I'm quite disappointed in Dr Cass, to be frank. She is quite correct that a proper *study* needs doing, but this does not mean, nor should it be, a drugs trial. There is no way to blind such a thing, and no effective way to randomise it. There is a large cohort of people out there already that can be accessed for a retrospective study (though that would not be without its problems, such as (deliberate?) poor record-keeping and history-taking on the part of gender-ghouls). Trialling puberty-blockers is the same as trialling PCP - we know the substance is harmful, and any benefits are far outweighed by the risks. I think we are going to have to resort to the law to stop such a trial, if that is possible (I don't think anything like that has ever been litigated, so I don't even know the mechanism!)
Thanks, Jeremy and it does seem as if the Government ( especially with what Dr Cass is saying) are rolling towards a clinical trial!! Therefore I agree that it will need a legal challenge - would it be a judicial review based on the clinical trial guidelines? Do you know if there has been any previous case law on this?
I've been trying to think this through (currently at the hospital with my daughter, so that's an even more limited process than usual), and I can't think of a case where a medical trial was challenged through the courts. Judicial review only acts on public bodies, so DoH , or, maybe... (sorry, back in a bit - doctor coming).
Third attempt at finishing this comment! 😁 Challenging a research project is, as far as I can tell, uncharted territory. There is no precedent I can find. If the funder is a public body, such as the DoH, judicial review is one route, but it would take some very fancy legal footwork. The first hurdle would be showing that the claimant has standing to bring the case, which is far from simple. If that hurdle is cleared, then the heads of claim are limited - the Court can't usually look at whether the decision to fund is correct, just (in general) *how* it was made. (I think I may have the topic of my first Substack - basic judicial review!)
I'm still thinking of other routes of challenge, but it's not easy to see. I'll keep you posted.
Thanks, Jeremy, and that would be a very useful substack piece for the Terven.
Can I add to the mix that there are firms with public law legal aid contracts ie. who could get legal aid to cover a challenge. This would involve one or more of the groups identifying a client who is financially eligible - probably someone on benefits. Bit difficult to know who the client would be - probably a parent? Otherwise it would have to be crowd funded unless there is a rich benefactor knocking about - I have been involved in the occasional rich benefactor case before!!! Obviously the other problem is the risk of very large costs if the challenge is lost. Could ask the court for cost protection on the basis that this is a matter of public interest ( ie. both sides would cover their own costs). I have written to LGB Alliance and Sex Matters about this and will let you know if I get a response.
This may also be relevant re the expected Conversion Practices Bill ( not yet published). I have written to the above about that as well. I have also written to Mr Streeting about clinical trials.
Apart from that I haven't bene doing very much really 🤣
I'll keep thinking, Dusty. If there is a public law angle, standing is going to be a really big problem. I'm also looking at other options - injunctions against the NHS, Human Rights claims, taking action against research ethics committees (almost certainly a non-starter, but who knows?). It's a case of looking in the round to find the weakest link. I'm sure I'm not the only one doing this, and absolutely certain there are people with much better imaginations than me. It will be a long haul regardless - the novel arguments that need to be advanced will almost certainly end up at the Supreme Court.
It seems to me that there is a public law angle ( failure to take account of relevant info ie. guidelines on ethics) but , as you say, the problem may be - who is the client? Unless an organisation takes the case.
Thanks, Petal, TT, Dusty. She's a bit better - it looked like appendicitis, but ultrasound hasn't picked anything up. Her abdomen is still uncomfortable, but at least she is home.
Yes I'm confused as well. She acknowledges that some ( like us) say it would be unethical or even totally unnecessary to have a clinical trial and then she doesn't say what she thinks about those viewpoints!!??
Yes, it's a bit like conducting a trial on how to safely use cocaine. Does it matter if you take it up your nose or inject it into your vein? Um, not really because it is just as addictive and harmful either way.
