Posted on 01/16/2023 2:29:44 PM PST by Twotone
Two American medical doctors and a researcher wrote a study picking apart the methodology and key conclusions of two famous Dutch studies that are foundational to the development of modern gender medicine.
The Dutch studies, published in 2011 and 2015 in the Journal of Sexual Medicine and Pediatrics, respectively, by Dutch medical doctor Annelou de Vries and two teams of researchers in the Netherlands, tracked dozens of adolescents as they underwent puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries and concluded that patients’ mental health and well-being improved; both studies were used as evidence in support of childhood cross-sex medical interventions and were widely cited throughout the medical establishment. Dr. Stephen Levine, Dr. Julia Mason and E. Abbruzzese found that methodological biases completely undermined that research in their Jan. 11 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, arguing that the Dutch researchers had skewed the data by only including the most successful cases in their results and failing to control for the confounding effects of psychotherapy.
The 2014 Dutch study followed 55 young adults with gender identity issues through puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery to observe changes in their gender dysphoria, mental health and general wellbeing, and concluded that patients’ dysphoria was alleviated and their psychological functioning had improved. The 2011 Dutch study tracked patients who had undergone puberty blockers to alleviate the distress that puberty can cause patients with gender dysphoria, and concluded that patients who took the drugs saw improvements in their mental health.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
These people are KNUTZ!!!!
We’ve wasted so much money sending people to college just to end up with research that’s “flawed” in so many areas. Truly a crime.
In addition to the methodological errors cited in the article, the study in question was published in 2014, which means it included subjects undergoing ‘treatment’ even earlier, which I expect was a time period well-before kids started presenting with this issue as a consequence (at least in part) of the social contagion that made these matters even more prevalent. To the extent that social contagion was a significant factor in inducing kids with other underlying mental health problems to undergo these ‘treatments’, especially those in their early teens, the results in their cases are likely to make such an approach look even less justifiable.
I like the way that reads, although they probably meant to say "compounding" -- as in, "you can't be sure if it was the blockers and hormones, or the psychotherapy couch."
Do the proponents of this travesty really believe that honest debate over this crucial issue is due to "science denialism"?
Well, I accuse these hacks of being reality deniers.
This whole mess is tragic.
Um... what is trans medicine?!
Well imagine that - denying the reality of biology doesn’t hold up.
Shocking!
Even so, most european nations are far more cautious and even outright opposed to this insanity. The Dutch are something else, but hardly any of their neighbors has any truck with this genderbending garbage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.