Puberty Blocker Trial Paused

I did think this, but the wording was odd.

The current cohort, if not part of the trial, will not be taking PBs at all, given the length of time until the reports get published. 5 years?

It was said as a 'need for speed' is we have kids self harming right now and self medicating right now.

And they were arguing about a stay of a matter of weeks.(Hardly significant given the length of the trial overall). So it did feel like the cohort they were referencing was those here and now.

I think it is being stopped for new patients

There are 2000 people out there. Surely enough of them would want to help secure this "life-saving" treatment for future generations.

The traditional Reddit response to this is to exclaim that nobody should cooperate with a medical and civil regime that obviously wants to genocide them, and that any official move towards gathering data about who has received treatment in the past is simply a front for creating a register of people to be rounded up and killed at some point in the future.

When I read this point of view I wonder if extreme paranoia is a side effect of PB’s, also.

Thanks for the info

“The NHS is set to stop giving powerful cross-sex hormones to trans-identifying children under-18, the Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Great, it'll be tough on those who are being prescribed them, but it's got to be done, they'll undoubtably hate us for it but that's a price we can pay if it means they stop harming themselves with these unnecessary drugs.

I’m all for stopping the prescribing of cross sex hormones to children. I’m also interested in what is deemed to be different at 18 years to 17 years. I’m presuming it’s guided by pre existing legislation norms rather than development.

Adolescence, from a developmental perspective, is often framed at ending at 25 - recognising that there is precocious and delayed development. I would like safeguards to be based on a minimum age for prescription to be legal but for prescribing rules to require developmental assessment.

Cross sex hormones targeted for a ‘pause’.

I trust Nick Wallis to not release a leak if he really hadn’t seen this document.

https://archive.is/2zpo8

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15625107/NHS-stop-prescribing-puberty-blockers-trans-identifying-children.html

“The NHS is set to stop giving powerful cross-sex hormones to trans-identifying children under-18, the Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The move to pause the prescription of oestrogen and testosterone to 16 and 17 year olds could come as early as this week.

It is understood medical experts are firmly behind the ban on the roll-out to new patients - but there will be a brief consultation period.

It is a hugely significant milestone in the ongoing battle over trans issues.

Puberty blockers were banned for younger children in 2024, but NHS had continued to continue prescribing the hormones to some under 18 year olds, even though their benefits are unclear.”

And the article continues

Maybe I’m being unreasonably reasonable in my interpretation of KCL’s position.

I think they are referencing the self harm and self medicating that takes place within the population that the trial is focussed on. I didn’t think they were saying that the trial would address the risk for potential or actual trial participants but there is an urgent need to move ahead with research that could help reduce such risks in line with the findings.

This interpretation comes from key principles of research as much as what I read about what was said in the hearing - so I’m not confident in my take!

It seems like bonkers reasoning to me, but what do I know, I'm on the Wrong Side of History.

Thing is, if it was anything else, we wouldn't have the full weight of the Righteous establishment driving urgently to do this.

Imagine - a cohort of distressed, emotionally unstable pre-teen children with dubious mental health, getting themselves wound up in their online affirmative echo chambers and self-accessing asbestos cigarettes/weedkiller bubble tea/enriched uranium brownies?

Do we know that any of these children have actually sourced and started taking PBs though?

I would imagine it's more of an emotional blackmail approach that's being taken here, with children and their parents saying that they will source them if the trial doesn't go ahead. That would also tie in with what Cass said to "justify" the trial.

The MHRA (and Cass) really need to be grown-ups here. You can't go ahead with a trial just because the cohort in question might source the drugs themselves if you don't. Everything that's sensible points to finding the data from the previous children (now adults) who had PBs. If they really are that successful for gender dysphoria - and the NHS has lost their data e.g. because of their change in NHS number - then they should put out some kind of appeal to ask these ex-patients to step forward privately to their doctor and agree to share their data. There are 2000 people out there. Surely enough of them would want to help secure this "life-saving" treatment for future generations.

If anyone else is interested in reporting this inappropriate behaviour (planning to recruit children specifically excluded in the protocol) by the trial team & their sponsor the MHRA email address is:

[email protected]

It's disturbing that the KCL team (as per their barrister's statement) seem to be actively planning to breach their own trial protocol. Current or previous use of puberty blockers is clearly an exclusion criteria for participation in the trial. Breach of protocol is very serious in clinical trials.

desperate to start the trial, and that one of the reasons for urgency is that some of them are harming themselves and self-medicating with puberty blockers.

This is disturbing on so many levels, I wonder if anyone has stopped to find out if the PB's they're already taking are having such an effect on them that it's the PB that's causing them to become so desperate.

