trans in Texas schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

Both can be true. The Rs can be (are) acting out of pure bigotry and hate, and yet the science supporting medicalized gender affirmative care for children can be (is) deeply flawed.

You should not let your partisanship blind you so much that you are not willing to ask even basic questions about the standards of care or examine the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for youth medicalized care. That sort of dogmatic and willful blindness is how we got into this very problematic situation in the first place.

I already said I am willing to look. I’m ok with that, and if that is where evidence points, so be it.

It is hard not to be skeptical when Rs dig up the most bizarre people as their “experts”

So hearing them scream about “but other countries” is hard to take seriously

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems petty, but without any context about why the teacher refuses to use the new name, we are left to speculate. Even in the most extreme scenario, that the teacher is doing to register disapproval of the trans identified kid, it's not clear that the teacher is doing anything wrong by using the legal name on the roster.

More likely... the teacher just doesn't give a crap about a teenager feeling like the other gender, or being some alternate status of non-gender. Most likely, the teacher has over 100 students per day, and the school year just started, and he doesn't remember that Larlo wants to be called Casey. He's probably just reading off a roster. And the other nicknames are probably easy to remember because they somehow relate to the actual name. I'm not a huge apologist for teachers. But this seems like a case of your friends picking a fight with someone who is working their ass off and doesn't have time to validate the choices of Little Lord Fontleroy, who is apparently picking apart every interaction and making a capital case.

The administration brought it up with him, and he would not budge.

School has been in session 1-2 weeks in Texas. This is so much drama that I strain to believe it. Even if it's true though, you don't know why he "didn't budge" and the idea that the teacher is getting his bearings with the names of over 100 kids is pretty reasonable. It's also a bit reactionary to reach out to the administration and get action taken in the very first week of school.

Quite a pretzel you are twisting into to defend a bigot. Then again your snide comment about Lord Fontleroy suggests you are defending your own bigotry.

Go a head and be man enough to admit you despise trans people. Have the courage of your convictions and don’t be a wuss afraid to state them.

I'm not a man. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the teacher and trying to determine the motivation, taking into account the fact that Texas has only been in session for 1-2 weeks.

Now the OP says that this actually happened last year, which makes the initial post even more suspect.

Maybe Texas's law is bad, I don't know enough about it, but this is probably not a real scenario.

Why did you mock the child by calling them Little Lord Fontleroy? Out of pure nastiness that’s why. You are not a good person.

Because the kid sounds extremely over dramatic! They’ve never faced any actual hardship and being referred to by a name they dislike led to psychiatric hospitalization. Sorry, it’s a bit much. NP who didn’t call them Fontleroy but thinks this is incredibly lame.

Another mean person who is emotionally clueless about how emotional teens can be. And a teacher who bullies/mocks them by refusing to call them their preferred name is nasty as all get out. Why are people so unkind? These are probably the same people who proudly call themselves "pro-life". My @ss. It takes more energy to be mean than kind.

Pp. I’m not actually unkind, but this child doesn’t exist. And I’m a pro-choice radical feminist.

Yeah, sure, miss radical pro-choice radical feminist. you are radically beieveable. Radically!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

Both can be true. The Rs can be (are) acting out of pure bigotry and hate, and yet the science supporting medicalized gender affirmative care for children can be (is) deeply flawed.

You should not let your partisanship blind you so much that you are not willing to ask even basic questions about the standards of care or examine the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for youth medicalized care. That sort of dogmatic and willful blindness is how we got into this very problematic situation in the first place.

I already said I am willing to look. I’m ok with that, and if that is where evidence points, so be it.

It is hard not to be skeptical when Rs dig up the most bizarre people as their “experts”

So hearing them scream about “but other countries” is hard to take seriously

Okay. You said you are willing to learn. So, here you go. Below are some publications and analyses regarding what is going on in other countries:

https://cass.independent-review.uk/ — this is the report by the independent investigation into the UKs Tavistock clinic which offered medical gender affirming care to children.

You can also read the book Time to Think by highly-regarded and award-winning journalist Hannah Barnes. The book goes through the failures of the Tavistock clinic and the weakness of the evidence for medicalized gender affirming care for children. It has something like 50 pages of citations and is meticulously detailed.

In April the Atlantic published an overview article of how various countries are pulling back from medicalized gender affirmative care for children here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2023/04/gender-affirming-care-debate-europe-dutch-protocol/673890/

That’s obviously not a medical journal, but if you actually wanted to learn more, you can use that as a starting point to find the medical journals and discussions in other countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems petty, but without any context about why the teacher refuses to use the new name, we are left to speculate. Even in the most extreme scenario, that the teacher is doing to register disapproval of the trans identified kid, it's not clear that the teacher is doing anything wrong by using the legal name on the roster.

