Puberty Blocker Trial Paused

Quite

Can. Of. Worms.

What seems key to me is changing legislation so they can link the childhood data of GIDS patients who later obtained a GRC (and therefore a new identity) whose data otherwise wouldn’t be connected to the GIDS data.

I too think they’ll be a legal challenge from TRA ex GIDS patients and patients with GRCs.

you’s think that all these happy, well, identity settled trans people would be desperate to share their data to boost the quality of evidence showing how effective gender affirming care is on improving quality of life.

Thanks for the link, I'm glad to hear that there are Labour MP's who are coming out into the open and objecting to this trail.

How is it those who oppose the trail are named but those who are for it aren't, they are only referred to as "A Labour MP who sits in the party's LGBT+ caucus...." They're not usually so shy!

If they don't comply that is useful because that further undermines the idea of a trial. It supports the argument they have something to hide.

The MPs trying to stop the trial are using all sorts of tactics. This is the latest

Labour MPs Opposed To Puberty Blockers Trial Push To Stop It Altogether

https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/labour-mps-opposed-to-puberty-blockers-trial-push-to-end-it

She deserves a gong.

How do you keep accurate records in an experiment or treatment intended specifically to obfuscate?

When I get blood tests results, they say something like ‘serum level x, reference range t-z’. My reference range will be the one for a female body (because I am a woman, der) and my treatment will depend upon where my results lie within that female reference range. If a male person seeking to be seen as female has his results referenced against the female range, they might be considered abnormal, and his continued treatment therefore inappropriate. But if they are referenced against the male range, the team doing the treatment would have to hide this in order to maintain the fiction that he is female.

I am unsurprised that people who buy into this gender medicine nonsense do not want the records seen: they would be exposed either as charlatans mistreating patients, or as liars privately acknowledging that their patient’s sex is immutable.

Trans Reddit don’t like the idea at all so it has to be a good thing.

A lot would depend on what records are electronic. If a researcher had all the necessary ethical & NHS approvals to do a data study of patients seen in a clinic and the records were all electronic (as will be in a lot of places these days) they don't need to actually talk to the clinic. Where I work you can electronically access the appointments data for a specific clinic then identify patients that way. Some may have changed name/NHS number since childhood but I would expect a halfway decent clinic letter from an adult gender clinic to include basic info on childhood drug treatment or surgery. Of course the adult gender clinics may be incompetent at patient record keeping & assessment - that's a useful research finding in itself.

Maybe - but now there is absolutely no excuse not to hand it over. We must hope they don’t screw up/bias the findings like that weird outcome measure proposed in Pathways…

I don't see why any organisation that didn't comply with the request for data in 2022 is any more likely to do so in 2026. I don't see any comment that this new Order compels the data to be provided, merely that it protects from prosecution under the GRA anyone who chooses to do so.

Well, that's at least putting the onus back on to the adult clinics to do some fucking work.

He should have done that day 1.

Here is the Archive version of her New Statesman article about the data linkage study.

https://archive.ph/MNoBa

Yep possibly. Or individuals anonymously fighting not to be included because privacy etc. Don't forget how much some of them have political agendas and don't want the data public.

And I would have questions about how the government would present such a case to the courts too. Would they throw it for political reasons?!

From the article:

The legal papers calling for the trial to be scrapped show that in late summer 2025 the MHRA set out 19 grounds for not accepting the KCL team’s research. Another public body, which advises ministers on the safety, efficacy and quality of drugs, the Commission on Human Medicines, agreed with the MHRA. The KCL trial team responded to the regulator’s grounds for non-acceptance on 9 October; their letter, which has been made public, includes the MHRA’s objections.

Among these were concerns that some of the language in the proposed criteria for subjects’ inclusion in the trial was “open to subjective interpretation”; that more clarity was needed on the dosing of drugs; that additional exclusion criteria were required; and that more safety monitoring was needed. Most significantly, the MHRA argued that the study’s follow-up period for the children taking part was “inadequate to assess the long-term benefits and risks” of suppressing puberty in this group of children and young people.

“Identified risks include but [are] not limited to, effect on fertility preservation, bone mineral accrual, fracture risk, cognitive development and sexual function which requires monitoring,” the MHRA said. It pointed out that “many of these outcomes will only become measurable in adulthood” and therefore necessitated “a follow-up for a period of up to 20 years or until the participant reaches the end of physical maturation (whichever is shorter)”.

Ultimately, the trial’s follow-up period was not extended. The regulator accepted KCL’s response that follow-up into adulthood would occur through the NHS Register, which children would be encouraged to join. This, the trial team said, would “provide passively collected long-term data into adult life that includes long-term safety surveillance”.

Encouraged to join???

I expect this one will end up in court too btw.

Who between, genuine question, will the country's government have to take the country's health trusts to court, because that would be bonkers.

All though good for us because if they're not going to revisit the trail question until they've got the data, and had time to analysis the date, the longer it takes for them to get the data the better. 🥳

It'll be interesting. I do believe the government have the power to force it because there are so many in the public interest caveats that apply which override data law and issues on this one. I thought this all along.

It's fascinating that a new study was seen as preferable to doing this in the first fucking place though.

I expect this one will end up in court too btw.

"The study was planned to take place during the lifespan of the Cass Review, and a statutory instrument was brought forward in 2022 to protect those disclosing protected information for the study. However, it is well documented that some clinics did not share data to allow the study to commence and the study was therefore not completed as planned. Further to this, it is the government's view that the 2022 order now needs to be updated to sufficiently protect those who will now be sharing information for the purposes of the study."

Well they didn’t comply the first time for a Conservative health minister, so wonder how Streeting will fare?

At longer bloody last. Let’s hope that this time the clinics comply and don’t mysteriously lose the files.

Thank goodness for Hannah Barnes and her tireless work exposing this.

Woo, does it mean he's going after the info that Cass wasn't able to get, so it can be used and there'll be no need to collect more, in the foreseeable future at least?

And here is the statement from Streeting:

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-02-26/hcws1369

Hannah again...

https://x.com/hannahsbee/status/2027048464509436284?s=20

Hannah Barnes:

https://archive.is/wJBgy#selection-981.0-981.54

"Inside the decision to pause the puberty blocker trial
The MHRA’s U-turn raises questions over regulatory process"

Wasn't the Cass report also criticising the use of PB in girls, as there was no rationale for their use, since testosterone is a very potent masculinising hormone? At the time I thought the trial might even exclude girls!
I really don't understand Dr Cass anymore, she is contradicting so much of what's written in the report.

If the puberty blockers in themselves were supposed to relieve distress, I suppose you could hypothesise that the act of delaying puberty for a couple of years might improve mental health, but the lack of children who have been prescribed PBs and then don't go on to have further 'gender affirming treatment' already suggests that this isn't the case.