The Cass Review Fact Check: It's Clear That Many People Never Bothered to Read The Report

A flood of false claims about England's Cass Review has coursed across social media and the press and among activists and academics. If only people who weighed in on the report had actually read it.

Left: Dr. Hilary Cass, appointed by England’s NHS to independently assess the nation’s care of gender-distressed minors. Right: generic Parent and Teen

On April 9, the long-awaited Cass Review detonated in England. Its effects have been felt around a world torn asunder by the politicized subject of gender. The 388-page report, which was supported in part by six independent systematic literature reviews that were published by the BMJ, scrutinized the science behind pediatric gender-transition treatment.

Cass found that the practice of prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors was based on “remarkably weak evidence.”

In the report’s fallout, furious clouds of misinformation have formed, fueled by people who doubtfully have read much—or any—of the report or the BMJ papers. These people have falsely claimed that Cass only accepted randomized controlled trials, or RCTs, as evidence to consider in her massive report.

I write this Substack as the same lone warrior who batt…