> For example, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare, which sets guidelines for care, determined earlier this year that the risks of puberty blockers and treatment with hormones “currently outweigh the possible benefits” for minors.
What does Sweden do differently in their scientific community that they so frequently arrive at a different cost/benefit result than the rest of the West?
This has happened so much that it's clearly not by chance. We saw them reach a different conclusion about lockdowns - the cost would not make up for the benefit. When the mRNA vaccines emerged, they too had a different determination of cost/benefit and they were one of the first countries to determine that the benefit does not make up for the risk in certain populations. Then puberty blockers for minors, which in the US are effectively considered a perfect treatment with no side effects and to express even a hint of hesitation is met with professional and personal ruin.
It's unthinkable in the US today, yet it would not surprise me if this is Sweden again lapping the other countries in what will be scientific consensus in 5 years time.
What does Sweden do differently in their scientific community that they so frequently arrive at a different cost/benefit result than the rest of the West?
This has happened so much that it's clearly not by chance. We saw them reach a different conclusion about lockdowns - the cost would not make up for the benefit. When the mRNA vaccines emerged, they too had a different determination of cost/benefit and they were one of the first countries to determine that the benefit does not make up for the risk in certain populations. Then puberty blockers for minors, which in the US are effectively considered a perfect treatment with no side effects and to express even a hint of hesitation is met with professional and personal ruin.
It's unthinkable in the US today, yet it would not surprise me if this is Sweden again lapping the other countries in what will be scientific consensus in 5 years time.