Gotta love it when a shameless transgender activist is put in their place.
As detailed by Fox News, Yale School of Medicine assistant professor Meredith McNamara resoundingly lost a debate with Representative Dan Crenshaw, as she was unable to name a single study that espoused the benefits of hormone therapy for children.
Ironically, the elitist had just insisted on how important evidence is and how Republicans “cherry pick” studies that reveal the truth on transgender hormones, yet she herself had no study to summon in her defense.
“You’ve said that we cherry-picked data. How do you mean that?” Crenshaw queried, starting the debate.
“So, it is very unscientific and flawed to pick a single study or a single statistic and discuss it in isolation. Medical experts are able to talk about all of the evidence as a whole,” McNamara whined.
“Totally agree,” Crenshaw replied smoothly, “it’s good to look at systematic reviews, right? That’s the gold standard of evidence when you’re trying to understand whether something works or it doesn’t. The British Journal of Medicine looked at 61 systematic reviews with the conclusion that, quote, ‘There is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries in young people.’ The Journal of the Endocrine Society came up with the same conclusion, even the American Academy of Pediatrics. They all cite the lack of evidence.”
No kidding. Which makes the Democrats’ obsession with changing children’s gender all the more sick.
“There’s no systematic review that states that there’s strong evidence of benefits,” Crenshaw continued pointedly.
McNamara, attempting to dodge, didn’t answser.
“Sir, are you aware of how the quality evidence grading system works and how it’s applied?” she trilled.
“Which journal says something different? We should have that debate,” Crenshaw pressed, “tell me a journal that has done systematic reviews that cites different evidence, that cites strong evidence of benefits for these therapies.”
“So, um, the standards of care,” McNamara stammered, demonstrating a total inability to muster up a single study in her defense.
Standards of care is a fairly ridiculous defense, given that the standards could be manipulated to suit anyone’s viewpoint.
Hardly demonstrative of the “rigor” or “quality of evidence” that she demands of Crenshaw.
“The standards of care. That’s not a journal, that’s not a study. That’s not an organization. That’s not an institution. You’re just saying words. Name one study,” Crenshaw challenged.
Unsurprisingly, the Ivy League elitist was unable to identify a single study, leaving Crenshaw to effectively win the debate.
Author: Jane Jones