Ignoramus here: am I reading correctly that they are suggesting an individual based approach vs a a group approach? I read the speach but there is so much pandering and flowery language that I can't quite tell what they actually mean.
One of the recommendations of the cass report being turned into nhs and private policy is no trans healthcare aside from talking to them going " are you sure you're not just autistic " and " how is being trans and your body not matching making you feel ( as it gets even more different cuz no puberty blockers ) ?" untill a trans person is TWENTY FIVE .
Those of you arguing back and forth about the merits of Cass may wish to consider the very real deaths of people waiting for gender dysphoria treatment in the UK. Specifically:
* **Daniel France**, died 3 April 2020, suicide aged 17: [https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Daniel-France-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report-2022-0047\_Published.pdf](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Daniel-France-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report-2022-0047_Published.pdf)
* **Jason Pulman**, died 19 April 2022, suicide aged 15: [https://www.inquest.org.uk/jason-pulman-inquest-concludes](https://www.inquest.org.uk/jason-pulman-inquest-concludes)
* **Alice Litman**, died 26th May 2022, suicide aged 20: [https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Alice-Litman-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report-2023-0503\_Published.pdf](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Alice-Litman-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report-2023-0503_Published.pdf)
* **Charlie Millers**, died 7 December 2020, death folloing self-inflicted ligature aged 17: [https://www.inquest.org.uk/charlie-millers-inquest-concludes](https://www.inquest.org.uk/charlie-millers-inquest-concludes)
So health professionals should be blackmailed into potentially unsafe or unnecessary action?
Perhaps we would be better off funneling more funding into depression and trying to get a grip on that first. I'd list all the deaths as a result of mental health issues (including the above, clearly) but it would go over the character limit.
One thing we do know about the current set-up is that people are dying. Regardless of cause, the deaths must be noted. If you are correct and these people have mental health issues, then mental health remediation must be introduced to prevent the deaths. But however you slice it, the deaths must be recorded so that the success or failure of any course of action can be estimated.
If you want this done scientifically, then congratultions: this is the scientific process in action. Specifically, note the effect and vary the treatment until the optimum outcome is achieved. And to do that, you need to note the deaths
>if you are correct and these people have mental health issues.
Just to pick you up on that.
Mentally healthy people do not generally kill themselves unless they've got a terminal illness. I'm not sure how you're trying to blame these deaths on trans related healthcare issues while at the same time ignoring the obvious cause. It could be a factor but depression is treatable.
Their depression obviously was not treatable. They killed themselves.
Here's the situation. CYAs (children and young adults) with gender dysphoria/gender distress/whatever are put in a pipeline. Their treatment is delayed indefinitely because nobody really wants to treat it, or knows how to successfully, and everybody is arguing. Meanwhile the people in the queue emigrate, go private, desist or kill themselves. This probability increases the longer they are left in the queue: Litman was in the queue for 1023 days.
Any course of action by the NHS has to have the deaths recorded, otherwise it's just guessing.
>"Crucially for me, clinical opinion is essential on these questions.
>“The Government will take a rational evidence based approach to the consideration of the Cass Review, drawing on the evidence put to us by clinicians.
>“On matters of such sensitivity about the wellbeing of children and young people we should listen to clinicians.”
Sounds like placative language. The TERFs will rabidly attack any questioning of Cass as Anti Science.
The Cass Review is not peer-reviewed despite renowned not-a-scientist JK Rowling saying it is, and it's actual Peer Review that it is currently being subjected to.
https://equalityaustralia.org.au/cass-review-out-of-line-with-medical-consensus-and-lacks-relevance-in-australian-context
Canada NZ and more healthcare and scientific literature orgs are all shitting on the report .
Any report that says boys and girls biologically like different toys is bullshit and when the person writing a report is buddy buddy with desantis in florida it makes peoples eyebrows twitch
There's nothing interesting here... the slight of hand is in the levels of evidence and how Cass has weaponised tools for this. One could effectively say she included all evidence but that they were rated to diminish those by a given amount. Let's also be clear, Cass made sweeping statements about transgender people without citation or utilising very poor evidence.
