Thousands of deaths associated with drugs given to trans children.

It’s Joss Prior though. Joss is pretty stupid. Joss can’t tell the difference between a recipe and a list of ingredients, so to expect Joss to analyse an article in the British Medical Journal and explain why the journalists’ documenting a catalogue of ethics concerns, lack of evidence and poor governance have it wrong is way beyond Joss’s capabilities.

Thankyou OldCrone. It's a huge database so should contain some useful information but there are lots of inconsistencies, inaccuracies and unspecified factors to weed out

Now how should I classify the females with erectile dysfunction or prostate cancer?

This is a proper nightmare scenario.

As this is the US, presumably there isn't the exact same difference between licenced use and not licensed as there is in the UK?
Plus as it's being used for people who are presumably terminally ill anyway - does the description of it being an adverse reaction mean it's a reaction/outcome not linked to the patients primary condition?

Thingybob If you filter by age group, there's a relatively small number of patients reporting adverse effects in the 3-11 and 12-17 age groups (1084 and 347 respectively for Leuprolide Acetate), although there is a very large group of people under age not specified. I don't think there's enough information there to draw any firm conclusions about the effects on children.

I see TRAs on Twitter responding to this thread by defending the use of Lupron. But by their own admission it's mainly used for people with cancer or for palliative care - in other words, for those who are already very ill, where the benefits outweigh the risks. It doesn't justify giving Lupron to healthy people.

Thankyou for your feedback Birdsfoottrefoil.

I'd like to be able to understand what those figures mean so am playing with the filters on the fda site

Orchid at the last WPATH (a trans lobby group) conference they were suggesting going straight to cross sex hormones - at 9/10/11/12 years old.

But it isn’t really about passing either (makes very little difference to girls anyway); it is about validation for older AGP males and justification for allowing then to express their sexual kink in women’s spaces

Deaths from prostrate cancer would be considered under efficacy/effectiveness not adverse events.

That Vox article: "If the medication is stopped, bone density catches up to normal after a few years as the child goes through the puberty of their gender assigned at birth."

a) that isn't true and b) even if it were, what about the children who don't stop or move onto hormones? It sounds like an admission that they will suffer lifelong bone density issues.

No wonder there is a push for trans healthcare - they know they are damaging a generation of children.

The push is all about passing isn't it? If they can bypass having to remove the inconvenient secondary sexual physical characteristics then they may pass better.

I bet they're trying to develop cross sex puberty hormones - a sort of 2 in 1.

Bloody hell...

If only their dr could see this video. S/he , if they were any good at all would not continue to prescribe or administer treatment that their patient clearly doesnt understand and and unreasonable expectations for.

How could anyone treat someone who has not only no ide of the seriousness of the situation but actively tells parents not to worry it will all be ok.and they can just stop and all be normal.

Pharma companies make money.

Oh sorry, I missed your post Birdsfoottrefoil and was responding to yours thingybob. I have to confess I'm not sure what the figures actully do mean, but I think what I said in my last post makes sense either way, hopefully.

I understand that when deaths associated with drugs include cancer patients and elderly patients etc a lot of those death won't be caused by the drugs.
However, since puberty isn't normally life-threatening in itself I would like to understand what the causes of these deaths are.
How many are directly caused by the drugs? And even if this is low, is it higher than those caused by suicide by not having the drugs, which is what the drugs are supposedly being prescriped to prevent?
How many are from suicide, since concerns about increased suicidality have been raised?
How many are from things like accidents etc, and even then how does that compare to the average for age since drugs can affect behaviour (increased recklessness for eg) and concentration (safety awarness) etc.
I do hope someone is doing in-depth anyalysis on all this.

It’s just another of the many contradictions. Physical transition improves mental health, but it’s not a mental health disorder.

But but but NotBad it is not a mental illness and everything is cured by transitioning...

The worst thing is, I don’t think anyone is making money, certainly not in UK or Australia with public health systems anyway. I think it’s about trans adults being able to say “look, this is a valid pathway and I was deprived of it when I was a kid, my life could have been so different”. I imagine it would help them feel like if they’d had the chance to change things life could have been better if external forces hadn’t conspired against them. If it transpires that medically adulterating the bodies of children doesn’t lead to better outcomes for adults, they’re left with having to accept the fact that they’re lives would have ended up just as they are now and they have to deal with it as an internal problem. I sincerely wish there was a much greater input and expansion of mental health services for trans adults and children with identity concerns.

the FDA advises women who are, or may become, pregnant not to take Lupron® because of the risks to the developing fetus

That's fine, it's not like anyone who decides they're going to live as a male then goes on to have children.

I am sure the first few cases of serious health issues will be put down the violence of being misgendered and transphobia in the health service. It will be everyone else’s fault.

So we will be seeing young adults with serious health (and mental) issues soonish then? When did this become more common in ‘unnecessary’ cases (so not when a real doctor has seemed it a medical necessity after weighing up the physical costs and benefits).

Don’t like pink - hey laddie have some of there. Perfectly safe. Who is making the money here?

In more recent years the general advice about neutering DOGS is not to do it unless they are mature. There have been a series of studies, all showing that cutting off the hormones pre puberty significantly increases joint disorders, behavioural issues and some cancer risk. The explanation is along the lines of sex hormones having a complex role in the development of the whole body and brain. Let growth plates fuse, let the dog reach maturity.

Yet it’s OK to do it to our children.