Recently, Dr Charlotte Paul - an epidemiologist at Otago Uni (NZ) - made the observation that we were handling 'gender medicine' with a rights-based approach, instead of an evidence-based approach. I.e. those who want it have the 'human right' to have it. This is such bonkers, but aligns with the gender ghouls approach you mention above.
That's interesting and it is shocking that, despite the Cass Review, such an approach is being taken - in fact, what is the word I'm looking for? Oh, scandal, that's it! You might have noticed that we are good at scandal here in the UK!!!!
Very disappointing from Cass and I agree with Jeremy as to why trials aren’t necessary. We already have tons of information.
I agree with you on Conrad and Burke. Perhaps Burke should have built up to stronger protests once he saw that nothing was going to be done to protect gender critical views.
The EU directives and from the UN as mentioned by Jana Lunden, just illustrate the amount of global power behind the TQ+ push. I can only think it’s a Trojan Horse to enforce more legislation on people. Lunden is doing great work btw.
I think you’re right to include good pieces about the rape gangs without detracting from gender ideology. That piece is amazing and destroys Labour, which is why they don’t want an inquiry. Interesting that Burnham comes in for lots of criticism and he’s now calling for a limited’ inquiry. How limited? 🤔
Looking forward to re watching the Doyle/Peterson interview again, thanks for reposting.
I'm quite disappointed in Dr Cass, to be frank. She is quite correct that a proper *study* needs doing, but this does not mean, nor should it be, a drugs trial. There is no way to blind such a thing, and no effective way to randomise it. There is a large cohort of people out there already that can be accessed for a retrospective study (though that would not be without its problems, such as (deliberate?) poor record-keeping and history-taking on the part of gender-ghouls). Trialling puberty-blockers is the same as trialling PCP - we know the substance is harmful, and any benefits are far outweighed by the risks. I think we are going to have to resort to the law to stop such a trial, if that is possible (I don't think anything like that has ever been litigated, so I don't even know the mechanism!)
Thanks, Jeremy and it does seem as if the Government ( especially with what Dr Cass is saying) are rolling towards a clinical trial!! Therefore I agree that it will need a legal challenge - would it be a judicial review based on the clinical trial guidelines? Do you know if there has been any previous case law on this?
Dusty
I've been trying to think this through (currently at the hospital with my daughter, so that's an even more limited process than usual), and I can't think of a case where a medical trial was challenged through the courts. Judicial review only acts on public bodies, so DoH , or, maybe... (sorry, back in a bit - doctor coming).
Third attempt at finishing this comment! 😁 Challenging a research project is, as far as I can tell, uncharted territory. There is no precedent I can find. If the funder is a public body, such as the DoH, judicial review is one route, but it would take some very fancy legal footwork. The first hurdle would be showing that the claimant has standing to bring the case, which is far from simple. If that hurdle is cleared, then the heads of claim are limited - the Court can't usually look at whether the decision to fund is correct, just (in general) *how* it was made. (I think I may have the topic of my first Substack - basic judicial review!)
I'm still thinking of other routes of challenge, but it's not easy to see. I'll keep you posted.
Thanks, Jeremy, and that would be a very useful substack piece for the Terven.
Can I add to the mix that there are firms with public law legal aid contracts ie. who could get legal aid to cover a challenge. This would involve one or more of the groups identifying a client who is financially eligible - probably someone on benefits. Bit difficult to know who the client would be - probably a parent? Otherwise it would have to be crowd funded unless there is a rich benefactor knocking about - I have been involved in the occasional rich benefactor case before!!! Obviously the other problem is the risk of very large costs if the challenge is lost. Could ask the court for cost protection on the basis that this is a matter of public interest ( ie. both sides would cover their own costs). I have written to LGB Alliance and Sex Matters about this and will let you know if I get a response.
This may also be relevant re the expected Conversion Practices Bill ( not yet published). I have written to the above about that as well. I have also written to Mr Streeting about clinical trials.