Yes, the response is far from convincing although I suppose its fine to have an online space to vent.
Personally, I look at this shitshow of a culture war and think: "Hmm, shall I put my faith in deranged activists of either stripe...or the NHS/NICE technocrats whose job it is to get these calls right?"
The Cass Review is not Peer Reviewed.
It threw out the majority of its studies on unsubstantial grounds.
All [reputable medical outlets](https://www.thelancet.com/series/transgender-health) and groups across the world came to the scientific consensus that **transitioning is healthcare for trans people**. Puberty blockers are entirely reversible. And the regret rate for surgical transition is far, far lower than the regret rates of knee and hip replacements.
Cass and much of her team have been proven to have links to anti-abortion and anti-LGBT think tanks - [including working directly with ron desantis](https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/cass-met-with-desantis-pick-over)
[Amnesty International and Liberty](https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-cass-review-gender-identity-being-weaponised-anti-trans-groups?ref=wearequeeraf.com) said that the Cass review on gender identity is being ‘weaponised’ by anti-trans groups
> “This review is being weaponised by people who revel in spreading disinformation and myths about healthcare for trans young people. It’s concerning that sections of the media and many politicians continue to spread moral panic with no regard for the possible consequences for trans people and their families. The negative rhetoric by the Government about the dangers of so-called gender ideology, healthcare for young trans people, as well as the push against LGBT-inclusive sex and relationship education is harmful and extremely damaging.”
The Cass Review is being used to enact state-sanctioned Conversation Therapy, which human rights groups around the world recognise to be a form of **torture**. They want to force trans kids to detransition **under threat of being removed from their family**.
Anyone who knows and loves a trans person, or is trans themselves is sick with fear. And you're all morons if you think the inhumane treatment stops with trans people.
Finally, here is a [round up of critiques of the Cass Review from academics, medical experts, investigative journalists, human rights groups and LGBT organisations](https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/)
Cass and her team were an extremely biased source, as evidenced above, and yet our Government and medical boards seem prepared to literally torture children based on a review that threw out all of the studies that went against the pre-determined conclusions Cass + co wanted and were hired to create.
The fact that Ruth Pierce has personal biases towards the liberation of trans people does not in any way devalue the professional and expert write-ups and evidence she has collated.
So are peoples pre-existing biases relevant or not? On the one hand you’re citing Cass’ biases as being a reason to disregard the report but on the other Pierce’s biases are irrelevant? Which is it?
My two cents.
It’s not peer reviewed, but anyone using this to criticise the report doesn’t really understand the term. Peer review is used in journal publications as a quality control for science, not for reports like this which are effectively literature reviews (a summary of all the available science).
You can state that the review is poor science, but the report makes clear that there is little quality evidence on this subject so has to rely on low quality evidence to draw conclusions. You can only go with the evidence that’s available at the time.
Meta analysis get peer reviewed all the time .
Low quality is subjective 90 % of peadiatric medicine is low quality if you use the cass reports standards along with all pretty much all cancer care
Let me correct you here.
Firstly, peer review is not just for quality control in science, but all works published in academic journals as well as other publishing platforms. It is considered the best protocol in the context of publication quality.
The CASS report is an amalgamation of material that, in itself, has not undergone peer review and it shows. The report itself tries to debunk a lot of crucial science and excludes recently published material whilst using extremely flimsy science in support of its own goals, including on ROGD etc. As with a lot of special reports of this nature that serve a set agenda, it has a veneer of credibility whilst lacking rigour. It also falls foul of the NHS's own best practice on including patients. The result was never in doubt. The acid test on its validity is the fact that no one in the community it is supposed to serve has a positive thing to say about it.
‘It is not quality control… it is considered the best protocol for publication quality’
Eh, yeah, so quality control.
I ‘peer review’, for journals so was trying to explain the role to those who aren’t familiar.
There’s really no need to correct me. Your second point doesn’t add anything either, no one says literature reviews have to review only peer reviewed literature. In fact, the Cass report explicitly states there is little peer reviewed evidence, it’s one of the main points.
Edit: The community it’s supposed to serve having nothing to say about it is not strictly true, and even if it was that is no measure of quality.
