LibDem funding own thread.

Who in the LibDems is pushing this area?

moves to Switzerland from his notoriously liberal country of birth, Sweden, to avoid paying tax

Think you've answered your own question there. He's a liberal, not a socialist and had the good fortune to inherit a company his parents built. Like other multinational pharma companies including Novartis and Roche, Ferring presumably chose Switzerland for their HQ as it made business sense.

I sometimes genuinely wonder about the impact of the placebo effect on wellbeing for these young people; just being heard can have huge impact on mental health and wellbeing. It's just that unfortunately teens don't have the capacity to think long term about implications, which is the nature of being a teen.

Both drugs and Ferring mentioned here; not sure significance:

blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/

VernonSquare, could you enlighten us on why Paulsen / Ferring was funding the Lib Dems back in 2013 and 2014, before an EU referendum had been announced? But around the time that Stephen Whittle, Alex Drummond, Stonewall et al were slipping in the back door of Westminster to have unpublicised consultations with politicians with a view to making a few 'merely administrative' changes to the GRA that have resulted, for all practical purposes, in self-ID? 'Merely administrative' changes in which not one women's organisation was consulted, by the way.

Just did a quick google on Paulsen. Can't help wondering about what sort of liberal moves to Switzerland from his notoriously liberal country of birth, Sweden, to avoid paying tax. He also serves on the board of Philip Morris International: no idea why a progressive person would do that but perhaps he's hoping tobacco addicts can be weaned onto something his pharma companies can profit from.

Agree with Betty. We don't know the complexities behind this relationship so I wouldn't be too quick to give it a clean bill of health. The funding of the lib dems was well before Brexit. Lib dems will never win an election but as a coalition partner they will make certain demands.

Thanks for the input Vernon

I do think we need to be careful to avoid conspiracy theories, and the money doesn't seem to me to add up on this one - the number of kids being given this drug in the UK is not huge, Ferring can't make that much from it. The Brexit explanation does make more sense.

Lots of comments on this one (including a couple of panickers, one using T**f as an insult)

Should've also added that I do appreciate the informed and detailed input Vernon. Typing on phone means I omit the niceties and often the courtesy! I's interesting and I would definitely opt for taking a broader approach to interpretation than just looking for a solitary smoking gotcha gun. It's complex. Best of luck with the tiny human ;)

It's the doctors who'd be liable as they'd have prescribed a drug which wasn't licenced for use in children or for that matter, the indication - ie without any data from a randomised placebo-controlled trial to test safety and efficacy of the drug to delay/prevent puberty in children. It's only licensed for use in IVF treatment or to treat prostate cancer.

I would want to know why a drug company, Ferring, sponsored the crucial Dutch trial into puberty blockers

£££££££ There are billions to be made from this before it all blows up and their insurers are hit for billions.

Cheers, kind of you

Thanks for your perspective Vernon. Important to get a clear picture. Hope your baby isn’t keeping you up all night

Vernon I get that. All of it. But I'm going to guess that donations made by Ferring to LD dwarf potential profits even on a short term basis. I don't believe it's the sole driver (esp for a pharma co with varied interests) but dismissing the idea that it might even be part of a package of benefits seems daft. Especially when LDs don't stand any chance of winning a GE.

bettybeans - I'm pointing out that Paulsen funds the Lib Dems because he is anti-Brexit, not because there is some payday looming from giving kids hormones. If the drug was still under patent and they could get a licence for using it in kids and charge a fortune for it, I'd maybe buy this as an explanation for the Lib Dem funding. But it isn't.

The patent expired yonks ago and if the Lib Dems got in and suddenly hormone blockers were handed out in vast quantities, then any old generics company could make blockers and sell them pretty cheaply and there'd be no payback for Ferring

You're welcome, Vernon!

Wouldn't be the first pharma company who funded research with the understanding that they are looking for a specific result.
Do you read the newspapers?

Vernon square, the onus is on Swinson and LibDems to examine the political links between the donations they receive and the policies they push for. I'm sure the Ferring owner does have wide and varied interests but that doesn't diminish the link between LDs support of gender politics and benefits to Ferring. A complex scenario with tenuous links may still ultimately mean millions or billions in profit for the pharmaceutical company and that's always a connection worth examining.

OccasionalKite - cheers for the support and lecture on punctuation as I try and post some insight into this situation with a miserable fussing teething baby

Frankly, apart from the sale puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, there are rich pickings for pharma in all the iatrogenic chronic diseases caused by transgenderism. Besides how else do we explain Jo Swinson?

VernonSquare:

Ever heard of paragraphs?

Your first post appears to be word salad because it's just a solid block of text that tends to dissuade reading on a screen. That is all.

Trans people are dependent on cross sex hormones.

Not sure what your point is here? The hormones used by trans people are made by multiple drug companies - they are simple-ish peptides, and mostly off patent (ie cheap)

Of course not its not promotion to fund research - all drug companies provide supplies of their drugs for clinicians to use in trials and also provide grants for studies. How else would doctors or NGOs like the WHO fund their specialist research areas e.g in a specific patient population or when trying a drug for a condition it's not licensed for? Promotion of prescription drugs (ie marketing, reps going in and selling) can only occur within the licensed indication though and that's what I'm talking about above.

''The company literally makes all sorts of synthetic hormones''
Trans people are dependent on cross sex hormones.

There would be gigantic fines and potentially prosecution if Ferring itself were found to be promoting the drug off-licence to treat children - and there is no evidence as far as I can see that that they have done this.

They've been funding the research into its use as a puberty blocker for children who identify as transgender. Is that not promoting its use for this purpose?