#pathological liars | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

12.7% of mobile users access Tumblr.

clementine221b · 2 months

Text

one thing that this little gay kitty oncologist is going to do is LIE. even though he knows house will take the extremest of measures to try and find out what he’s upto??? but he can’t help himself?? i don’t understand him but i love him.

#house md #gregory house #james wilson #hilson #hilson fanfiction #hilson fics #honestly i love him #mom i love him #pathological liars #he’s a little confused but he’s got the spirit #he’s so pretty

1K notes · View notes

authorgirl0131 · 3 months

Text

Shoutout to all of the mental disorders where the tags are flooded by people who hate those with said disorder (NPD, BPD, ASPD, HPD, pathological lying, IED, etc.) It's messed up and you deserve better

#actually compulsive liar #npd safe #npd positivity #aspd safe #cluster b safe #bpd #hpd safe #bpd safe #pathological liars #compulsive liar #compulsive lying #ied #actually ied #ied safe

40 notes · View notes

luhafraser · 2 years

Text

LIARS

February 2018 - "I met him THROUGH ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS..."

Note that the interview addresses Cait and Tony's relationship (🤣)/ Pap walk pic (Staged!!)

October 2018 - "... LOVE has come to my life... so I'm gonna say THANK TO OUTLANDER for that".

Note that Tony was not named during the interview.

There's a big difference between meeting someone and finding the love of your life.

If she met Tony through a friend, who is the "love" she found with Outlander?

February 2020 - "... THROUGH THIS SHOW, I managed to meet the LOVE of my life"

In this interview, months after the wedding and during the Outlander Promo, Cait repeats the speech from October 2018 (also during the show's promo), but the speech is associated with the figure of her husband (publicly Tony).

Hypotheses? I think Cait and her PR team are always reworking "the script" using old lines according to the promo of the moment, adopting a certain public image or wanting to fix loose ends... OR they want that, make things more confusing and incoherent, which leads to more than one interpretation (Each group in the fandom will have its own... And they will be stuck here and debating among themselves... Forever😝🤣).

(And before anyone says, they don't need that... Yes, they do! Without these people, Onlys, Shippers, Haters, Antis & all this fandom, who are Cait and Sam? She's Katrina Balfe 🤣, "always the bridesmaid never the bride" at important awards/ceremonies like Golden Globes, and he wouldn't have an audience for all Sassenach products and books, and the audience awards 😜 Am I being mean? You can even say yes... But that doesn't change that I'm stating something real, facts!)

Check out some posts I've already talked about "Caitríona's incongruities"...

#caitriona balfe #sam heughan #sam and caitriona #outlander #pathological liars #fake life #shit show

326 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 2 days

Text

By: Sammy Gecsoyler

Published: Apr 21, 2024

The doctor behind a landmark review of the NHS’s gender identity services for children and young people has said fears had been raised about her personal safety amid online abuse after the report’s release.

Dr Hilary Cass told the Times she wished to address the “disinformation” circulating about the findings and recommendations handed down by the Cass review when it was published on 10 April.

She said she had received online abuse in the wake of the report and had been advised to stop using public transport.

The report said the evidence base for gender medicine in young people had been thin and children had been let down by a “toxic” public discourse around gender.

Cass told the Times: “I have been really frustrated by the criticisms, because it is straight disinformation. It is completely inaccurate.

“It started the day before the report came out when an influencer posted a picture of a list of papers that were apparently rejected because they were not randomised control trials.

“That list has absolutely nothing to do with either our report or any of the papers.”

Referring to the online abuse she had received, she said: “There are some pretty vile emails coming in at the moment, most of which my team is protecting me from, so I’m not getting to see them.”

She added: “I’m not going on public transport at the moment, following security advice, which is inconvenient.”

The report said the now shuttered Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, the only NHS gender identity development service for children in England and Wales, used puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones despite “remarkably weak evidence” that they improved the wellbeing of young people and concern they may harm health.

The report recommended that young people struggling with their gender identity should be screened to detect neurodevelopmental conditions and there should be an assessment of their mental health, because some who seek help with their gender identity may also have anxiety or depression, for example.

When the report was released, Cass stressed that her findings were not intended to undermine the validity of trans identities or challenge people’s right to transition, but rather to improve the care of the fast-growing number of children and young people with gender-related distress.

NHS England has since announced a second Cass review-style appraisal of adult gender clinics. Cass confirmed to the Times that she would not take part in the adult report after the abuse she suffered in recent weeks.

