CBC + the Cass Review = Biased Coverage
CBC + the Cass Review = Biased Coverage
CBC violates its own Journalistic Standards and Practises
The CBC reported on the Cass Review, here’s my quick piece about that coverage. I have searched the CBC News site for stories on puberty blockers, there are 262 stories about puberty blockers. I’m going to be taking a look and I will write a lengthier piece about the bias of the CBC coverage of puberty blockers.
Details of the article:
7 photographs, some have been utilized multiple times by the cbc
Photography reinforces the message being conveyed about the Cass Review being biased against trans people
Using loaded not impartial language positions the story in progressive terms, not neutral/objective terms.
Interviewed 4 pro GAC MDs, at least one was interviewed previously
Interviewed two trans youth, apparently cbc favourites, having been previously featured in other pro GAC stories
Cherry picking and selecting facts and omitting other facts, promoting a biased story, failed to gather information about the alternative viewpoint
Misrepresents the important points, underestimates the seriousness of the issue
CBC Journalistic Standards and Practises :: Mission and Principles
To serve the public interest
To reflect diversity
To protect our independence
To act responsibly and to be accountable
🇨🇦Accuracy Fairness Balance Impartiality Integrity🇨🇦
Our content on all platforms presents a wide range of subject matter and views
On issues of controversy, we ensure that divergent views are reflected respectfully
We provide professional judgment based on facts and expertise. We do not promote any particular point of view on matters of public debate.
The trust of the public is our most valued asset. We avoid putting ourselves in real or potential conflict of interest. This is essential to our credibility. Our mission is to inform, to reveal, to contribute to the understanding of issues of public interest and to encourage citizens to participate in our free and democratic society.
All Canadians, of whatever origins, perspectives and beliefs, should feel that our news and current affairs coverage is relevant to them and lives up to our principles.
We are independent of all lobbies and of all political and economic influence. We uphold freedom of expression … Public interest guides all our decisions.
We do not hesitate to correct any mistake when necessary nor to follow up a story when a situation changes significantly.
Some facts about the Cass Review :: the review was conducted by Dr Hilary Cass, OBE :: graduated from med school in 1982, founded Rett’s Centre, developed paediatric palliative care, consulted at Ormand Street Hospital, Neurodevelopmental specialist, past president of Royal Paediatric College of Physicians and Surgeon
3/4 of the interviewed MDs have < 20 years clinical experience, all are actively pro Queerification
Dr. James Makokis - 2010
Dr. Tehseen Ladha - 2006
Dr. Sam Wong - 1996
Dr. Jake Donaldson - 2006
One MD (TL) has previously endorsed Covid 19 restrictions in AB, restrictions shown to have no benefit and in fact caused harm.
One MD (JM) is an indigenous doctor who on his website refers to himself as “a national and internationally recognized leader and author in the area of Indigenous health and transgender health”
One MD (JD) had a gaslighting exchange with Dr. Glenn Keyes, a GAC-skeptical MD
One MD (SW) is head of paediatrics at the Alberta medical association and says puberty blockers give kids a pause to think about stuff
An ON (RH) nurse quoted is visibly transgender (works in London ON) and expresses concerns about safeguards blocking access to care, RH is a favourite of the cbc
Makokis says kids who grow up in a body that doesn’t reflect who they are will engage in reckless behaviour, hurt themselves, forcing them suicide—to live in their natural bodies will increase kids’ risk for suicide. This seems ableist. JM doesn’t see the need for safeguards because he’s never seen any paediatric GAC patients in his 7 years of trans medicine practice and he’s worried child safeguards will be a barrier to access for care for trans adults
Notes on the Article:
The journalist failed to challenge the docs’ claims, “access to the [puberty blockers] is an important part of gender-affirming care“ failed to seek opposing views.
Note the scare quotes, “built on shakey foundations”, as if to convey disbelief in the conclusions and recommendations Dr Cass made.
Note the use of language to describe the situation and the cohort of young people, “transgender care”. Bias, told from the perspective of gender radicals.
Using the term “medical treatments” and “transgender care”, however it’s not an illness it’s supposedly, according to gender affirmationists, an innate state of being—so why would they need medical treatment if they aren’t sick? Perhaps this isn’t about identity affirmation perhaps it’s something else at the source of suffering.
Mentions “international medical bodies, including the Canadian Pediatric Society(CPS), the American Academy of Pediatrics and World Professional Association for Transgender Health,” These are all radical gender affirmationist groups, not serious clinical organizations. Fact is — Several countries have called for reviews and paused GAC programs for kids, First Do No Harm just had a conference, WPathFiles were leaked!
Claims made: “Canadian doctors who spoke to CBC News disagree with the finding that there isn't enough evidence puberty blockers can help … There actually is a lot of evidence, just not in the form of randomized clinical trials," said Dr. Jake Donaldson” False. And the journalist doesn’t ask him to back it up or bother to back it up.
