In studies it doesn't "vary widely." Also docs like Olson + Spack report 100% persist.
-
-
Replying to @4th_WaveNow @ortrudethevegan and
1/ Actually neither of those say 100% progress from blockers to hormones. But skilled…
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_oatc_ @ortrudethevegan and
Yes they do say that, actually. I have links to quotes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Link then. Only point of blockers is time to drop out if wish. If none do, why use, expensively?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Exactly. The "buying time" idea seems to have fallen by wayside. Link to what? Olson? Will find.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Well "buying time" hasn't because most clinics are still insisting on a blocker only period.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I might add that the clinicians in that article seem less confident than you do in current practice.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @4th_WaveNow @_oatc_
Clearly we have a long way to go before we really know what is for the best-
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ortrudethevegan @_oatc_
Yes. Overconfidence not warranted at all. Dutch admit that in study I linked. Melanie, shd interest you.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
At end of that study, they say they are rethinking some stuff. Ethical concerns. And:pic.twitter.com/9EX3eRwHnW
-
-
Replying to @4th_WaveNow @ortrudethevegan
@jessesingal Quite gratuitous. Treatment is obviously by need, not "want". No wonder PCK dined alone at WPATH1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_oatc_ @4th_WaveNow
But a good warning to us all! However- it would not do for those that do cosmetic procedures to think that!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.