She said: “You heard it right here: I am not going to do the adult gender clinic review.”

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" -- Sam Harris

These gender ideologues are cultists. There's no science, no evidence, no reasoning that would convince them of reality, because they don't believe based on science, evidence or reality. They believe entirely on ideology and faith. Nothing will convince them that, wait, perhaps we got this wrong? Is there something we missed? Could this have gotten out of hand? Is there information we don't know about?

They don't care.

They do not care.

They don't care about truth. They don't care about people. They don't care about kids; they just use them as a shield from criticism. They don't care about anyone. They only care about their ideology of gender revolution and "queering" the world, no matter the cost, no matter who gets hurt along the way.

Never ever forget and never ever forgive. Make sure these lunatics are as notorious in history as Mengele and Lysenko.

11 notes · View notes

gloombeauty · 2 months

Note

I thought I shared this with you because this topic is very interesting. Halsey didn't do any of this treatment stuff before she had her son. I remember for years people online were complaining that for a person suffering with endometrioses she didn't have a single laparoscopic surgery scar in her stomach. Now she's having this procedure done AFTER the baby. Doesn't make sense but there are women who do this after having a baby and before having a baby. These are women who really do have endometriosis.

I already spoke about this woman and all her alleged fake 10,000 self diagnosis. If you remember, Pretty Ugly Little Liars forum had many discussions about this too. She never had a single scar in her stomach before having that boy. Then she gets pregnant and posted two miniature dots that look, in my opinion, like they were drawn on. Now after having the baby, she's actually receiving Laparoscopic treatments? Come on.

Women usually do Laparoscopic surgery/treatments to not only stop the pain but in order to be able to have children. Endometriosis is a devastating diagnosis to many women who want to have children. If you read the statistics, more then 50% who have Endometriosis can't get pregnant. Some do get pregnant but have instant miscarriages. This is all information that you can do a quick Google with. I'm sure Halsey loves her Google.

Then there are women who really do have Endometriosis, have children and genuinely have pain and continue to get treatments. But Halsey? In my opinion - I doubt it.

Halsey claimed to have had many miscarriages. Her most fantastical miscarriage story (that most with a brain cell never believed) was having a miscarriage on stage. This was while she was doing back bends, running all over the stage, jumping and crowd surfing. Anyone who's ever had a miscarriage will tell you how horrifically painful it is. All miscarriages are painful. There's no freaking 'what if's' here - so for this woman to be back bending, jumping all over the stage and also crowd surfing - while "miscarriaging" - is a joke.

This woman proudly announced her "on stage miscarriage" during an interview and pointed out exactly when it happened. It was during her Vevo concert, which you can find the whole show on YouTube.

Anyway, I don't believe her.

For years her stomach/abdomen was flawless and spotless of any kind of Laparoscopic mark - despite her claims of seeing help for her Endometrioses treatment "every week".

Now she had the kid, so now she's posting all these "treatments" instead of it being before she had the kid. If you're going to allegedly lie about an illness, get it right.

Maybe she's seeking sympathy because she pissed off her Jewish fan base when she posted that Free Palestine propaganda on IG? I'm sure all the heads at Columbia records (who are all Jewish btw) loved that their artist posted garbage like that this week.

Not a smart move to post antisemitic crap on your IG when your label is predominantly run by Jewish heads.

#halsey #endometriosis #pathological liars #narcissism

9 notes · View notes

junopede · 7 months

Text

Good morning to people who grew up and became pathological liars and now are attempting to stop Doing The Thing, you’re doing great

#juno speaks #it’s rough out here #pathological lying #pathological liars #healing

14 notes · View notes

enbygunderson · 1 year

Text

PSA

No one is gonna take away your democrat card if you take your raging liberal friends’ claims of rare mental illnesses, indigenous status, etc, with a grain of salt. There are people who will absolutely try to manipulate you by using your sense of social justice against you. Protect yourself.

#anti NPD #DID faker #leaches #race claimers #pathological liars

17 notes · View notes

rosiemarieyn · 2 months

Text

I can't keep pretending i enjoy smut fics.

#i hate sex #struggle #girlblogging #pathological liars

2 notes · View notes

etherealsign282 · 5 months

Text

The truth can hurt but betrayal from the lies can be traumatizing

And I would have rather felt temporary pain than be still nursing a permanent scar

#betrayal #truth #lies #trauma #pathological liars #liar #emotional wounds #scarred #emotional

4 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 12 hours

Text

By: Benjamin Ryan

Published: Apr 18, 2024

On April 9, the long-awaited Cass Review detonated in England. Its effects have been felt around a world torn asunder by the politicized subject of gender. The 388-page report, which was supported in part by six independent systematic literature reviews that were published by the BMJ, scrutinized the science behind pediatric gender-transition treatment.