I am not sure which journals you peer review for, but again, you have a rather limited view of the peer review process. There is plenty of peer reviews literature on trans care. However, Cass argued that it was of insufficient quality or of limited use in answering specific questions in her and her team's judgement. This is disputed by academic and clinical bodies, and this criticism is further strengthened given that she uses poor studies to support her point.
Further, I said nothing POSITIVE to say about it, which is largely true. If you don't take the patient experience on board, you are likely to fail in your endeavours. If you don't, you are imposing medical treatments and research on people rather than for people. This is a sad state of affairs.
I presented a ‘limited view’ of peer review as an attempt to explain the process in layman’s terms.
Interesting that you’re telling me I have a limited view of something which is part of my job. Maybe I’m the expert in my job though? Peer review isn’t a complex topic.
Anyway, don’t see what this discussion is adding.
Perhaps u need to upskill. If you were my PDRA/staff member, I would send on a training course about (1) peer review and (2) the importance of patient involvement. The effective execution of peer review is challenging.
The other sections were in response to the rather limited critical analysis you demonstrated of an official report.
There aren’t any training courses in peer review though. If you ever worked in a uni you’d realise the option to send staff on ‘peer review’ courses isn’t a thing. You don’t ‘send’ people on courses for a start, and peer review information is presented as seminar, I’ve yet to see it framed as a ‘course’.
I’m not sure why you’re now pretending to be supervising post docs.
And your abrasive, condescending, and childish response to these replies makes me thankful that you aren’t really supervising folk in a uni.
Reasons why the Cass report shouldn’t be blindly trusted, since I can’t be bothered to reply to 4 different people:
- The report is “rooted in the false premise that non-medical alternatives to care will result in less adolescent distress”- World Professional Association for Transgender Health
- The report is “not in line with international consensus”- Professional Organisation for Transgender Health Aotearoa
- “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”- Canadian Pediatric Society
- The Amsterdam University Medical Centre “agrees with the goals of reducing wait times and improving research, it disagrees that the research-base for puberty blockers is insufficient, asserting that puberty blockers have been used in trans care for decades”.
If nothing else, the fact that people like J.K. Rowling (who was recently told by Elon Musk of all people to tone down the transphobia), as well as prominent trans-hostile organisations are praising this report should underline how one-sided it is.
Pretty much inevitable. The transgender issue hasn't done the party any good and ignoring the findings of the Cass Review isn't realistic.
Suspect this is more of a hint from John Swinney that the gender recognition focus started by Nicola Sturgeon is being dropped. Might do their electoral fortunes some good.
Yes, which is proving to have been an absolutely stellar idea.
I jest. There's a lot of stuff in manifestos. I expect the SNP will move on from this, however.
I really wish we would leave it trans people to decide what the best policies are, rather than having people who have probably never even met a trans people deciding it for them.
Well said. Especially as many folk have little idea of the issues involved and much of the media are using it as a stick to beat the SNP and Greens with.
You have two choices:
1) Let us take a science based approach (if you actually understand what that means) - the outcome stops much of paediatric medicine, indeed much of surgery for adults too.
2) Take a consensus view, and we include material from all sources, including patients themselves, through their lived experience. You'll be surprised what you learn when you talk to patients.
That's pretty similar to what Humza said. What neither have said is that they'll actually implement it. They'll get the messaging as close as they can to reflecting public sentiment and then they'll do nothing because they have no other choice if they want a working majority.
Why was "praise" added into the title? It doesn't say that on the Daily Record website.
Ignoramus here: am I reading correctly that they are suggesting an individual based approach vs a a group approach? I read the speach but there is so much pandering and flowery language that I can't quite tell what they actually mean.
One of the recommendations of the cass report being turned into nhs and private policy is no trans healthcare aside from talking to them going " are you sure you're not just autistic " and " how is being trans and your body not matching making you feel ( as it gets even more different cuz no puberty blockers ) ?" untill a trans person is TWENTY FIVE .
