This was an astonishing interview. I thought this man discredited himself over and over with his equivocations and frank ignorance. His final statements revealing that he did not read what he signed, and his excuse of being too busy and important to do so was breathtaking arrogance. Thanks for this article putting it in perspective, Mia. I hope Guyatt makes a public retraction and McMaster stands up for these researchers and their work in preparing the reviews.
Well said, Mia. Another great article by a woman who writes like she has the facts and ethics on her side. Thank you for diligently studying this issue, understanding it, and then courageously speaking the truth about it. Since you bothered to actually know what you're talking about, and have bravely taken an unwavering stand against this medical scandal, your words will age well. Not so for the words of the ideologues and the cowards who capitulate to them.
Note: I regret name-calling: "ideologues" and "cowards" - as if that defines their persons. I should have found a way to refer to their beliefs and behaviors without labeling the people themselves *as* their beliefs and behaviors. So concerned about the harms done by their actions, I forgot to make that important distinction.
I listened to this podcast episode today during my workout at the gym. Wow! I couldn't believe this guy. Thanks for bring this to light:
"When pressed about why he had recently signed a statement declaring “gender-affirming care” for youth “medically necessary,” he snapped. “How ridiculous! I would never say that…I never use the term medically necessary…if you can find it in my statement, I’ll have to jump off a bridge.” But when read the passage that clearly states the interventions to be “medically necessary,” he laughed and admitted he hadn’t read the statement carefully: “That was not my paragraph. I didn’t read it…apparently…I only paid attention to the part I wrote.”
Thank you for this interesting and enlightening episode!
"Unsealed documents in Boe v Marshall revealed WPATH’s explicit goal was to 'ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender healthcare in the broadest sense.'"
When the findings of research show there is insufficient evidence of need, safety and/or effectiveness to justify the use of extremely invasive, physically destructive interventions, the proper ethical response is to withhold those procedures from patients. So if publication of well conducted research does "negatively affect the provision of transgender healthcare in the broadest sense" that is exactly what is supposed to happen. First of all, because as Ms. Hughes states, there is no such thing as a transgender child or adolescent, or adult, for that matter. And secondly, if people have a mental illness classifiable as "gender dysphoria," they are entitled to receive evidence-based psychological treatments for mental illness, not crackpot cosmetic surgeries.
Mia, what a powerful, perfect response to this latest chapter in the scandal of peddling snake oil sex changes to children. I can more than imagine your fury after that interview, and I deeply respect your perseverance in tirelessly explaining to the world what is actually happening. Thank you also for highlighting here the horror of the parents who fight so hard to keep our children safe from the syringes and scalpels of the clinicians I used to call malevolently benevolent but who now don’t deserve the benefit of doubt and should be seen as pure evil.
Thank you for this and for your composure during a difficult interview. The interview was stunning. It revealed in real time what has been going on in the larger world. Like you said it was a microcosm. The madness and arrogance juxtaposed against the two of you grounded in reality and truth.
Good summary article but it does create a problem.
If evidence-based medicine is distinct from medical practice, then is medical practice made up from thin air? If the supporter of evidence-based medicine doesn’t use evidence in medical statements is evidence based medicine based on evidence. The mind reels.
This is where there is a strong difference between science and the practice of medicine.
Medicine like law or architecture is a practice, a body of knowledge of which some may be science (infectious disease), some may be fiction (gender medicine), or placebo (acupuncture), or pure nonsense (homeopathy). Medicine is not engineering.
You and Stella were amazing, Mia! What a gentle and effective coup it was! So lovely to see women disarm the so-called father of EBM. See you in NM!!
This was an astonishing interview. I thought this man discredited himself over and over with his equivocations and frank ignorance. His final statements revealing that he did not read what he signed, and his excuse of being too busy and important to do so was breathtaking arrogance. Thanks for this article putting it in perspective, Mia. I hope Guyatt makes a public retraction and McMaster stands up for these researchers and their work in preparing the reviews.
Well said, Mia. Another great article by a woman who writes like she has the facts and ethics on her side. Thank you for diligently studying this issue, understanding it, and then courageously speaking the truth about it. Since you bothered to actually know what you're talking about, and have bravely taken an unwavering stand against this medical scandal, your words will age well. Not so for the words of the ideologues and the cowards who capitulate to them.
Note: I regret name-calling: "ideologues" and "cowards" - as if that defines their persons. I should have found a way to refer to their beliefs and behaviors without labeling the people themselves *as* their beliefs and behaviors. So concerned about the harms done by their actions, I forgot to make that important distinction.
Here's to calming down before commenting.
I listened to this podcast episode today during my workout at the gym. Wow! I couldn't believe this guy. Thanks for bring this to light:
"When pressed about why he had recently signed a statement declaring “gender-affirming care” for youth “medically necessary,” he snapped. “How ridiculous! I would never say that…I never use the term medically necessary…if you can find it in my statement, I’ll have to jump off a bridge.” But when read the passage that clearly states the interventions to be “medically necessary,” he laughed and admitted he hadn’t read the statement carefully: “That was not my paragraph. I didn’t read it…apparently…I only paid attention to the part I wrote.”
Thank you for this interesting and enlightening episode!
"Unsealed documents in Boe v Marshall revealed WPATH’s explicit goal was to 'ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender healthcare in the broadest sense.'"
When the findings of research show there is insufficient evidence of need, safety and/or effectiveness to justify the use of extremely invasive, physically destructive interventions, the proper ethical response is to withhold those procedures from patients. So if publication of well conducted research does "negatively affect the provision of transgender healthcare in the broadest sense" that is exactly what is supposed to happen. First of all, because as Ms. Hughes states, there is no such thing as a transgender child or adolescent, or adult, for that matter. And secondly, if people have a mental illness classifiable as "gender dysphoria," they are entitled to receive evidence-based psychological treatments for mental illness, not crackpot cosmetic surgeries.
Mia, what a powerful, perfect response to this latest chapter in the scandal of peddling snake oil sex changes to children. I can more than imagine your fury after that interview, and I deeply respect your perseverance in tirelessly explaining to the world what is actually happening. Thank you also for highlighting here the horror of the parents who fight so hard to keep our children safe from the syringes and scalpels of the clinicians I used to call malevolently benevolent but who now don’t deserve the benefit of doubt and should be seen as pure evil.
Thank you for this and for your composure during a difficult interview. The interview was stunning. It revealed in real time what has been going on in the larger world. Like you said it was a microcosm. The madness and arrogance juxtaposed against the two of you grounded in reality and truth.
Good summary article but it does create a problem.
If evidence-based medicine is distinct from medical practice, then is medical practice made up from thin air? If the supporter of evidence-based medicine doesn’t use evidence in medical statements is evidence based medicine based on evidence. The mind reels.
This is where there is a strong difference between science and the practice of medicine.
Medicine like law or architecture is a practice, a body of knowledge of which some may be science (infectious disease), some may be fiction (gender medicine), or placebo (acupuncture), or pure nonsense (homeopathy). Medicine is not engineering.
Why isn’t all medicine “evidence-based”?
It’s astonishing isn’t it.
Medical practice isn’t synonymous with science.