Streeting declares the puberty blocker trial 'safe'

But it needs repeating that these are the same drugs that are only given for short periods of time to children with precocious puberty BECAUSE of the side effects. They do know they are not safe and my suspicion now is that whilst Cass got them stopped she will be thrown under the bus at the end of this for suggesting a trial in the first place. Which most people would think could never happen due to the ethics, as we already know the harms.

Yes, that's about right, you notice it it's the same sort of excuse the SNP are using to put violent male prisoners in female prisons, if we don't 'they're going to commit suicide'. 🤯

So essentially their justification for going ahead with the trial is that they can't know for certain puberty blockers are unsafe until they try them out on children. And it's ok to test potentially unsafe drugs on children because said children would be taking them illegally anyway 🤔

I can only assume the ethics committee that signed off on this is knee-deep in ideology

I received my reply from the petition as well -

"We are following the expert advice of the Cass Review to establish a clinical trial ...."

There are plenty of experts who are saying this trial should not go ahead, so clearly they're only following the advice that suits them. 🤬

I saw when it was announced that it was reported that he did not want it to be called the Streeting Trial - which felt to me like a very strong argument for calling it exactly that.

Thanks @ArabellaSaurus I should have read more carefully. Feels like a fob off.

If everyone mentions ‘the Streeting trial’ or ‘Streeting child experiment’ every time, it could help it come out more publicly that that’s what it is.

No votes for child experimenters.

Epstein? 50K dollars? Jess Ting - Jesting?

I feel sick.

Maya has written about it in the Critic

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/february-2026/ethics-what-ethics/

I received my formal response, to having signed the petition, this morning and it is full of ideological language such as 'sex assigned at birth and suggesting the concept of 'gender incongruence' is now an internationally recognised condition ( recognised by WPATH and its subscribers, no doubt)

It states that negative impacts have already been noted, but then goes on to suggest it is still looking for evidence of harms or of help. It seems to me as if one research goals is to find positive evidence that suppressing puberty is helpful in treating this 'condition'.

Does this response mean there will not be a debate? I thought when a survey got to a certain size of response that there had to be a debate? Or is their argument that the HOC has already had one so no need for another?

Can we start calling this “The Streeting Trials”?

It’s clear he is responsible for letting this go through. Once his name is permanently attached to it however, he may not be quite so keen

This all day long.
It just demonstrates how those with a sexual interest in children have been able to persuade too many medics into going along with their wishes to remove fundamental safeguarding from children.

The NHS is (yet again) proving to be a risk to children and completely failing to safeguard this highly vulnerable group from harm.

James Esses on X:

The government has ignored our petition of 140,000 people calling for a halt to the puberty blockers trial. The response is empty rhetoric. If they won’t safeguarding children voluntarily, we will force them to. Watch this space. This week will be interesting…

nitter.net/JamesEsses/status/2018601630900355449#m

Not only can a child not understand the risks, they should not be able to understand the risks. No child should understand what sexual function actually means - those that do will have been abused and will understand it as something they want to escape from.

Women are not permitted to have a hysterectomy in their 20s and early 30s because they are told they might change their mind in a few years.

So how the hell are they treated as being unable to consent whilst we are being told children as young as 10 can?

Informed assent from the child will also be required.This will include the young person explaining in their own words to the clinician what the risks are and what they understand by those risks.

Well they lost me right there. What child of 10,11,12 will understand the implications of this medication? They’ll repeat words spoken to them without fully understanding the risks. And what weasel words are these? It’s ‘assent’ not consent?

Recently, someone who desisted/detransitioned told me that in online trans spaces the pressure is to go on the drugs early enough so you can ‘pass’ more easily and they’re told that CSHs won’t work as well if you take them when you’re older. This person is in their 20’s and they still didn’t understand the impact on fertility.

Cass did important work but I suspect even she didn’t wholly and fully understand the darkness of the online world and how vulnerable children are being manipulated.

Cross posted.
I am going to read the protocol documents.

Can we read the actual patient/ parent information sheets and the consent forms?
These have to be submitted to the ethics committee as part of the protocol.
Surely if those forms are accurate, how did they get through ethics? I just cannot get my head around this.
Informed consent is essential, so all the risks have to be clearly documented, read and understood by the parents.