Apart from that I haven't bene doing very much really 🤣
Dusty
I'll keep thinking, Dusty. If there is a public law angle, standing is going to be a really big problem. I'm also looking at other options - injunctions against the NHS, Human Rights claims, taking action against research ethics committees (almost certainly a non-starter, but who knows?). It's a case of looking in the round to find the weakest link. I'm sure I'm not the only one doing this, and absolutely certain there are people with much better imaginations than me. It will be a long haul regardless - the novel arguments that need to be advanced will almost certainly end up at the Supreme Court.
Thanks, Jeremy.
It seems to me that there is a public law angle ( failure to take account of relevant info ie. guidelines on ethics) but , as you say, the problem may be - who is the client? Unless an organisation takes the case.
Keep us informed as your thoughts progress😄
Dusty
Hope your daughters ok
Thanks, Petal, TT, Dusty. She's a bit better - it looked like appendicitis, but ultrasound hasn't picked anything up. Her abdomen is still uncomfortable, but at least she is home.
Glad she is home, Jeremy😄
Glad she’s home , no matter how old our children are we always wish to take their pain ourselves
Hope she’s ok.
Yes hope she is ok, Jeremy
Dusty
I agree , really disappointed given everything she’s said before , not to have my tin foil hat on but has she been ‘ got at ‘ ?
Hi Petal
I don't know - either she's trying to appease the trans lobby or (which would be worse) she really believes there is such a thing as a 'trans child'!!
Dusty
I’m just confused by her current response , there’s no such thing as trans , you can’t change your ( fucking ,censored ) sex , end of bloody story
And I’m no dr being paid a squillion quid to come up this
I’m away to watch kid rock blowing up some bud light , he ,makes more sense to me than this shit
Yes I'm confused as well. She acknowledges that some ( like us) say it would be unethical or even totally unnecessary to have a clinical trial and then she doesn't say what she thinks about those viewpoints!!??
Dusty
Yes, it's a bit like conducting a trial on how to safely use cocaine. Does it matter if you take it up your nose or inject it into your vein? Um, not really because it is just as addictive and harmful either way.
Great analogy, Lucy, thanks.
Dusty
That is brilliant!
Recently, Dr Charlotte Paul - an epidemiologist at Otago Uni (NZ) - made the observation that we were handling 'gender medicine' with a rights-based approach, instead of an evidence-based approach. I.e. those who want it have the 'human right' to have it. This is such bonkers, but aligns with the gender ghouls approach you mention above.
Hi Katrina
That's interesting and it is shocking that, despite the Cass Review, such an approach is being taken - in fact, what is the word I'm looking for? Oh, scandal, that's it! You might have noticed that we are good at scandal here in the UK!!!!
Dusty
❤️ thanks Liz and Dusty 🐕❤️
Very disappointing from Cass and I agree with Jeremy as to why trials aren’t necessary. We already have tons of information.
I agree with you on Conrad and Burke. Perhaps Burke should have built up to stronger protests once he saw that nothing was going to be done to protect gender critical views.
The EU directives and from the UN as mentioned by Jana Lunden, just illustrate the amount of global power behind the TQ+ push. I can only think it’s a Trojan Horse to enforce more legislation on people. Lunden is doing great work btw.
I think you’re right to include good pieces about the rape gangs without detracting from gender ideology. That piece is amazing and destroys Labour, which is why they don’t want an inquiry. Interesting that Burnham comes in for lots of criticism and he’s now calling for a limited’ inquiry. How limited? 🤔
Looking forward to re watching the Doyle/Peterson interview again, thanks for reposting.
You're welcome, TT.
Glad you agree re trials, Conrad and Enoch Burke.
I did Conrad's Nostromo for A Level many moons ago - they probably wouldn't touch it with a bargepole now!!??
Jana L is great isn't she!
Glad you find links re rape gangs useful - maybe Burnham wants an inquiry that doesn't include...ermmmm....him!!
Enjoy Doyle/Peterson😄
Dusty
What a great Substack you have here Dusty! Thank you for your contribution to sanity.
Thank you, Lucy, and I return the compliment with regard to your excellent substack.
Dusty