Tavistock puberty blocker study published

Yeah, the ease with which they got through Ethics was scandalous and shameful (I say 'ease' because under the circumstances they shouldn't really have got it through Ethics at all), and wouldn't have if they'd not had a friend who 'became' a Chair of yet another Ethics Cttee - the third time they'd tried, I think? He bears some responsibility too; can't remember his name, but it's almost certainly in a thread somewhere on fwr....

Maybe we should have tiers of Ethics Cttees checking the ethics of lower Ethics Cttees?

(On a different, but as contentious a note, it's so delightful to see the possibility of so much red tape returning to Britain, isn't it?)

Oh I don't doubt that they had funding, Jux - I just wish I could remember where I saw the apologia that was all, "Poor Tavi clinicians, struggling to fit in this research around their clinical work because it was unfunded."

The Ethics Committee shenanigans were scandalous - I can't remember now if the NHSRA felt the ethics situation needed tightening up or if they were totally complacent about it. From what I can recall of that report they were over-keen to accept explanations along the lines of, "That's how the system works". Good at least that they spotted that the Tavi was providing misleading information to patients and parents about Puberty Blockers - the old "Pause Button, time to think" myth.

They definitely had funding, MoleSmokes. They also had to appear before at least 2 Ethics Committees before they were allowed to start the 'research' and were supposed to report regularly on progress (which they didn't).

The whole thing is a shambles and a scandal. I really hope that Carmichael will be investigated seriously. She honestly shouldn't be allowed to get away with what she's done, or allowed to be done.

Tootsweets23 - "They didn't add any others to the study despite have hundreds of additional patients that they didn't anticipate, despite receiving £1.3m to conduct this research."

That is interesting. I have seen it claimed elsewhere (sorry, I can't recall where) that the reason that the research was so shoddy was that it was unfunded and so staff were fitting it in around their clinical work.

Seeing the shoddy journalism around this topic makes me fear for the quality of journalism on subjects I know less well.

The internet has been terrible for news quality. I think I will have to actually take out a paid subscription this year, as the only news org who seem to make enough out of click bait to also employ real journalists for the proper stories are The Mail.

That inews article is quite confusing. It doesn’t get around to stating ‘why’ pbs have been subject to the ruling. None of the side effects such as bone density, joint issues etc or the effects of stopping puberty - fertility and future sex aspect.

It also doesn’t make clear the mental health aspect that needs to be ramped up either in support of or as alternative to affirming treatment (and the studies that have shown pbs can adversely effect mental health).

In fact, it makes out there are oodles of patience (supposedly GIDs says there are very few on pbs) and that there is no alternative to affirming treatment....

It seems yet another fear spreading article that also highlights the issues within the clinic. Also points out the complete lack on the clinics part to get thorough research done when they knew it was being expected. Such a lost opportunity to have some solid data about the effectiveness of their treatment plans.

inews.co.uk/news/gids-tavistock-gender-hormone-treatment-clinician-trans-800657

I can’t make head nor tail of this really.

Is progressing from PBs to cross sex hormones a single treatment pathway or isn’t it? GIDs claimed it isn’t, the judges said it is, and now this anon GIDs clinician says it is and kids in it should be allowed to progress as usual.

Make your minds up, GIDs!

"They didn't want to know"

THIS.

Is there any mechanism whatsoever by the Tavistock treatment data can be examined properly by competent people? Is that something the judiciary can intervene on? Probably not, right, but I can't get over this. Not only did they not know what they were doing to these kids, they didn't want to know. It's unforgivable.

www.transgendertrend.com/the-tavistocks-experiment-with-puberty-blockers-part-5-the-belated-results/

OMG. They could have added 250 more children to the study? They can't tell if their fucking treatments are having any positive effect whatsoever. They can, however be quite certain they're turning the kids they're treating into lifelong medical patients at risk of osteoporosis.

And they chose not to investigate whether their treatments have any benefits (a sample size of 300 would have been enough!), and carried on administering them anyway. At who knows what cost to thousands of children all over the world who are being given these unevidenced treatments. Fuck these people.

I want to know a great deal more about the one subject who didn't go on to cross-sex hormones. Why didn't they? What was different? How are they now?

Unless you go down the rabbit hole of who benefits from children and young teens staying close to that physical build forever.

Which was at least one whistleblowing clinician's concern at the Tavi.

Can someone explain how cases of medical negligence work? And when police get involved and charges are pressed?

Unless you go down the rabbit hole of who benefits from children and young teens staying close to that physical build forever.

SophocIestheFox

"Why would suppressing growth in young females be a good thing, when they want to pass as men later in life, and would therefore want to be as tall as possible?"

That is such a good point back on page one.

Not sure if this has been posted yet. But this is a rebuttal to Laverys recent piece.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-this-academic-gets-wrong-about-trans-rights-in-britain

Jessie Singal also did a rebuttal.

Someone recently told me that anyone can become a member of WPATH.

They gave an analogy of say a professional society eg royal society of xxxx where you'd have to have certain qualifications and a more common or garden group that gives its self a fancy name and becomes quite 'official' as so many join it and its popular but you don't have to hold certain professional qualifications. A lot do but it's not a stipulation.

WPATH is the latter.

Bloody hell. And thank god for Michael Biggs.

Michael Biggs has done a further analysis on TT's website about this report.

It is brutal - the parts that stand out the most: that they didn't split by sex, knowing that girls respond differently to boys as per the Dutch study. They didn't add any others to the study despite have hundreds of additional patients that they didn't anticipate, despite receiving £1.3m to conduct this research. They are giving drugs to kids knowing their bone density is flatlining when it should be going up in a steep curve.

This is utterly negligent. Scientifically, medically, ethically. I don't know how any of the professionals involved sleep at night.

www.transgendertrend.com/the-tavistocks-experiment-with-puberty-blockers-part-5-the-belated-results/ The Tavistock's experiment with puberty blockers, part 5: the belated results - Transgender Trend

WPATH are a patient group with some clinicians who seem to need a bit of CPD in critical thinking.

It's the status of WPATH and the weight given to their guidelines that worries me, and how this has been adopted by the NHS. It seems to me that in adult Gender Identity Services here in the UK the emphasis is on facilitating medical intervention rather than "what's the best way to help people suffering from gender dysphoria".

Public enquiries, independent reviews etc are not aimed at getting to the truth and exposing wrongdoing, They are about protecting institutions and moving on. I'm not trying to be all clever-clever cynical and Yes Minister about it - that is genuinely why they are commissioned. There are honourable exceptions like the Francis report on Mid-Staffs, but they are few and far between. And even the Francis report didn't change NHS culture, it just led to added layers of bureaucracy.

That's one of reasons why the Keira judgement was so important - it was genuinely independent.

Hasn't one of the doctors on the Cass review beem very pro TRA on twitter?

I'm not sure anyone will even be struck off tbh. Similar protocols are being used internationally so at the moment it's England & Wales that are taking a different route because they've been forced to by the high court, but each individual dr was doing what their counterparts all over the world were doing & will continue to do, with the guidence of wpath. I wonder whether any other countries will start to shift without legal battles.

There is a crowd funder by some Canadians to get a proper medical technical translation of the Finnish guidelines to treat gd, which are apparently not quick to the medical route.

I really had high hopes for the cass review. I'm still hopeful.