More likely... the teacher just doesn't give a crap about a teenager feeling like the other gender, or being some alternate status of non-gender. Most likely, the teacher has over 100 students per day, and the school year just started, and he doesn't remember that Larlo wants to be called Casey. He's probably just reading off a roster. And the other nicknames are probably easy to remember because they somehow relate to the actual name. I'm not a huge apologist for teachers. But this seems like a case of your friends picking a fight with someone who is working their ass off and doesn't have time to validate the choices of Little Lord Fontleroy, who is apparently picking apart every interaction and making a capital case.

The administration brought it up with him, and he would not budge.

School has been in session 1-2 weeks in Texas. This is so much drama that I strain to believe it. Even if it's true though, you don't know why he "didn't budge" and the idea that the teacher is getting his bearings with the names of over 100 kids is pretty reasonable. It's also a bit reactionary to reach out to the administration and get action taken in the very first week of school.

Quite a pretzel you are twisting into to defend a bigot. Then again your snide comment about Lord Fontleroy suggests you are defending your own bigotry.

Go a head and be man enough to admit you despise trans people. Have the courage of your convictions and don’t be a wuss afraid to state them.

I'm not a man. I'm putting myself in the shoes of the teacher and trying to determine the motivation, taking into account the fact that Texas has only been in session for 1-2 weeks.

Now the OP says that this actually happened last year, which makes the initial post even more suspect.

Maybe Texas's law is bad, I don't know enough about it, but this is probably not a real scenario.

Why did you mock the child by calling them Little Lord Fontleroy? Out of pure nastiness that’s why. You are not a good person.

Because the kid sounds extremely over dramatic! They’ve never faced any actual hardship and being referred to by a name they dislike led to psychiatric hospitalization. Sorry, it’s a bit much. NP who didn’t call them Fontleroy but thinks this is incredibly lame.

I am not the PP but come on. The child was almost certainly not hospitalized because of the name, and supporting gratuitous name-calling just weakens your credibility. You just sound nasty and ignorant. OP made it clear that the name incident with the teacher happened in conjunction with hormonal treatment withdrawal. We don’t know why the child was hospitalized but one can reasonably hazard a guess that being abruptly withdrawn from medication that has extensive physical and mental impact and that is frequently (if incorrectly) called “lifesaving” by the medical professionals, peers, loved ones, and other people the child trusts most would have a severe mental health impact. This child was let down across the board, but was almost certainly not hospitalized because of one jerk of a teacher. Use your head.

Texas didn’t stop gender affirming care for minors until this summer and the incident in question happened last school year. The hospitalization could not have been due to stopping cross sex hormones because the law wasn’t even in effect.

OP says the child stopped. We don’t know why.

The OP said the doctor stopped the child’s cross sex hormones due to TX law which can’t be true since this law just went effect this summer and this happened the prior school year. Another reason to doubt this story.

You are unaware that in March of 2022, Texas DFPS made a determination that gender affirming care was child abuse, and that this determination affected children, parents, and that the governor directed DFPS to investigate licensed facilities involved in such care, including the administration of hormones such as puberty blockers.

This child is real, and your detective work is poor.

https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/press/O-MastersJaime202202221358.pdf

[Anonymous]

Houston hospital pauses hormone therapy for transgender children as threats of child abuse investigations loom (March 22)

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/04/texas-transgender-children-hormone-therapy/

[Anonymous]

This situation seems very silly. I sympathize with the teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

Both can be true. The Rs can be (are) acting out of pure bigotry and hate, and yet the science supporting medicalized gender affirmative care for children can be (is) deeply flawed.

You should not let your partisanship blind you so much that you are not willing to ask even basic questions about the standards of care or examine the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for youth medicalized care. That sort of dogmatic and willful blindness is how we got into this very problematic situation in the first place.

DP. The problem with “asking basic questions” makes people think they know best, better than doctors, parents.

You can opt to not have an opinion on it. It really isn’t that difficult.

[Anonymous]

This thread is ridiculous. This kid doesn't exist. OP got called out and left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

Both can be true. The Rs can be (are) acting out of pure bigotry and hate, and yet the science supporting medicalized gender affirmative care for children can be (is) deeply flawed.

You should not let your partisanship blind you so much that you are not willing to ask even basic questions about the standards of care or examine the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for youth medicalized care. That sort of dogmatic and willful blindness is how we got into this very problematic situation in the first place.

DP. The problem with “asking basic questions” makes people think they know best, better than doctors, parents.

You can opt to not have an opinion on it. It really isn’t that difficult.

I don’t know when the left became so blindly dogmatic and intellectually incurious but it’s so sad to watch. The left I used to know and love wouldn’t leave stones unturned if they thought children were possibly being severely harmed by the medical system, especially when there is growing hard evidence of exactly that. Now they literally tell people not to have opinions and not to ask questions on the subject. It’s tragic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

Both can be true. The Rs can be (are) acting out of pure bigotry and hate, and yet the science supporting medicalized gender affirmative care for children can be (is) deeply flawed.