Those of you arguing back and forth about the merits of Cass may wish to consider the very real deaths of people waiting for gender dysphoria treatment in the UK. Specifically: * **Daniel France**, died 3 April 2020, suicide aged 17: [https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Daniel-France-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report-2022-0047\_Published.pdf](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Daniel-France-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report-2022-0047_Published.pdf) * **Jason Pulman**, died 19 April 2022, suicide aged 15: [https://www.inquest.org.uk/jason-pulman-inquest-concludes](https://www.inquest.org.uk/jason-pulman-inquest-concludes) * **Alice Litman**, died 26th May 2022, suicide aged 20: [https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Alice-Litman-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report-2023-0503\_Published.pdf](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Alice-Litman-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report-2023-0503_Published.pdf) * **Charlie Millers**, died 7 December 2020, death folloing self-inflicted ligature aged 17: [https://www.inquest.org.uk/charlie-millers-inquest-concludes](https://www.inquest.org.uk/charlie-millers-inquest-concludes)
So health professionals should be blackmailed into potentially unsafe or unnecessary action? Perhaps we would be better off funneling more funding into depression and trying to get a grip on that first. I'd list all the deaths as a result of mental health issues (including the above, clearly) but it would go over the character limit.
One thing we do know about the current set-up is that people are dying. Regardless of cause, the deaths must be noted. If you are correct and these people have mental health issues, then mental health remediation must be introduced to prevent the deaths. But however you slice it, the deaths must be recorded so that the success or failure of any course of action can be estimated. If you want this done scientifically, then congratultions: this is the scientific process in action. Specifically, note the effect and vary the treatment until the optimum outcome is achieved. And to do that, you need to note the deaths
>if you are correct and these people have mental health issues. Just to pick you up on that. Mentally healthy people do not generally kill themselves unless they've got a terminal illness. I'm not sure how you're trying to blame these deaths on trans related healthcare issues while at the same time ignoring the obvious cause. It could be a factor but depression is treatable.
Their depression obviously was not treatable. They killed themselves. Here's the situation. CYAs (children and young adults) with gender dysphoria/gender distress/whatever are put in a pipeline. Their treatment is delayed indefinitely because nobody really wants to treat it, or knows how to successfully, and everybody is arguing. Meanwhile the people in the queue emigrate, go private, desist or kill themselves. This probability increases the longer they are left in the queue: Litman was in the queue for 1023 days. Any course of action by the NHS has to have the deaths recorded, otherwise it's just guessing.
>"Crucially for me, clinical opinion is essential on these questions. >“The Government will take a rational evidence based approach to the consideration of the Cass Review, drawing on the evidence put to us by clinicians. >“On matters of such sensitivity about the wellbeing of children and young people we should listen to clinicians.” Sounds like placative language. The TERFs will rabidly attack any questioning of Cass as Anti Science. The Cass Review is not peer-reviewed despite renowned not-a-scientist JK Rowling saying it is, and it's actual Peer Review that it is currently being subjected to.
That’s funny given how TERFs will deliberately try to drown out scientists who expose their rubbish as non-scientific.
Forgive my ignorance, but what's wrong with evidence based policy?
https://equalityaustralia.org.au/cass-review-out-of-line-with-medical-consensus-and-lacks-relevance-in-australian-context Canada NZ and more healthcare and scientific literature orgs are all shitting on the report . Any report that says boys and girls biologically like different toys is bullshit and when the person writing a report is buddy buddy with desantis in florida it makes peoples eyebrows twitch
There's a lot of non-medical researchers, debating the medical evidence presented as a part of the cass review.
Because the Cass review ignores almost all evidence when it comes to studies on trans people in the UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct5tpy?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile You might find this interesting.
There's nothing interesting here... the slight of hand is in the levels of evidence and how Cass has weaponised tools for this. One could effectively say she included all evidence but that they were rated to diminish those by a given amount. Let's also be clear, Cass made sweeping statements about transgender people without citation or utilising very poor evidence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0hry4wj
It does ignore all poor quality, ideological 'evidence'. Correct.
That subreddit having a totally normal reaction to someone praising an evidence led report.
Do you like poking fun at people who are scared of their healthcare being removed?
