Keira Bell

I'm history going to stop commenting now as it's got to the point where we're not debating anymore.

Dodopatrol I'm arguing for more support for these kids, that means more resources so these kinds of things don't happen, but no system is perfect, no system can ever be perfect, it can only be as good as we can possibly make it. Assuming Keira was 100% honest with the clinic, and the right procedures were followed, then no one can really be at fault here.

A year ago Professor Carl Heneghan (Oxford Evidence Based Medicine & BMJ editor) published an important paper:

BMJ EBM Spotlight paper:
'Gender-affirming hormone in children and adolescents – Evidence review'
Posted on 25th February 2019

(extract)
"Gender dysphoria occurs when a person experiences discomfort or distress because of a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity. Gender dysphoria can arise in childhood and adolescent which raises many questions about how best to handle the condition. This post sets out the current evidence for gender-affirming hormones in adolescents and children to aid decision making. (continues)

"Conclusions

There are significant problems with how the evidence for Gender-affirming cross-sex hormone has been collected and analysed that prevents definitive conclusions to be drawn. Similar to puberty blockers, the evidence is limited by small sample sizes; retrospective methods, loss of considerable numbers of patients in follow-up. The majority of studies also lack a control group (only two studies used controls). Interventions have heterogeneous treatment regimes complicating comparisons between studies. Also adherence to the interventions are either not reported or at best inconsistent. Subjective outcomes, which are highly prevalent in the studies, are also prone to bias due to lack of blinding, and many effects can be explained by regression to the mean.

The development of these interventions should, therefore, occur in the context of research. Treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental. There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition. We wonder whether off label use is appropriate and justified for drugs such as spironolactone which can cause substantial harms, including death. We are also ignorant of the long-term safety profiles of the different GAH regimens. The current evidence base does not support informed decision making and safe practice."
blogs.bmj.com/bmjebmspotlight/2019/02/25/gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-evidence-review/

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3518188-BMJ-Prof-Carl-Heneghan-Evidence-Based-Medicine-Oxford-Panorama-Trans-Kids-Gender-affirming-hormone-in-children-and-adolescents-Evidence-review-concludes-There-are-significant-problems

"Ms Bell's legal team will argue the centre's approach was unlawful because

1. children could not give informed consent for this kind of treatment and

2. the potential risks of treatment were not adequately explained"

Paul Conrathe of Sinclairslaw, the solicitor representing [Keira] Bell, said: “The ruling is a significant step towards establishing protection for vulnerable children from experimental treatment that has lifelong consequences.”

In England a child is someone who has yet to reach their 18th birthday.

This is about Safeguarding children & Vulnerable Adults which is a statuatory responsibility

My mind is still boggled that oopster thinks that the nhs only does medical research on ‘people suffering with cancer and similar’ and in every other field and condition the nhs is at a standstill and only ever uses established interventions and never seeks improvements, treatments, cures or reductions in adverse events.

Datun, these are 2 people, Blanchard and Bailey with an agenda.

Eh? What agenda?

You can't seriously expect people to disbelieve AGP when the men who have it plaster their selfies, anecdotes and chat about it all over the web and write books about it.

It's not exactly hidden.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Lawrence

And as I said, their wives, girlfriends and ex wives have thousands of posts on this very site.

You're flogging a dead horse oopster. Everyone knows about AGP. David Thomas is diarising his in the daily telegraph. And loving his, um teenage boobs.

Maybe we need to debunk all the propaganda bit by bit?
Like, the big lie, as far as children and adolescents are concerned, is that ‘puberty blockers’ are a ‘harmless pause’ that have been used for precocious puberty for years...

Yet it appears (and yet more studies will be welcome) that using triptolerin in the female paediatric population causes a 7-8 point drop in IQ.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253377/

That’s not harrmless pause.

They may use experimental drugs with people suffering with cancer and similar, but that's all.

The NHS use experimental drugs in masses of different conditions from mild eczema to glaucoma, to depression, to corona virus, every single condition; definitely not just cancer! When an established drug, which may have been used for 30 years, is used to treat a different condition or in a different way for the same condition, it’s use is experimental until it’s safety, efficacy and effectiveness can be established. The fact that a drug may be given for a few years to delay puberty from abnormally early to slightly earlier than usual in precocious puberty does not mean that it’s use to stop a child with gender dysphoria from ever undergoing puberty can be considered safe, efficacious, or effective. Nor does it mean that even in the original condition that evidence may not come to light even after decades to prove it isn’t safe. For example steroids were used for years to treat patients with head injuries in a&e before it was discovered that it was killing patients.

oopster
This is what Keira Bell says about the legal case:

I have become a claimant in this case because I do not believe that children and young people can consent to the use of powerful and experimental hormone drugs like I did. I believe that the current affirmative system put in place by the Tavistock is inadequate as it does not allow for exploration of these gender dysphoric feelings nor does it seek to find the underlying causes of this condition. Hormone changing drugs and surgery does not work for everyone and it certainly should not be offered to someone under the age of 18 when they are emotionally and mentally vulnerable.

