iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

@bphillipsonmp.bsky.social @yvettecooper-mp.bsky.social Take a bow. And then ask yourself how much longer the public is going to believe you? At the same time that Samaritans reported a nearly 45% increase in calls from trans people, suddenly you no longer have any stats You belong in prison.

172

childsafeguarding.independent-panel.uk

And the other part of the report: childsafeguarding.independent-panel.uk/wp-content/u...

childsafeguarding.independent-panel.uk

The full report from the NSPCC: childsafeguarding.independent-panel.uk/wp-content/u...

important markers which were necessary to identify them. YOU retired the ICD-10 codes for gender dysphoria and then hastily archived what you'd done under the wrong data-set. YOUR intent is crystal clear. We are not the ones who are supporters of a vile ideology, that honour is all yours.

#UK #NHS #NSPCC Dear NHS, NSPCC (and happily including NIHR and DHSC): Spare me the hypocrisy of your faked concern. The loss of these vital bits of information that would allow you to identify transgender adolescents in these statistics, was YOUR design. YOU all decided to remove the the most

151

They've overlooked a few vital points. Starting with NICE who did a professional references review in July 2025 but no details were ever disclosed about it, yet now it's part of the decision process. And what to think of NIHR teaming up with SEGM for a systematic review registered on PROSPERO.

000

it will be pointless to fight them. Because once published, the only action that has result is getting a full retraction. Which has not been achieved even once related to transgender healthcare research.

0132

And the only way to fight them and have some impact is to challenge them scientifically, something which I've not seen anyone do to date. Tweeting about them doesn't achieve anything. And believe me when I say that it is a slow and very intense undertaking. If they wait until the reports come out,

1122

I can only hope that people now start to take notice that they urgently need to look at the registered protocols on PROSPERO. There are at least half a dozen that need detailed scrutiny, including 2 that I've seen so far which involve Emily Simonoff.

1121

documents.manchester.ac.uk

Here is the report: documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx... And the evidence reference guide: documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx...

191

That data can now be completely fragmented in the statistics and the only way to find out is to get a detailed view on all the secondary diagnosis of GIDS patients. And so in the latest report, the only number available is 104 related to the entire period 2016-2023 (on p.13). Impossible to challenge

1131

patients can now be hidden away in Depressive disorder or under the high-level header of Mental health or even one of the comorbidities. And so the NHS can keep going about its merry way to ignore the actual impact they are having on patients with gender incongruence.

1143

have been registered (comorbidities).The second warning was about the NHS deciding to retire the clinical codes for Gender Dysphoria in ICD-10 (i.e. F64.x). The combined result of these two changes didn't take long to show in statistics: Looking at suicides, any increase in suicides by transgender

1121

#UK #NHS #NCISH Twice in the past year have I tried to warn everyone about the consequences of certain decisions taken by the NHS. The first warning was when I highlighted that no patient had received a primary diagnosis of gender dysphoria/incongruence since July 2024. Secondary diagnosis however

22313

That's still very much the case. You can't make blind people see. They suffer from a positivity bias, they just keep on thinking positive against all sigs from reality. It's like watching people show up with knife to a gunfight. (quoting from The Untouchables here). Their naivety is infuriating.

020

#UK #NHS #TransRights One of the potential dangers in the use of SSRI in young people under the age of 24 is an increase in suicidality. www.nhs.uk/medicines/an... Plus, Be reminded once more: No mention at all of gender dysphoria here under mental health conditions: www.nhs.uk/mental-healt...

020

It's kinda difficult to prescribe hormone treatment if they're not getting the diagnosis. to my knowledge, not a single patient has received a primary diagnosis of gender dysphoria or gender incongruence, since July 2024. I'm well beyond frustrated about what's happening. The charities are clueless.

151

consistently holds gender affirming care to a much higher quality standard than it does the rest of its medical practice. Institutional bias is what that's called.

030

Notice the erectile dysfunction as a possible side-effect and how it can linger even post medication. So that's fine, but they scream murder about puberty blockers, which are proven to restore to "normal function" when quitting them. Not at all biased. Nooo. It's the best example to show how the NHS

They are being prescribed for underlying comorbidities and should ideally pave the way to hormone replacement theory, but we all know how that is going. Just to be clear, these are the side-effects of SSRIs over time. Weird how all this is what passes for "SAFE" in the NHS.

250

#UK #NHS #TransRights While prescribing HRT for a gender incongruence patient is considered "dangerous" by the NHS, citing biased systematic reviews, that same NHS has no problem putting the same patients on SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, a cocktail of antidepressants).

1112

Prof. Simona Giordano from Manchester Uni (who claims that 84% of trans youths desist during puberty), Dr Susan Bewley (who professed her support of Alice Sullivan's idiocy in an article for BMJ) and Katie Alcock of Lancaster University (provided consultancy on the transphobic school guidance).

