Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2024-03-27 12:44:51 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

The original care pathway was driven by the political views of the clinicians running the service. Care was rated as inadequate. There was no evidence of benefit even from their own research project, and the Tavistock was criticised by the High Court for withholding data. https://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers.pdf https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q742 https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o2016/rr

Written by 30B8C2C6AB8001CEF5603142059CA97AE20CD90C68A39744E2F78FE66FC06578
Participant Details

All Information

• ID - 1772968022338048149
• noteId - 1772968022338048149
• participantId -
• noteAuthorParticipantId - 30B8C2C6AB8001CEF5603142059CA97AE20CD90C68A39744E2F78FE66FC06578 Participant Details
• createdAtMillis - 1711543491336
• tweetId - 1772896702334116013
• classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
• believable -
• harmful -
• validationDifficulty -
• misleadingOther - 0
• misleadingFactualError - 0
• misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
• misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
• misleadingMissingImportantContext - 1
• misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 1
• misleadingSatire - 0
• notMisleadingOther - 0
• notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
• notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
• notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
• notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
• trustworthySources - 1
• summary
• The original care pathway was driven by the political views of the clinicians running the service. Care was rated as inadequate. There was no evidence of benefit even from their own research project, and the Tavistock was criticised by the High Court for withholding data. https://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfos0060/Biggs_ExperimentPubertyBlockers.pdf https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q742 https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj.o2016/rr