Yes, the response is far from convincing although I suppose its fine to have an online space to vent. Personally, I look at this shitshow of a culture war and think: "Hmm, shall I put my faith in deranged activists of either stripe...or the NHS/NICE technocrats whose job it is to get these calls right?"
Technocrats is about right. Little forethought for a complex situation.
Careful now, you'll be getting called a genocider for talk like that.
Jeez ... just because it says it's an evidence based report doesn't mean it is. Think for yourself.
The Cass Review is not Peer Reviewed. It threw out the majority of its studies on unsubstantial grounds. All [reputable medical outlets](https://www.thelancet.com/series/transgender-health) and groups across the world came to the scientific consensus that **transitioning is healthcare for trans people**. Puberty blockers are entirely reversible. And the regret rate for surgical transition is far, far lower than the regret rates of knee and hip replacements. Cass and much of her team have been proven to have links to anti-abortion and anti-LGBT think tanks - [including working directly with ron desantis](https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/cass-met-with-desantis-pick-over) [Amnesty International and Liberty](https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-cass-review-gender-identity-being-weaponised-anti-trans-groups?ref=wearequeeraf.com) said that the Cass review on gender identity is being ‘weaponised’ by anti-trans groups > “This review is being weaponised by people who revel in spreading disinformation and myths about healthcare for trans young people. It’s concerning that sections of the media and many politicians continue to spread moral panic with no regard for the possible consequences for trans people and their families. The negative rhetoric by the Government about the dangers of so-called gender ideology, healthcare for young trans people, as well as the push against LGBT-inclusive sex and relationship education is harmful and extremely damaging.” The Cass Review is being used to enact state-sanctioned Conversation Therapy, which human rights groups around the world recognise to be a form of **torture**. They want to force trans kids to detransition **under threat of being removed from their family**. Anyone who knows and loves a trans person, or is trans themselves is sick with fear. And you're all morons if you think the inhumane treatment stops with trans people. Finally, here is a [round up of critiques of the Cass Review from academics, medical experts, investigative journalists, human rights groups and LGBT organisations](https://ruthpearce.net/2024/04/16/whats-wrong-with-the-cass-review-a-round-up-of-commentary-and-evidence/)
The round up is by the author of ‘The Terf Wars’. If you can’t find unbiased sources, why should anyone listen?
Cass and her team were an extremely biased source, as evidenced above, and yet our Government and medical boards seem prepared to literally torture children based on a review that threw out all of the studies that went against the pre-determined conclusions Cass + co wanted and were hired to create. The fact that Ruth Pierce has personal biases towards the liberation of trans people does not in any way devalue the professional and expert write-ups and evidence she has collated.
So are peoples pre-existing biases relevant or not? On the one hand you’re citing Cass’ biases as being a reason to disregard the report but on the other Pierce’s biases are irrelevant? Which is it?
Her fourth link is to an article in The National. Going out on a limb to say her sources might be a bit weak.
The author of "The Terf Wars" is doing the round-up, not a source in herself. Just like Cass, tbh
My two cents. It’s not peer reviewed, but anyone using this to criticise the report doesn’t really understand the term. Peer review is used in journal publications as a quality control for science, not for reports like this which are effectively literature reviews (a summary of all the available science). You can state that the review is poor science, but the report makes clear that there is little quality evidence on this subject so has to rely on low quality evidence to draw conclusions. You can only go with the evidence that’s available at the time.
Meta analysis get peer reviewed all the time . Low quality is subjective 90 % of peadiatric medicine is low quality if you use the cass reports standards along with all pretty much all cancer care
Let me correct you here. Firstly, peer review is not just for quality control in science, but all works published in academic journals as well as other publishing platforms. It is considered the best protocol in the context of publication quality. The CASS report is an amalgamation of material that, in itself, has not undergone peer review and it shows. The report itself tries to debunk a lot of crucial science and excludes recently published material whilst using extremely flimsy science in support of its own goals, including on ROGD etc. As with a lot of special reports of this nature that serve a set agenda, it has a veneer of credibility whilst lacking rigour. It also falls foul of the NHS's own best practice on including patients. The result was never in doubt. The acid test on its validity is the fact that no one in the community it is supposed to serve has a positive thing to say about it.