Cass found that the practice of prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors was based on “remarkably weak evidence.”

In the report’s fallout, furious clouds of misinformation have formed, fueled by people who doubtfully have read much—or any—of the report or the BMJ papers. These people have falsely claimed that Cass only accepted randomized controlled trials, or RCTs, as evidence to consider in her massive report.

I write this article as the same lone warrior who battled monkeypox misinformation (and made a typo doing it) two years ago. I write in hopes of setting the record straight on a few key points. I write as a dismayed middle-aged man who remains, at his heart, the same frustrated child who always did the reading before class, and who was forced to sit and listen to those who hadn’t done their homework dominate the discussion.

The following is a distillation of various fact-checking tweet threads I’ve published regarding the Cass Review. Individual tweets are hyperlinked throughout the text if you would care to refer to, comment upon, or retweet them.

To learn about the specifics of the Cass Review, you can check out my coverage in The New York Sun, my tweet thread about that article, and my thread about the report.

This particular article will be devoted to the dying art of fact checking.

Here’s What’s At Stake

Many advocates of gender-distressed young people are furious that systematic literature reviews, they argue, set the evidentiary bar too high. They say these reviews forbid the acceptance of lots of promising findings from perfectly good studies on pediatric gender-transition treatment.

Others say those evidence-based-medicine standards of assessing the strength versus weaknesses of research are vital to prevent research that makes erroneous claims from impacting health policy and sending it astray.

They note that the stakes are high when it comes to pediatric gender-transition treatment, in particular considering the drugs in question may impact fertility and sexual function. Fertility, they say, is a human right. And since children cannot consent to their own care, the adults responsible for their care—parents or guardians and doctors—need to be especially sure before they consent to or provide drugs that could take a child’s fertility.

Here’s the question: Where does the pediatric gender-dysphoria care field go from here, now that Cass has said the evidence is weak and uncertain (as have multiple previous systematic literature reviews)? Should it accept the claim of GLAAD, the LGBTQ media watchdog group, that the “science is settled,” and that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones should be widely provided to gender-distressed children?

Or should the pediatric gender-medicine field follow the lead of Cass and England, and of Scandinavian nations, re-classifying pediatric gender-transition treatment as experimental and, accordingly, restricting it to clinical trials only Then, if the results of those clinical trials are favorable, it is possible that those European nations will change course again and broaden access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors? Perhaps then they would be satisfied that the evidence is strong enough?

Here in the US, we have a split-screen system, quite unlike the European nations:

23 red states have passed bans of pediatric access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for gender distress. Many are tied up in the courts. The Supreme Court will almost surely settle the matter.

Blue states support liberal access to such medications.

The major US medical societies, in particular the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society, along with the medical/activist group WPATH, all support liberal access to pediatric gender-transition treatment. This is in stark contrast to Cass/England’s approach.

So wide is the gulf between Cass and WPATH that after Cass supported forbidding puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors, WPATH said that the majority of gender-dysphoric adolescents would fare better on such medications than with the holistic mental-health care Cass advises and that is now policy in England.

At stake here is the question of how scientific research is translated into health policy.

Who gets to decide, and what methods do they use to assess the research?

What is the best way to do this, to ensure that the best possible care is provided to vulnerable young people?

The most important question is this: How can patients, families and healthcare and mental-health providers be provided the most robust and informative information possible to guide their shared decision-making as they weigh the risks versus benefits of treatment?

Cass says that WPATH’s guidelines are weak. WPATH countered in their recent statement by asserting that they, WPATH, are the subject-matter experts on pediatric gender-transition treatment, not Cass. The American Academy of Pediatrics, meanwhile, has been sued, along with the author of its 2018 policy statement backing pediatric gender-transition treatment and the overall “affirmative” model of care, in a medical-malpractice suit that I covered for The New York Sun.

False Claims Have Widely Circulated That Cass Rejected all Non-Randomized Controlled Trials

Cass does indeed state that randomized-controlled trials are the gold-standard of scientific studies. Meanwhile, many claim that an RCT for gender-transition treatment would be unethical to conduct among children, because the preponderance of evidence indicates the treatment is safe and effective. (Others vigorously dispute that such a trial would be unethical and that such evidence is trustworthy—hence, they say, the need for an RCT.) Furthermore, it is not possible to blind such a study, because the effects of the drugs (i.e., suppressed puberty or cross-sex puberty) are too obvious.

