I recieved a response from a Ministry of Health official which I post below
***
"Thank you for your email regarding the puberty blockers evidence brief. I appreciate you taking the time to write. As the lead for the evidence review, the Chief Medical Officer has asked that I respond to you.
I note your concerns about the peer-review process for the puberty blockers evidence brief. The brief follows a systematic literature review process and has been peer-reviewed by two clinical academics. The peer-review involves an assessment of the process followed in the development of the brief to ensure rigour in included and excluded evidence. Whilst the peer-reviewers do assess the appropriateness of the conclusions drawn relative to the findings, the Evidence, Research and Innovation team that developed this brief has sufficient expertise to ensure the feedback does not unduly influence the conclusions.
I assure you that we are committed to scientific integrity and have followed a rigorous and robust process in developing the evidence brief. I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue and we take seriously our responsibility to ensure the evidence is presented in an objective manner."
Thank you for your mahi on behalf of us.
Thanks Simon. This is important work you are doing.
Very informative and articulate, excellent work Simon.
Such a great letter Simon. Thank you again for all your work on this.
Great letter. Keep up the great work. It’s terrible that a child’s risk of being prescribed puberty blockers is dependent on the region they live.
I recieved a response from a Ministry of Health official which I post below
***
"Thank you for your email regarding the puberty blockers evidence brief. I appreciate you taking the time to write. As the lead for the evidence review, the Chief Medical Officer has asked that I respond to you.
I note your concerns about the peer-review process for the puberty blockers evidence brief. The brief follows a systematic literature review process and has been peer-reviewed by two clinical academics. The peer-review involves an assessment of the process followed in the development of the brief to ensure rigour in included and excluded evidence. Whilst the peer-reviewers do assess the appropriateness of the conclusions drawn relative to the findings, the Evidence, Research and Innovation team that developed this brief has sufficient expertise to ensure the feedback does not unduly influence the conclusions.
I assure you that we are committed to scientific integrity and have followed a rigorous and robust process in developing the evidence brief. I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue and we take seriously our responsibility to ensure the evidence is presented in an objective manner."
***