings the phrase
"...Soon this blip in history will be gone..." is forever engraved on my heart.
Excuse some outrage on my part, but this "blip" in history has convinced three of my
beloved and broken grandchildren to believe the lies of this cult and think they can
become the opposite sex. They, and so many others are having their lives ruined as
this travesty has played out in America and other countries through greed, control,
and deception. The evil that has been glossed over and even celebrated will go on,
unless people like you and (thankfully) more and more of us continue the fight.
We have a long way to go in this journey, Bernard, I will keep on praying and being
grateful for you. Thank you.
Love, Indio
Thanks Indio. B
"A clinical trial would make explicit to under-age participants and their families that the medical interventions are experimental." All patients receiving "affirming care" from any health provider should be informed of the experimental nature of this treatment; without any evidence to support the treatment, all patients are essentially part of a vast uncontrolled experiment, aren't they?
Indeed. Now where else have seen this? It seems to be the way of medicine these days.
I wonder why Bernard was not included? And Kirralee Smith, Dr Jillian Spencer, or anyone else who might not be willing to go with flow and question the other members of the enquiry? Or any of the contributors to Devastated’ - Kirralee’s book of testimonies from distraught parents and question doctors?
These people visiting this evil on our children seem so afraid of transparency and truth. It’s like the vaccine debate, the advocates won’t have it because they might be found out. All health and medicine should be up for debate and a robust one at that.
What kind of system do we have in healthcare that allows a doctor whose practices and words were questioned in a court of law to continue to receive medical research funds?
And such a biased set of ‘researchers’ to boot in this enquiry . Why don’t they ask Dr Jillian Spencer and other doctors who question the trans narrative to join him?