Search results

This is basically it. The intention is to ultimately have a set of minimum standards, such as mandated PEM and proper exclusions. The exclusions would have to be driven by individual cases, obviously, but there have been trials where IOM has been used without any exclusions, so patients with...

The plan is that there will be three modules, each covering a different severity. I was in the meetings and there was a lot of debate about this, but NHSE felt they couldn't adequately cover all severities and experiences in each of the short modules. I advised against the long list of...

Exactly. And on a slightly fatuous note: Gender Exploratory Therapy = GET. So... Maybe Sir Simon has a thing for people GETting it?

The downgrading I don't have a particular issue with. My issue is more with what's used to "fill the gaps". E.g., there are trials that weren't downgraded, where all the people who didn't respond to follow-up were automatically deemed, en masse, to be "treatment desisters" and thus all of them...

Guess who's going to lead the new Children and Young People’s Gender Dysphoria Research Oversight Board? Why, it's our old friend Sir Simon Wessely. I am highly sceptical of the way the Cass Review tries to use NICE-like arguments around evidence quality, for the reasons rvallee points out, but...

Peter Barry does his reading. As do the others. And I know they've read stuff here before too.

I'm a bit pressed for time, but I could certainly consider it. I'll see if I have time this weekend.

The clinics probably draw up their own lists? I can imagine someone did a list for BACME years ago and made sure all their mates were on it. Then it got passed around until it became the standard.

Thanks for this. I see Charles is on it, as usual, but I'll add this to my list of relevant examples. If it helps, I know there are people working behind the scenes to provide new educational materials that will have pretty wide reach and supercede this sort of stuff.

I'm sure anyone would get annoyed if they had to argue the same point over and over again to people with their fingers in their ears.

Exactly. This could work out very well for us.

I think it's a full paper, and that's why it's taken so long. Peter referred to it as a "rebuttal paper". As you note, it's just been successfully submitted into the review process. I can see that Peter's email actually says it's been "submitted for review", and not "accepted for review". I'll...

It has been submitted for review. Peter Barry said it was okay to tell people.

I'm confident it will be good. Peter Barry and Ilora Finlay no doubt helped write it, and they are very clued up. I am always impressed and awed by their level of detail and care.

There are numerous errors here. But they're also performing a number of "questionable research practices" (something I've spent four hours this week having to study -- I got 100%, thanks to this place instilling all the basics in me years ago).

This is just a staggering list of COIs, and so many of them for cash involving legal claims and insurance. I feel icky after reading all that!

At least we aren't calling them crafty!

Technically, "common abuse" isn't defamation. So you can't get sued for calling someone a wanker, no matter how much they may dislike it. It could be hate speech if motivated by other things, but it's not defamation.

I think this is potentially covered in this bit, at least: "Notwithstanding important differences, both reject the way psychiatry denies patient explanations and understandings." In other words, we say GET and CBT don't work and they keep pushing us to try them anyway. All in all, there are...

BTW, The Guardian publishes pay rates here: https://www.theguardian.com/info/guardian-news-media-freelance-charter#50b7c8a0-529c-4329-94f0-b33e487db04b "Commissioned written Contributions Wordage rate: 361.36 per 1,000 words and pro-rated thereafter." They used to be terrible for paying...