Later in the year, on 22 November '25, Sarah Bunn was again involved in POST brief 55 on Hormone Treatments for Children and Young People with Gender Dysphoria. And her influence in terms of getting anti trans voices on board had clearly grown. Listed in the brief are again Transgender Trend,

Factors shaping gender incongruence and gender dysphoria, and impact on health services

Why? Because it already demonstrates the bias with which parliament was being informed. In their acknowledgement, the authors go on to thank ao. Lisa Littman, Transgender Trend, Bayswater Support. All of whom were also part of the review of the briefing. post.parliament.uk/research-bri...

post.parliament.uk

This briefing outlines what is known about the factors that shape gender incongruence and gender dysphoria. The impact on the NHS from increased referrals for gender identity care is discussed.

#UK #TransRights PostBrief 53, Factors shaping gender incongruence and gender dysphoria, and impact on health services by Laura Heath and Sarah Bunn is a document that was presented to Parliament on 2 August 2023 even before the final report from Cass was completed. Yet it is very significant.

150

And to top it off, registration of a review method on PROSPERO does not mean that PROSPERO endorses it. Seemingly they are very aware of the damaging stuff that is registered with them, but ethics are nothing but an afterthought. www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/doc...

crd.york.ac.uk

030

and Care Research. That's the University of York publishing the PROSPERO registered review where McMaster University was being funded by and working with SEGM to produce negative outcomes for transgenders. In an attached doc the University of York clarifies that PROSPERO never performs peer review.

EmiB71 @emiliab.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

#UK #TransRights #NHS When the time arrives and the new systematic reviews turn out to be as detrimental as I'm predicting them for the little bit of healthcare we have left, remember this skeet. The McMaster review clearly linked to National Institute for Health www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/vie...

crd.york.ac.uk

PROSPERO

131

It's already quite revealing that they are not at all clear about the terms and conditions. So they can filter out any applicants they don't want by quoting the terms and conditions which nobody has seen. They can tweak those to their preference and nobody would ever know.

161

EmiB71 @emiliab.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

And rather suspicious that they make this offering for the UN meeting where the complaints raised against them will be discussed. Also, will they every publish who exactly received the funding? Who wants to bet the LGB Alliance and Sex Matters end up with an all expenses paid trip to Geneva?

1162

EmiB71 @emiliab.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

#UK #EHRC #TransRights I'm rather curious exactly what the terms and conditions are, because they haven't specified them in the news article. www.equalityhumanrights.com/news/funding...

equalityhumanrights.com

Funding available for organisations to give evidence to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) | EHRC

2217

So what did they spend $558,352 on? My money is on confidential contracts to provide research supportive of their policy views.

010

According to their financial filing, the expenses were mostly for organising 2 conferences. and only 1 grant of $ 10,000 was given. It's expenses totalled $809,167 in 2024. While for the conferences they only spent $46,538 in travel expenses, and $194,277 for conferences, conventions, and meetings.

100

absolutely destroyed whatever reputation it had for research. I think it's well worth looking into who may have received financial compensation from SEGM to produce certain results. I say this because their expenses don't align with what's in their financial statements.

100

conflicts of interest. Not so much for this review, but there are reviews which are worked by CAN-SG members doing systematic reviews which include filtering out specific results. And nobody ever challenges this. When this is all over, and it will come crashing down at some point, the UK will have

100

This suggests they waited with publication to avoid suspicion. That peer review is beyond lightning fast. And this is one of those reviews that gets taken up into the Campbell Collaboration. And this is just one example of what can occur. I haven't even touched on a complete absence of registered

100

#UK #Transrights I'm taking a closer look at some of the registered search protocols and quite frankly, it is a mountain to climb. Here's a quick example: A systematic review from Chili...from submission to peer review in barely 2 weeks. Feedback another 2 weeks and then 3 months to publish.

EmiB71 @emiliab.bsky.social · 26/09/2026

to listen to trans people mentioning that we didn't have standing. They may have lost the case, but it looks like they are still gaining something from this.

190

EmiB71 @emiliab.bsky.social · 26/09/2026

But it does come with bad news. Every time they go to court like that, they further solidify the ridiculous assumption of binary sex and the terminology of "biological sex". And they now have the added argument that the court suddenly finds them to be experts. That's the same judiciary who refused

2100

And of those involved in designing new research protocols not a single one has registered their conflict of interest. Which DHSC and NHSE happily ignore, leading to skewed and biased search protocols.

010

Their agreement with Romina Brignardello-Petersen from McMasters was the primary driver which has influenced the outcome of systematic reviews. And that influence goes all the way to impacting PROSPERO. That has seen further impact from members of CAN-SG working on research protocols.

101

Most of that goes to organising international conferences. And those conferences are the main driver helping them to increase their influence and set policy directions. What they've also done is setup framework agreements where they dictate the direction of travel for medical research.

That anonymity is achieved by donating to these charities using donor-advised funds. Who has donated is not the main concern here, it's the near doubling of SEGM's income from these donations that is worrying. While SEGM save parts of that funding, they also increase their spending.

100

And then there's also the likes of Vanguard, Fidelity Investment (which is for 49% owned by the Johnson family from Boston), the National Philanthropic Trust, and the Edward Charles Fund. The reason why these large charities pop up is because they provide a cover of anonymity to the donor.