I need to scream over and over. The Cass Review is not peer reviewed. Scientifically, it's a blog paid for by NHS.
It’s had several peer reviewed rebuttals that are damning, however.
Any chance you have some links handy? I just had an argument with my brother about this issue but didn't have any sources.
How often do meta analyses get peer review? I was under the impression that it is relatively common for meta analyses to not be peer reviewed because no new studies are being conducted.
Feck my effort comment didn't post.
Tldr: meta analysis get peer reviewed like any sort of study.
Michael Gove got pilloried by every shitlib media figure, Labour politician, and civil servant for saying "the public have had enough of experts".
Now all those same people may not say it out loud, but have adopted a much more deeply destructive and craven hatred for experts, actual science, or policy research and are enacting it regularly to kill the public.
These people deserve to be dragged before a court of the people they've harmed and loved ones of the people they've callously killed with this bullshit and be sentenced accordingly.
The tweet says it like Cass isnt popping a fucking bottle of champagne over the people she killed
Link: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/trans-youth-suicides-covered-up-by
Although I thought the report did mention the eight ruled suicides. I'll need to check that again. EDIT: it did not, however it looked at data from other studies about suicidality in countries other than the UK. This seems like a result of the report not doing original research and just being a systematic review because I don't know if the instances Erin is talking about have been published.
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
Thank you very much!