However, neither of the two systematic literature reviews on which Cass was partially based—one about puberty blockers, the other about cross-sex hormones to treat gender distress in minors—place RCTs as the bar that the 103 studies they assessed needed to meet. Rather, they used a validated assessment tool known as the Newcastle-Ottowa scale, which is designed to assess the strength of observational studies.

This is how one of the papers described the scale:

Neither of the studies deemed high quality by the reviews were RCTs.

And so, the widespread claims that the Cass Review set an impossibly high bar to reach by demanding only RCTs, discarding 101 out of 103 studies of pediatric gender-transition treatment, are: FALSE

Let’s examine how Dr. Hilary Cass and her team did factor in the systematic literature reviews about puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones.

One systematic literature review examined puberty-blockers for gender distressed kids. It examined 50 studies, and included in its synthesis one high-quality study and 25 moderate-quality studies. It did not simply ignore the 24 low-quality studies.

The other systematic lit review examined cross-sex hormone use for gender distress in minors. It examined 53 studies, and included in its synthesis one high-quality study and 33 moderate-quality studies. But it did not simply ignore the 19 low-quality ones.

What about the Cass Review? How did it make use of the two systematic lit reviews? The claim that Cass simply discarded the 101 moderate/low-quality studies and only looked at the two high-quality studies is: FALSE

She folded the analyses of the 103 studies into her report.

Let’s zoom in to the 388-page Cass review. To see where she first folds in the findings of the systematic literature review of cross-sex hormones, go to page 183. Here is how she introduces that paper:

Cass includes in her report the following chart from the lit-review paper on cross-sex hormones, which breaks down all the studies it analyzed and what outcomes they addressed. Cass is pointing out key areas where more research is needed, in particular about fertility outcomes. So you can see that this report is about way more than just the narrow question of treatment efficacy. It’s about the whole field of pediatric gender medicine and the research apparatus behind it.

On page 184 of the Cass Review, she goes into considerable detail about the findings of the systematic literature review about cross-sex hormones. She does not solely focus on the one high-quality study, although she does certainly highlight it. She refers to all 53 studies.

The review discusses the findings of the systematic literature review on cross-sex hormones for minors amid discussions of lots of other individual papers about pediatric gender-transition treatment. The review also folds in the findings from the systematic literature review about puberty blockers for gender distressed minors (p. 175).

Cass includes the following chart from the review paper on puberty blockers for gender-distressed kids, which breaks down the outcomes examined by the 50 studies. It points to areas where much more research is needed, especially about…fertility.

From page 176 to 177, Cass has lots to say about the specifics of the puberty blocker systematic literature review. She does not restrict her discussion to the one high-quality study included in the review.

The Review includes 15 pages of footnotes of studies, guidelines, and other sources on which the report is based. The report is not solely based on two studies.

In sum, those who say Cass and the lit reviewers simply discarded 101 studies are incorrect. However, because the quality of the study findings was overwhelmingly weak, Cass was indeed very limited in which studies she could rely on in assessing safety and efficacy in particular.

Cass sums up the matter as follows in her introduction:

Who Has Made False Claims That The Cass Report Rejected All Non-RCTs?

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published an article quoting doctors repeating, and failing to challenge, the false claim that the Cass Review disregarded any studies about pediatric gender-transition treatment that were not randomized controlled trials. The article made various other false or misleading claims, such as that puberty blockers are at least believed to be safe and reversible. Sallie Baxendale’s recent scholarship, along with Cass’s findings, have shown how neither of those claims are known to be true. Much more research is needed.

Continuing a running theme in our culture of late, hundreds of academics have signed a letter protesting the Cass Review that strongly suggests they have not read the review or the systematic literature reviews on which it is partly based. Their letter falsely claims the Cass Review “does not include a proper systematic literature review since it disregards most research evidence because it fails to reach the impossibly high bar of a double-blind trial.”

The letter was spearheaded by transfeminist sociologist Natacha Kennedy and her colleagues at the Feminist Gender Equality Network.

