Leor Shapir fears that the Systematic Review of "Gender-Affirming Care" will be a Sham and a Shame

Leor Shapir asks "Two key questions: Will the systematic review follow a transparent, impartial scientific process? And what should the [American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)] do in the meantime?"

Mr. Shapir's fears that the process will not be a transparent, impartial scientific process and that the AAP will make a bad decision in the meantime stems from several factors. The grounds for his fears are:

1. "The AAP is, first and foremost, a trade union ... [and] has strong incentives to defend its own interests and those of member doctors—especially those who have publicly endorsed or facilitated sex-trait modification—even when that is harmful to patients."
2. "The existing systematic reviews on the benefits and risks of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, conducted by health authorities in three European countries, all found “very low” quality evidence for these interventions."
3. "the AAP should immediately recommend extreme caution in the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries in treating youth gender dysphoria. This is a no-brainer; health authorities in the U.K., Norway, Sweden, Finland and France have done it. 'There is not enough evidence to support the safety, clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness to make the treatment routinely available at this time,' said the statement from England’s National Health Service."
4. The process will exclude or demean the comments from opponents of gender-affirming care.
5. "The organization’s consistent attempts to suppress debate on this sensitive issue, the recent remarks of its chief executive, and its profound conflict of interest as a trade association don’t inspire confidence that it will act scientifically and in the best interests of children and families."