If the drugs are making them desperate to take more drugs, then they can't in all consciousness give them more.

They need a detox regime not a trial.

Horizons intensive protocol (the blocker trial) lists previous or current puberty blocker use or exposure to cross sex hormones as exclusion criteria.

I'd be interested to discuss the research ethics side of this. Firstly if the study is not open they don't have permission to do any assessments on potential participants - that includes formal 'prescreening' by looking at medical history & drug history. So any list they have of possible people is an informal guess right now.

Secondly, what is the legal position of a doctor who sees a child who reports using illegally obtained medication? Psychiatrists will see kids using street drugs all the time but this is different - they surely should be telling kids to stop using them on safety grounds? For a start they have no idea what they are buying or whether the dose is accurate.

A lot is known about the patient group who were referred to the Tavi. There is referral data and intake data. Patients at the Tavi are routinely asked about about their treatment goals. GIDS was no different. I’m surprised there is pushback on this claim / understanding.

Do people think that the PATHWAYS trial is not targeting a group of young people who want to halt their puberty and regard this as the only desirable treatment plan, without which they are doomed to a life of misery? I don’t think this is the contested or controversial part.

I expect KCL’s position reflects what is known about the patient group that puberty suppression is intended for.

What is known by whom? And how? What's the evidence? Who studied it?

You have to be careful making unsubstantiated claims in court just because "everyone" knows they're true.

I expect KCL’s position reflects what is known about the patient group that puberty suppression is intended for. I don’t think they need to have had any contact with potential participants to put forward the statement about the target population.

Since the puberty blocker ban, those who previously could access them via the NHS have been told that they will only be available via a trial. They have been waiting for the trial. KCL’s position also reflects this.

I am fundamentally against the trial and think it’s unethical. I don’t think KCL’s comments about the impact of delays (or suspension) of the trial reflect and untoward dealings or outlandish claims. I think the sooner all potential options of PB prescription are removed, the more likely everyone will invest in alternative treatments.

Jesus wept - that's horrific!

I'd have to check the trial protocol but it would be nonsensical to allow anyone already using blackmarket puberty blockers or cross sex hormones onto the trial. That's also absolutely zero justification for doing the trial. Loads of people think street drugs are great. Is that a reason to do a trial of ketamine or crystal meth in children? No.

I think “cohort of potential trialists” is doing some heavy lifting.

Latest from Nick:

This part is particularly shocking: (my bold)

"Andrew Sharland, KCL’s barrister, said the cohort of potential trialists is “fragile” and “some are self-medicating with puberty suppressants… there’s a high level of self-harm – attempted suicide.” This was a striking assertion and one I have, via email, asked Mr Sharland to clarify.

His statement suggests KCL is already in touch with a potential cohort of children (and parents?) desperate to start the trial, and that one of the reasons for urgency is that some of them are harming themselves and self-medicating with puberty blockers.

Is the desperation of some people to potentially self harm a reason for starting a trial? I don’t know. As someone close to the story told me, any child who has already taken puberty blockers is not allowed to take part in the trial. The desperation is therefore important and urgent, but not necessarily relevant to the trial. If I get a response from Mr Sharland I will post it here. But it was a significant statement to make in open court and needs to be buttressed with evidence."

https://genderblog.net/puberty-blocker-jr-stayed-till-july/

That is brilliant. And, when you read it, horribly, grimly, unbelievably accurate.

Strange as it may sound to us, people who believed in 'poly-sex theory' thought that there were many different sexes - they called them gender identities...

...Some of those scientists chopped off people's body parts, or even sewed new ones onto their patients...

...the companies that made lots of money from the sale of the medicines - agreed with the scientists"....

What's the betting her employer had something to do with the change of heart. The Economist is one of the very few mainstream publications who are still trying to maintain impartiality, and trying to report in a fair and balanced manner on every topic. They couldn't have of been please that one of their employees was instrumental in getting someone cancelled.

Well done to her for doing a reverse ferret publicly rescinding, but ouch in private that must hurt. Hopefully other journalists will be watching and understanding that presenting counter factual nonsense as “balanced and neutral” is becoming a much worse career killer than any TRA cancellation

Natasha Loder deletes her tweets:

So @MForstater told me she believed my tweets "sat publicly as judge and jury on Professor George and said things that cannot be justified as being substantial truth or honest opinion.

Although I think her critique overstates what my tweets did, she did have a point. Looking closely I did stray closer to a “judge and jury” in posture in tone and framing than I ought to in hindsight when I dashed off the tweets.

I did not take enough care to separate clearly what was known fact from my own inferences--so I've deleted them.

https://x.com/natashaloder/status/2029194724930658683