You should not let your partisanship blind you so much that you are not willing to ask even basic questions about the standards of care or examine the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for youth medicalized care. That sort of dogmatic and willful blindness is how we got into this very problematic situation in the first place.

DP. The problem with “asking basic questions” makes people think they know best, better than doctors, parents.

You can opt to not have an opinion on it. It really isn’t that difficult.

I don’t know when the left became so blindly dogmatic and intellectually incurious but it’s so sad to watch. The left I used to know and love wouldn’t leave stones unturned if they thought children were possibly being severely harmed by the medical system, especially when there is growing hard evidence of exactly that. Now they literally tell people not to have opinions and not to ask questions on the subject. It’s tragic.

That’s what happens when you politicize medical care. Did you want to do the same for the leprosy problem in Florida too?

I’m opting out of your stupid, f-n game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hospitalization was almost certainly largely due to stopping hormone therapy. Yes, the poor child shouldn’t have been subjected to hormone therapy in the first place, but just stopping is cruel and indeed likely to cause severe mental health problems. This is precisely why I was opposed to the bans; I’m okay barring new patients because the medical evidence for childhood medicalization is so weak at this point, but the existing kids unfortunately can’t just get cut off. This poor child has been abused left and right by the medical system, the state, and also by the teacher. The child shouldn’t have been on hormones in the first place, shouldn’t have had the hormones cut off, and shouldn’t have been bullied by the teacher.

God, that poor child. I hope he is doing better now.

Chloe Cole and other seem fine after stopping hormones

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

Both can be true. The Rs can be (are) acting out of pure bigotry and hate, and yet the science supporting medicalized gender affirmative care for children can be (is) deeply flawed.

You should not let your partisanship blind you so much that you are not willing to ask even basic questions about the standards of care or examine the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for youth medicalized care. That sort of dogmatic and willful blindness is how we got into this very problematic situation in the first place.

I am so impressed, pp, with your rational statements. Thank you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post story - the kid was initially being treated at a university hospital, not a private clinic

I am willing to actually look at scientific data from other countries, but if the child receives a sufficient amount of psychological testing/therapy and after that time, the docs and parents all agree that medical transition is warranted, why should the state be stepping in?

If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors, the state has an interest in protecting children from medical care that is harmful. The state regulates many aspects of medical care, with higher scrutiny applied to care provided to children. The state should have an interest in protecting children from harmful or incorrect medical care. This used to in fact be a core tenet of liberals, who pushed for increased regulation of medical care provided to children after some horrific scandals in the past. Why the left has abandoned its principles of care for children on this one issue is beyond me, but it has.

And what is happening globally is that there is increasing evidence that standards of care for children recommended by organizations like WPATH are not supported by evidence, leading to retrenchment and in some cases complete reversal of care guidelines around the world. When this happens globally, but US medical bodies are ignoring the increasing pile of evidence of harm, the state should step in. This is not an outrageous position.

All that having been said, I’m not in favor of a complete ban. It’s too extreme, there probably are some cases where medicalization is appropriate, and it’s too blunt of an instrument. But it’s clear that the US is increasingly isolated in its approach to gender affirmative care, and the evidence needs systematic review.

I am somewhat skeptical, but again, willing to see what other countries and medical communities are finding.

I’m not against regulations for the protection of children, but Rs have been such vicious a-holes for so many years, it is hard to believe they are actually doing this out of concern and following science vs pure bigotry and hatred

Both can be true. The Rs can be (are) acting out of pure bigotry and hate, and yet the science supporting medicalized gender affirmative care for children can be (is) deeply flawed.

You should not let your partisanship blind you so much that you are not willing to ask even basic questions about the standards of care or examine the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence for youth medicalized care. That sort of dogmatic and willful blindness is how we got into this very problematic situation in the first place.

DP. The problem with “asking basic questions” makes people think they know best, better than doctors, parents.

You can opt to not have an opinion on it. It really isn’t that difficult.

I don’t know when the left became so blindly dogmatic and intellectually incurious but it’s so sad to watch. The left I used to know and love wouldn’t leave stones unturned if they thought children were possibly being severely harmed by the medical system, especially when there is growing hard evidence of exactly that. Now they literally tell people not to have opinions and not to ask questions on the subject. It’s tragic.

That’s what happens when you politicize medical care. Did you want to do the same for the leprosy problem in Florida too?

I’m opting out of your stupid, f-n game.

I wonder how a disease endemic in third world countries suddenly started becoming endemic in Florida? How how how???

[Anonymous]

All they have to do is wait a few years. With all the Californians moving to Texas it will all change soon.

[Anonymous]

“If there is not sufficient medical evidence to justify the protocol of care recommended by the doctors…”

Who says this is the case? Other than people like Matt Walsh.