Numerous accounts on X (formerly Twitter) broadcast the false claim that the Cass Review and two of the systematic literature reviews on which it was based simply discarded 101 of 103 studies on pediatric gender-transition treatment. This includes the British singer Billy Bragg, Dr. David Gorski (who also falsely claimed that Cass referred to so-called rapid-onset gender dysphoria in her report) and activist Substacker Erin Reed:

In her most recent Substack published April 18, Erin Reed continued to further the falsehood that Cass “disregarded” all but high-quality studies. She also made false or misleading claims about: the subjectivity of the systematic literature review’s scoring system; the ongoing debate over whether gender dysphoria is influenced by social contagion; the false notion that the Cass Review aligned itself with an anti-trans propagandist; and the detransition rate.

In a lengthy YouTube video, British political activist and pundit Owen Jones (who once interviewed me about monkeypox when I was very swollen and bald from chemo) repeatedly made the false assertion that the Cass Review excluded all non-RCTs.

youtube

Jones also falsely claimed that none of England’s pediatric-gender-clinic patients were sped through the assessment process. The Cass Review shows that at a minimum, hundreds of children were referred to endocrinology after no more than four assessment appointments.

Jones also repeatedly said that the rate of detransitioning—people who after taking cross-sex hormones stop the medications and revert to identifying as their biological sex—is about 1 percent, saying that long-term studies show this. This despite the fact that Cass said in her report that because of a lack of long-term follow-up, the detransition rate is unknown.

How Did All This Misinformation Get Started?

From what I can estimate, the first person to have pushed the false claim that Cass simply discarded 98 percent of the available studies about pediatric gender-transition treatment was trans activist and attorney Alejandra Caraballo.

The key problem is that Caraballo cited the wrong systematic literature reviews in a viral tweet about the Cass Review.

Five hours before the Cass Review was published on April 9, Caraballo tweeted a screenshot of what appeared to be the new systematic literature reviews that would be published alongside the Cass report. But these screenshots were actually from the so-called NICE reviews—from 2020.

The tweet quickly racked up hundreds of thousands of views and has 850K to date.

The NICE reviews of the pediatric use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for gender distress relied on the GRADE system, which with rare exceptions only gives high-quality ratings to randomized controlled trials.

Caraballo apparently did not yet have a copy of the final Cass Review report at this time. If Caraballo had waited until the new systematic literature reviews on which it was partly based, Caraballo would have seen that they did not throw out all but RCTs.

I am quite certain Caraballo did not have access to the Cass Review’s final report before the embargo lifted (at 7:01pm ET April 9), because shortly before the embargo was set to lift, Caraballo tweeted what was quite apparently thought to be the Cass report. But the link was to the review papers, not the report. As you can see, I told Caraballo on April 9 that the tweet had not, as claimed, linked to the Cass Review:

And of course amid all this, uber-popular debunking podcaster Michael Hobbes, who once hosted a show called You’re Wrong About, weighed in.

This reminds me of the time Hobbes hate tweeted about the feature in The Atlantic that I wrote about carpal tunnel syndrome and spent half the summer researching. He dismissed it with a wave of the hand. It was obvious he had not read it.

I will leave you, dear reader, with one small, yet mighty request:

PLEASE DO THE READING.

About the Author

Benjamin Ryan is an independent journalist, specializing in science and health care coverage. He has contributed to The New York Times, The Guardian, NBC News and The New York Sun. Ryan has also written for the Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Nation, Thomson Reuters Foundation, New York, The Marshall Project, PBS, The Village Voice, The New York Observer, the New York Post, Money, Men's Journal, City & State, Quartz, Out and The Advocate.

Learn more about Ryan’s work on his website, and follow him on X @benryanwriter.

Make no mistake, these gender fanatics aren't mistaken or misinformed or confused. This is malicious and deliberate. They're liars and they know they're lying.

How do we know? They don't say things like, "ah, that makes sense now," or "I didn't realize that," or "I misunderstood that."

Instead, they pivot, and then they pivot, and then they pivot again. They create one lie, then another, then another, then another.

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it." -- Brandolini's Law

It's not criticism or analysis. They're anti-science religious fundamentalists doing the same kind of thing anti-evolution creationists do: strawman, misrepresent, misinterpret or outright lie in order to create a false sense of doubt or uncertainty. It's religious apologists producing propaganda for the faithful.

Note: Even Stonewall has had to backpedal, which they've done while pretending how the research was evaluated was "unclear." Community Notes has pointed out that dedicated sections in the report itself explain exactly how this was done.

Meaning, Stonewall was either lying about having read it, or they read it but were lying about what's in it. It's most likely they didn't read it and simply took the word of one or more of the already named frauds and activists LARPing as "journalists."