Puberty Blocker Trial Paused

https://seeninjournalism.substack.com/p/breaking-literally-cathy-newmans

The Times has an article on the Prof being recused

https://archive.ph/DTHrZ

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/pathways-puberty-blocker-trial-recused-jacob-george-qnn669rjx

Unless some of the GI believers are also recused this seems extremely partisan.

I think it's going to be difficult to find anyone who doesn't have an opinion on this. Assume a bunch of people with the right qualifications are unearthed who, somehow, have been completely bypassed by the gender nonsense. They're asked if they'll be willing avtrial to oversee administering drugs to children to delay their puberty so the children can decide if they want to spend the rest of their lives pretending they've changed sex. Having convinced these people that you are serious and there aren't any hidden cameras they're told they'll also need to assess the possible permanent harms that these drugs may cause these children. I'm thinking the only people who don't leave or call the police will be sociopaths.

Every twist and turn in this sorry story exposes more of its nonsensical, irrational, coercive and authoritarian basis.

So theyll be going through the social media of all other staff at the MHRA then? And this decision and the announcement by Wes Streeting will be reversed?

Really?

https://x.com/soniasodha/status/2027681595180700081

Sonia Soda is on the case

NEW: I put some of the questions below to the MHRA.

It's very unclear from the MHRA's statement why they have recused him from any involvement in the Pathways trial. There are some important questions for them:

1. Has he been recused because he has publicly expressed beliefs relating to the inclusion of men/those who've been through male puberty in female sport? 2. How does this relate to their general policies about public statements of positions on social media and a professional role relating to a particular clinical trial?
2. On what basis do they justify these policies and the way they apply them?
3. Can they demonstrate they have applied these policies evenly - including to other trials/areas, and in relation to people who have publicly expressed the view that men should be able to identify into women-only services, spaces and sports?
4. When do they consider that scientific fact (men have an unfair advantage in sport in relation to women) and evidence (that including men in women's sports is a safety risk) evolves into a belief for the purposes of any scientific notion of "neutrality"?

A spokesperson said this in addition to the public statement already released:

"Civil servants, like anyone else, hold personal views but must also carry out their roles in line with the Civil Service core values of integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. While there is no evidence to suggest that decisions taken were not impartial, Professor Jacob George is recused from further involvement in the Pathways clinical trial as a precaution."

A man at the head of the ethical body for clinical trial approval believes in sex and notes this when assessing the ethics of a trial on sex to try and pretend you can remove sex when you can't. Cos sex is not gender. Even if you are nice about gender and want to recognise it's legitimacy. Cos reality.

As a natural part of the informed consent process participants, or those who consent on their behalf, should a demonstrate a clear understanding of this point or they should not be approved for acceptance.

Given the posts on this thread alone, I think I'm fairly in saying we have a little bit of a problem here.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with those posts. They aren't extreme. They aren't biased. They are acknowledging the core issue at the heart of the premise of the trial.

The deliberate and wilful conflation of sex and gender. They are not interchangeable. Humans are not Lego people.

https://nitter.net/WingsScotland/status/2027538578117480624

Trying to understand the POV of the MHRA, perhaps they see nothing wrong with the tweets but don't what to lay themselves open to a claim from you know who, and if Jacob George wasn't even involved in the Pathways trial, perhaps they think it makes no difference. Perhaps this is just a problem with anyone posting anything on Social Media.

But then what on earth is going on with the HRA?

Holy fuck!

I'm a bit confused about how the approval process works. From Chat GPT I think the following bodies must give approval for a trial to go ahead.

MHRA: The national regulator for medicines and medical devices.
REC: Ethical approval (part of the HRA?)
HRA: Coordinates approval?
NHS Trust: must give site approval and confirm practical arrangements.

Where does Wes Streeting fit into this?

wow that’s some thread!

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-welcomes-professor-jacob-george-as-he-starts-chief-medical-and-scientific-officer-role

From this he was only recently been appointed to his current role.

It’s not as though his tweets (which I think predate this?) would have been difficult to find.

And again, what is wrong with the tweets?

Wings Over Scotland helpfully pointing out to Cathy Newman that the Interim Director of the NHS Health Research Authority has particular view on this………I’m sure her journalistic integrity means she’ll report this on this too 🙄🤔

https://x.com/wingsscotland/status/2027538578117480624?s=46&t=8_bhSW_dLxRZg35ApFF90g

Linking this thread as surely pertinent to the question of how the nhs and clinicians understand any of this, as well as the money making aspect

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5497011-nhs-saw-opportunity-for-income-generation-from-first-child-gender-clinic-in-belfast?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

I agree, the Prof knows what he's taking about, he's apparently not involved in this particular trail though, I wonder if those who are have been screened for tweets, and any who's tweets show they're activists for the batshitery should stepdown.

Children can’t consent to any part of a process that results in sterilisation and sexual dysfunction. Not at 8-13years, not at 14+.

This is why I’m so heartened by the trial being halted. Once it’s acknowledged that this medical pathway is impairing fertility and sexual function no one can ever say it’s ok. This is the beginning of the end of it all.

Indeed. A sixteen year old boy cannot achieve his stated aim of becoming female and is likely to be dissatisfied with the results he is able to get. He can never be female enough to align with his vision. Meanwhile, the door has also slammed shut on his ability to reclaim male puberty and adult development, leaving him in a permanent limbo. Attracted to other men, but never able to enjoy a full relationship, suffering ill health, cognitive dysfunction and emotional dysregulation, robbed of the life he could have lived if he hadn’t been lied to. It’s absolutely heartbreaking.

Professor Jacob George sounds great.

Posters who stop by to spray around anti-women guff in the guise of beeeeing kiiiind, not so much.

Children are not offered surgery because its recognised they are too young, they havent matured enough to give meaningful consent.

Blockers deliberately and obviously prevent that psycholigical maturation process from happening.

So how can a child who has had puberty delayed or blocked be said to have matured enough to consent aged 18?

Indeed.

Yes. The whole aim of transgenderism is to pull off a lie. To pretend utterly convincingly that one is the opposite sex.

The phrase 'being who I really am' is a complete and total reverse.

It's all a lie. It seems to work to some extent for some people for some period of time. 'Gender euphoria' lasts for a bit.

How can any child who isn’t able to even consent to a tattoo, have ‘full understanding that some effects are permanent’? They can’t. My friend’s 25 year old is currently having extensive tattoo removal for the tattoos she legally consented to when she was 18 which she has now realised were pretty stupid.

18 year olds make stupid decisions. And they’re ones who’ve gone through puberty. Heaven help the ones who haven’t and who still have the mental capacity of a 12 year old.

More recently, she's begun cross-sex hormones, which will cause feminising changes. This decision came after further assessment, after years of living consistently in her gender, and with full understanding that some effects are permanent.
What the pathway doesn't involve, at least not until adulthood and after years of living in role, is surgery.

I find the language used here interesting.

I have never, to my knowledge lived 'in [my] gender' (I don't really know what that means to be honest). I have never lived 'in role' as a woman (or before that, as a girl). It's only people who are pretending to be the opposite sex who do this. By talking about your child 'living in her gender' and 'living in role', you also recognise that this is not real, that it's a real-life, 24-hours-a-day performance of trying to show the world that they are something they are not. It must be exhausting for them.

Quite apart from the harmful effects of the drugs, why is anyone encouraging vulnerable children and young people to spend the rest of their lives living 'in role', rather than just living as themselves?

So when will all the gender ideologues be recusing themselves?

More tweets I this thread

https://x.com/i/status/2027436000977293480