The Truth About Puberty Blockers - Gerald Posner in the WSJ

The difference between reporting and opinion is crucial.

US newspapers have op-ed pages, in which an opinion is expressed. This is different from reporting of, say, Theranos's fraud, which I believe was first exposed by a WSJ reporter.

Experiments with human subjects have informed consent, loads of official oversight, the results are followed up and published and most importantly if they cause harm to the subjects then they are stopped early

They also arent done on children.

I do wonder why puberty blockers as a treatment are held to different standards than every thing else.

If you took three patients with the same cancer. One may choose a surgical option. One may choose medical.option. amd another may choose to leave the hospital and take no treatment at all.

At no point does anyone take to twitter or TV to accuse someone who took no treatment of being offensive or advocating for withholding options from patients who do want treatment. If someone on the cancer ward started yelling abuse at someone fir invalidating their choice for surgery they'd be told to fuck off.

With this its actively encouraged

It’s not a scientific journal article outlining new research, no, but the Wall Street Journal has a big U.S. and international audience and I don’t think the substance of what he’s saying can be disagreed with on a factual level.

Who wouldn’t be outraged and use strong opinionated words about this? It’s not even ‘an experiment’.

Experiments with human subjects have informed consent, loads of official oversight, the results are followed up and published and most importantly if they cause harm to the subjects then they are stopped early.

An opinion piece is just a newspaper article which expresses the author's opinion, isn't it?

I see from the twitter feed that some people still arent having it.

Puberty blockers must be the only medication that is risk free. We give paracetamol to 6 week old babies but we do still have to acknowledge there are many possible side effects akd possibilities of adverse reactions.

There is no substance on this earth that isn't dangerous in the wrong amounts or circumstances. Even food, water and oxygen can cause harm and we need these to survive.

Anyone with half a brain would think it odd that a medication that has such a strong effect is so risk free and safe even though it requires gloves to handle it.

Look what happened with thalidomide.

The only people I'd say who are hurting " trans kids" are those who want to have this important information withheld and any research kept quiet to stop upsetting all the middle aged males who never took it , used their fully developed bodies to father children, but want the kids to be denied the opportunity to do the same.

Research isn't there to validate choices its there to ensure we can keep track and progress .

I can't read that article in the WSJ.

To be precise: it's an opinion piece, not an article.

I'm afraid the argument about off-label use won't be very compelling to doctors, because of how the FDA works. (I've seen doctors respond to this argument for other drugs.)

The FDA only evaluates a drug for a given purpose when a company submits an application to do so, along with the proper data and so on. Once a drug is authorised, it is legal (in most cases) to use it for anything. (This doesn't mean a doctor can't get in trouble for not practising within the accepted standard of care if something goes wrong, or that Medicare/insurance would pay.) The manufacturer only submits it for authorisation for further uses if it would somehow benefit it to do so--usually because they want to be able to market it that way. It's legal for doctors to use a drug off label, but it is not legal to market it for unauthorized purposes. Therefore, Novo Nordisk submitted an application for semaglutide as Wegovy, so they could market it as a weight loss medication. But it's perfectly legal for doctors to prescribe the Ozempic version even though the intention is weight loss. Leuprolide is no longer under patent, so there's no incentive to submit it for new authorisation. A company would be undertaking the financial burden of approval with no guarantee that they would get the profit afterwards.

Many commonly used drugs never received formal FDA approval for those uses, even if there is clinical data supporting their use, because it is expensive to do. So Lupron is also commonly used for IVF, but it does not have FDA approval for that indication. It is also used in the treatment of precocious puberty.

Why the fuck are the medicines agency and medical professional regulatory bodies still allowing these awful drugs to be prescribed to kids who are already struggling with their mental health?
Clearly they will cause more, not less, suffering.

Kellie Jay's been saying it's child abuse for ages. She has brilliant mum instincts and is usually spot on about child safeguarding, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, good to see this in the WSJ and by a respected investigative journalist.

So relieved to read this

It doesn’t just “border on child abuse”; it IS child abuse.

To me the tone seems really flat (which is a good thing), just straight reporting of the facts.

Yes, he said a long form piece will follow soon.

That must be an example of a Freudian typo.

Is the writer planning on any more follow up articles?

Apparently so.

Seems quite a short article with extremely alarmist tone (it bothers me regardless of what side of the issue I am on). Maybe I've seen too many panic-mongering about anything pharmaceutical. Is the writer planning on any more follow up articles?

The tide seems to be turning slowly since the Swedish documentary Trans Train 4 years ago that detailed side effects of Lupron. It can make one think it's still a very vocal minority with regret, not really a pervasive problem for the most.

At least the issue is getting a spotlight...

It's so good to see the actual facts about this branch of experimental medical treatment of children finally getting an airing. For far too long the lies about "reversible, harmless and important for suicide prevention" have been pushed by self invested adults to the detriment of children and their future lives.

This is great.

It is a mess that it is now firmly a Republican vs Democrat thing in the US.

I hope he gives the nod to Helen Joyce and others who laid the path for him.

Brief derail but this needs to be seen by everyone 😁 , it was below one of the above links

That's a really excellent article

Trisha Posner has also written about some of the issues in gender medicine - looks as if her experiences may have been one of the triggers for him to start digging: twitter.com/geraldposner/status/1654123609215102977?s=20

A really simple, clear and lucid explanation of the issues and the problems. Well done, that man.