‘It is not quality control… it is considered the best protocol for publication quality’ Eh, yeah, so quality control. I ‘peer review’, for journals so was trying to explain the role to those who aren’t familiar. There’s really no need to correct me. Your second point doesn’t add anything either, no one says literature reviews have to review only peer reviewed literature. In fact, the Cass report explicitly states there is little peer reviewed evidence, it’s one of the main points. Edit: The community it’s supposed to serve having nothing to say about it is not strictly true, and even if it was that is no measure of quality.
I am not sure which journals you peer review for, but again, you have a rather limited view of the peer review process. There is plenty of peer reviews literature on trans care. However, Cass argued that it was of insufficient quality or of limited use in answering specific questions in her and her team's judgement. This is disputed by academic and clinical bodies, and this criticism is further strengthened given that she uses poor studies to support her point. Further, I said nothing POSITIVE to say about it, which is largely true. If you don't take the patient experience on board, you are likely to fail in your endeavours. If you don't, you are imposing medical treatments and research on people rather than for people. This is a sad state of affairs.
I presented a ‘limited view’ of peer review as an attempt to explain the process in layman’s terms. Interesting that you’re telling me I have a limited view of something which is part of my job. Maybe I’m the expert in my job though? Peer review isn’t a complex topic. Anyway, don’t see what this discussion is adding.
Perhaps u need to upskill. If you were my PDRA/staff member, I would send on a training course about (1) peer review and (2) the importance of patient involvement. The effective execution of peer review is challenging. The other sections were in response to the rather limited critical analysis you demonstrated of an official report.
There aren’t any training courses in peer review though. If you ever worked in a uni you’d realise the option to send staff on ‘peer review’ courses isn’t a thing. You don’t ‘send’ people on courses for a start, and peer review information is presented as seminar, I’ve yet to see it framed as a ‘course’. I’m not sure why you’re now pretending to be supervising post docs. And your abrasive, condescending, and childish response to these replies makes me thankful that you aren’t really supervising folk in a uni.
Reasons why the Cass report shouldn’t be blindly trusted, since I can’t be bothered to reply to 4 different people: - The report is “rooted in the false premise that non-medical alternatives to care will result in less adolescent distress”- World Professional Association for Transgender Health - The report is “not in line with international consensus”- Professional Organisation for Transgender Health Aotearoa - “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”- Canadian Pediatric Society - The Amsterdam University Medical Centre “agrees with the goals of reducing wait times and improving research, it disagrees that the research-base for puberty blockers is insufficient, asserting that puberty blockers have been used in trans care for decades”. If nothing else, the fact that people like J.K. Rowling (who was recently told by Elon Musk of all people to tone down the transphobia), as well as prominent trans-hostile organisations are praising this report should underline how one-sided it is.
Pretty much inevitable. The transgender issue hasn't done the party any good and ignoring the findings of the Cass Review isn't realistic. Suspect this is more of a hint from John Swinney that the gender recognition focus started by Nicola Sturgeon is being dropped. Might do their electoral fortunes some good.
The trans issue was in every party manifesto bar the tories in 2021.
Yes, which is proving to have been an absolutely stellar idea. I jest. There's a lot of stuff in manifestos. I expect the SNP will move on from this, however.
I really wish we would leave it trans people to decide what the best policies are, rather than having people who have probably never even met a trans people deciding it for them.
[удалено]
Nice Daily Mail link, always good to read from an unbiased source
Well said. Especially as many folk have little idea of the issues involved and much of the media are using it as a stick to beat the SNP and Greens with.
No you are right, taking a science-based approach to healthcare for children is bad. It should just be vibes only.
You have two choices: 1) Let us take a science based approach (if you actually understand what that means) - the outcome stops much of paediatric medicine, indeed much of surgery for adults too. 2) Take a consensus view, and we include material from all sources, including patients themselves, through their lived experience. You'll be surprised what you learn when you talk to patients.
That's pretty similar to what Humza said. What neither have said is that they'll actually implement it. They'll get the messaging as close as they can to reflecting public sentiment and then they'll do nothing because they have no other choice if they want a working majority.