Donaldson claims denying GnRHa to kids with gender dysphoria is akin to “saying for a pregnant woman, since we lacked randomized clinical trials for the care of people in pregnancy, we're not going to provide care for you.… It's completely unethical”. This is a non sequitur. We don’t treat pregnant women with substances not known to be non teratogenic, this is a false equivalence.
Photo with mom holding a placard saying ‘puberty blockers are saving my kids life’ …reinforces the biased narrative being conveyed, promotes the fear that’s at the heart of gender affirmationist propaganda.
“What are puberty blockers?” Never answers the question, evades direct information. Understates harms and strength and overstates benefits. Lies about length of time used on kids. Overstates level of testing and safety profile of drug.
Sam Wong claims “but for the most part it's a safe medication." False. Lupron has a very high iatrogenic harm profile. See lupron victim hub.
SW claim PBs are reversible. Also false. Many documented cases of permanent disability from lupron.
Article doesn’t mention this is chemical castration we are speaking of doing to kids.
Never mentions brain/cognitive/metabolic effects.
SW claims “Sometimes those blockers allow the patient and their parents to have a couple more years without having to deal with the ramifications of puberty” and never explains the cost. False easily debunked
Claims living in one’s natural body and enduring puberty is distressing to young people and increases suicidality. This is nonsense: a child who is forced to grow up in his or her body will suffer for life. That’s silly radicalism.
Photo of stereotypical indigenous man. Photos reinforce narrative and bias and try to present this as an issue of oppression of a minority group by tying it to an image of an indigenous person who fits indigenous stereotypes.
Cites WPATH SOC. WPATHfiles have discredited WPATH.
Claims “access to puberty blockers helps transgender youth, and is associated with improved mental health (Dutch DeVries study) and lower risk of suicidal thoughts and ideas,”(Jack Turban).
Choice of photo — deliberately did not choose any youth who was harmed by GAC or experienced regret or coercion. Photography reinforces the biased narrative the piece promotes.
Claims made: “Dr. Tehseen Ladha, a pediatrician in Edmonton and assistant professor at the University of Alberta, says the review may be misleading and ignores the context of pediatric medicine.” Kids are not experimental subjects.
SW claims off label is NBD it means the drug wasn’t tested on kids. Except Lupron was, in a bee6 limited situation, for a specific condition. Very weak clinical data supports lupron FDA approval.
Claims low quality studies refers to lack of RCT. This is false, it’s cherry picking. Cass gave a great explanation of low quality studies and research methods.
“Trans is beautiful” photo. Photograph used to reinforce bias of the piece. Also gaslighting, restatement of false claim, sex reassignments are not beautiful, humans do not find them aesthetically pleasing, this is neurological/behavioural fact.
Discussion of off label uses for kids and robust evidence: “That doesn't mean we just every time we see an ear infection we turn around and walk the other way. Sometimes, an ear infection needs to be treated, sometimes it doesn't.” Based on that analogy Bill C-6/C-4 does not make sense, since it forces us to always affirm rather than only affirm when needed and the differential diagnose where it is not needed. Incidentally when my boys were young the medical trend was tympanic tubes for kids with ear infections. Paediatric care goes through phases. We don’t rush to medicate every infection with A/B like we once did because this causes superbugs.
“Ladha wondered if the review was "coming from a place of bias." “…has been criticized as flawed and anti-trans (Press release: The Cass Review is bad science and should not be taken seriously by policymakers by trans activists in the U.K.), and was described as a product of the U.K.'s hostile environment for trans people in the International Journal of Transgender Health,” (The Cass Review: Cis-supremacy in the UK’s approach to healthcare for trans children) Fails to mention the whistle blowers and Tavistock scandal. Does not mention Keira Bell trial. Having just asserted that the Cass Review was “politically motivated” the CBC provides those two reactions, and fails to provide any reactions that favour the Cass Review. Projection much?
Photograph (Allies of the transgender community rallied in Edmonton's Dr. Wilbert McIntyre Park in February after the premier said legislation on gender policies for children and youth would be coming this fall. (Charles Delisle/Radio-Canada)) More use of photography to reinforce the bias of the piece, which is highly anti AB
Claims: “no Canadian medical organization that responded to CBC News said it would change advice here.” Radio Canada reported recently that PQ medical association was reviewing puberty suppression policy.
Children's Healthcare Canada, which represents children's hospitals claims: “Current evidence shows puberty blockers to be safe when used appropriately, and they remain an option to be considered within a wider view of the patient's mental and psychosocial health”. False, easily debunked. Note: some children’s hospitals with gender affirming care services receive grants from AbbVie, maker of Lupron.
None of this is being done in a vacuum," said Donaldson.
JD claims: "We have institutions that are set in place that are evidence based that are providing this care for individuals in a way that is following the guidelines to the best available evidence.”
The clinicians who created the Dutch protocol have called it into question for the current cohort of kids seeking care. Canada is in a vacuum. Sweden, Finland, Denmark, UK, France have all placed restrictions on puberty blockers. Belgium and Netherlands are reviewing. PQ is reviewing.