Dem Expert Witness Couldn’t Cite Evidence of Benefits of Trans Procedures for Children By Matt Margolis
On Wednesday, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) grilled a so-called “expert” witness on the issue of transgender procedures for women, during which she failed to cite even a single study showing that cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, or surgeries have any positive impact.
Dr. Meredithe McNamara, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Yale School of Medicine, testified in a hearing in opposition to a provision that would block federal funding for hospitals that provide transgender services for minors.
“This is taxpayer money, and when 70% of taxpayers opposed these barbaric treatments on minors, then taxpayers should not fund it,” Crenshaw told her.
During the exchange, McNamara accused Crenshaw of cherrypicking data to support his position against transgender procedures for children.
“It is very unscientific and flawed to pick a single study or a single statistic and to discuss it in isolation,” she said.
“Totally agree,” Crenshaw said.
“All the medical experts are able to talk about all the evidence as a whole,” she added.
“Totally agree. So it’s good to look at systematic reviews right?” Crenshaw asked. “That’s the gold standard of evidence when you’re trying to understand whether something works or whether it doesn’t. So 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.’ Journal of Endocrine Society came up with the same conclusion. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics — all cite the lack of evidence.”
“So here’s the thing,” Crenshaw continued. “If you’re doing a therapy, and it’s you know, temporary, whatever, fine, maybe let’s try let’s see if it works. But when you’re talking about permanent physiological changes, do you not agree just from an ethical standpoint that you might want extremely strong evidence of the benefits and there is no systematic review, that that states that there is strong evidence of benefits?”
McNamara, clearly hoping to corner Crenshaw, asked “Sir, are you aware of how the quality evidence grading system works and how it’s applied?”
“Yeah. Yeah, we read through it; that’s why I’m citing these journals,” he said before turning the tables on her. “So which journal says something different? We should have that debate. Tell me a journal that has done systematic reviews that cites different evidence that cites strong evidence for benefits of these therapies.”
McNamara then tried to tout the standards of care, but despite repeated requests for her to cite any journal or study that concludes transgender procedures are beneficial for kids, she couldn’t do it.
“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,” Crenshaw said. “Name one study.”
Why couldn’t she name a study or a review of studies? Because she knows none exists.
Comments are closed.
