This explains a lot.

The Cass Review has been thoroughly debunked.

Anytime a Review just ignores the majority of studies (because they disagree with the Review's position), it's a pretty bad sign.

Anytime a Review ignores ALL studies in the past two years, it's a pretty bad sign.

Anytime a Review makes arguments that aren't back by literally any data from the studies it does use, it's a pretty bad sign.

Anytime a Review makes arguments that are literally contradicted by the data from the studies it uses, it's a pretty bad sign.

Worse, anytime a Review makes arguments from debunked medical positions, like brain development timelines, it's a REALLY bad sign.

But it says what you want, so why do you care?