Cogency

It’s not even originally in the Bible’s earliest translations to prohibit gay sex, originally it just condemned pedophilic sex and attraction and it was changed to target gay people instead of the church’s own clergy.

No the medical community largely respects the short comings and uses of the Ottawa protocol. That’s what made Class’s report so insulting.

Exactly which is why the Ottawa whatever standard is not sufficient to discard a study. You have to do more.

But not actually proof of bias.

It’s not an indicator of bias, no causal study has been done to show that there is a relationship between bias and the Newcastle Ottawa scale

Relevance?

Again that’s a joke to do that.

No the Cass report is just misusing the scale. It’s not a disqualifying tool and the scale still has uses which just means further analysis into the subject matter. Which is why the Cass report needed to be books longer, it’s not comprehensive.

Lol first sign that you might actually be human.

And it has already been widely criticized before that’s why there was the parachute joke report. Hence it is already the brunt of jokes to use that scoring scale.

I don’t need to, it is already happening within the scientific community of which I am merely a part.

Goal posts haven’t moved and I’ve already pointed out a dozen of so methodological flaws around the Cass report that you are choosing to ignore.

That’s on you

98% of the data was discarded

No I’m just explaining the process and why it isn’t complete yet. Or even valid yet

And show me that the Cochrane library ever discarded a study using the criteria even once yet alone with the same level as the Cass report and I’ll write them

For something that illustrates the problem with the Cass report read https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

98% of the data could be summarized in one sentence. Trans healthcare and hrt works. 98% of the data comes to that conclusion with vast consensus across multi disciplines and fields comes to that conclusion and that was ignored. 98% of the data was discarded. Most of those studies discarded already had a statistical analysis backing up their efficacy while the Cass report doesn’t. Nor does the Cass report include a nearly mandatory implicit bias report.

Those peer reviews are most likely selected and not randomized selections or contestations as most peer reviews are required to be, they are ok for initial release irc. But it is an outgoing process that doesn’t have an endpoint. They were most likely provided prior to release and the normal peer review process won’t be completed for years to undo the damage. But it is not considered peer reviewed yet.

Again you have not proven that the new castle Ottawa scale has any efficacy or scientific merit as a disqualifying tool No one has as far as I know.

And yet you have no scientific reason other than an ad hominem fallacy with the author with which to dismiss the criticism with. That like the Cass report are not scientifically sufficient reasons to disclude the criticism or the data respectively.

And I can garuntee you that the Cass report was not peer reviewed like all of the studies they dismissed were because it would have been torn apart. That’s the real litmus test of scientific debate.

deleted by creator

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2024.2328249

The Newcastle method is not seen as a scientific basis for dismissal on its own.

98% of the data was dismissed in the synthesis and was not used to reach the conclusion that there wasn’t enough scientific evidence to support transition when 98% of the science says that is wrong.

And every scientific paper is expected to be comprehensive on its subject matter and/or thesis.

Again I’ve written these reports. It is absolutely not common practice to disclude data without scientific reason and analysis. It is explicitly taught not to do it that way in college. And it is not scientific to do that without a statistical threshold and confidence analysis of your reasoning.

“You can of course. Statistics are not required to explain why a self selective Facebook poll is low quality while a multi centre 5 year study with followup and compartor is of a much higher quality”.

That’s wrong when you are trying to be scientifically correct. A science paper without that math isn’t science my dude. And comparing trans healthcare data to Facebook polls is ridiculous

You can’t remove a study from a scientific paper without having statistical analysis to back it up. Each of those removed studies all had a statistical analysis of how confident they remained in their data even with the gaps. Because there aren’t completed 100% studies in science it just doesn’t happen so you use the data you have and test it for a confidence value you obtain using statistics. And the idea that some trans people don’t make it to the completion of a study due to personal reasons or even suicide isn’t that rare. Not using 98% of the data because of that would be stupid.