She has said other things in interviews, but that doesn't change what the legal action is about.

There's a link from this page if you want to learn more about it. It might help if you inform yourself about the facts rather than continuing to argue whilst seemingly being unaware of what the case is about.

All I'm hearing from oopster on this thread is a bunch of misinformed codswallop which seems to be prompted by a hefty dose of "What about meeeee?"

Transitioning is, imo, nonsense, but an adult doing something is very different to a child being able to do it.

This is really basic stuff, but all oopster is doing is pouting because they think this case will bring an end to all support for trans anything. Which is laughable, really, because the aim is clearly to make sure gender questioning children get the very best care.

*It has been tested though. It's been used for over 30 years.
Not for adolescent onset gender dysphoria, it hasn’t. And no, it hasn’t been properly tested. Stop listening to Susie Green and read the actual studies.

And I haven’t said whether I agree with Blanchard or Bailey, I just pointed out that you couldn’t tell them apart. Stop telling people what they believe and start paying proper attention.

I know they're 2 different people, but they have similar theories. It's amazing how you'll accept the theories of 2 people yet won't accept the theories of the majority of the rest on trans issues. Only liking what aligns with your theories?

It has been tested though. It's been used for over 30 years. The NHS doesn't just use untested drugs willy nilly. They may use experimental drugs with people suffering with cancer and similar, but that's all.

This court case will hopefully bring out the actual facts of the issue, but you know that's not going to be enough for some people who simply want anything trans related shut down.

Oldcrone no, every time I've seen her interviewed, he while argument was she wasn't challenged enough, so it's not unreasonable to ask the question I did.

All these people who claim to support transgender children and individuals but want them treated with dangerous untested medication which has proven list of harms. And who do not want the evidence for this medication examined! That is what this case is about: examining the evidence. Surely that can only be a good thing if you want the best for transgender children? Or perhaps you don’t?

www.segm.org/home

www.segm.org/about_us

Gender clinicians are taking a stand because children and young people are not getting the evidenced based medicine they deserve.

What if Keira had been questioned more, challenged more as she says she wish she had been, yet still went ahead with blockers and testosterone and surgery.

She wouldn't have been able to do that using the NHS if the NHS weren't offering those services to children. That's what the case is about. Not whether she was challenged enough or whether she made a mistake when she consented, but whether children are capable of informed consent about such things as loss of sexual function and infertility and all the other consequences of this treatment, which are more extreme when started in adolescence.

Professor Heneghan from the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine concluded in a post in the British Medical Journal dated 25/2/19 : “An Archive of Diseases in Childhood letter referred to GnRHa treatment as a momentous step in the dark. It set out three main concerns: 1) young people are left in a state of ‘developmental limbo’ without secondary sexual characteristics that might consolidate gender identity; 2) use is likely to threaten the maturation of the adolescent mind, and 3) puberty blockers are being used in the context of profound scientific ignorance.”

The current evidence base does not support informed decision making and safe practice in children. “ Many professionals are now highly concerned about the treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents which remain largely experimental. There are so many unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; serious adverse health events, long term effects on mental health, neurological effects on cognitive functioning, the effect on bone density, circulatory systems and sexual functioning in adulthood. We cannot stand by and watch young people be part of an experimental medical treatment that exposes them to very significant risks. We should be providing thoughtful, expert, longer term psychological help and therapy, which research has shown to be helpful for many of these children.

The above is taken from Keira and Mrs A’s crowdjustice page. £65,000 has been raised to pay for the case so far.

I had to point out the difference between Bailey and Blanchard TO YOU oopster!

SHE ISN’T SUING

It’s a judicial review, not a civil claim. Keira gets no money out of it. The whole point is to make sure that the Tavistock are acting legally.

Every one wants to comment yet no one has a clue what they are commenting on!

who do you think runs the tavistock? who do you think will be picking up the bill?

Datun, these are 2 people, Blanchard and Bailey with an agenda. Just look at the title of Bailey's book about it to know he didn't go into it with an open mind - "the man who would be queen: The Science of Gender Bending and Transsexualism". An objective title would have been more along the lines of "a study of trans individuals", but that doesn't sound sensational enough to sell books does it. Here's the Wiki page for Bailey en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Bailey

SHE ISN’T SUING THE NHS1

Jesus fucking Christ.

We can debate this all our lives and never come to any agreement, but one question came to my mind earlier today. What if Keira had been questioned more, challenged more as she says she wish she had been, yet still went ahead with blockers and testosterone and surgery. What then? Would she still be suing the NHS then?

It wasn’t clear to me whether allowing a later natural or artificial puberty then led to any catch up in iq.

Aesop, in the interests of accuracy: when I looked at those results it seemed that the expected rise of ability with age stalled, rather than the children having a fall in ability. As iq is a ratio, that meant a drop in iq.

Miljea there have been a range of studies that show puberty blockers reduce IQ by up to an average of 10 points. Even Tavistock have admitted the wider affects on the developing brain are unknown.