Clinics forced to share data on children who took PBs .. at last

What do sex realists plan to do once they get those records? The NHS does a fair job to prevent private medical data from escaping into the hands of antagonistically motivated groups.

"suppression" was concerns over privacy. No one wants to be publicly hounded by sex realists for merely just living their lives.

What is behind this sex realist need for trans people to feel unhappy?

I can see the sex realists continuing to be disappointed to learn that transition works, from any age. Trans people live happy lives.

Even when given a formal “do not destroy” order they delete records. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y9vx9zgvpo

"Transphobia" won't be what's stopping doctors from using medication for the purpose for which it was developed.

Unfortunately,"safe" use of puberty blockers is not that simple. They have huge side effects, even in use cases like precocious puberty. Every case will be looked at differently so that doctors and parents can weigh up the risk benefits. In some cases, doctors will recommend that the risk (of the horrendous side of effects, some of which won't appear until later e.g. osteoporosis) is too great for the likely benefit for that particular child.

If your daughter is struggling with precocious puberty, that sounds tough. But it's never going to be a simple case of PBs being the automatic answer. How old was she when her puberty started - and what were the signs that it had? What age did her period start?

How old is your daughter?

Yes, my daughter couldn't get them.

Do you have any evidence that doctors are not prescribing blockers for precocious puberty?

Meanwhile due to all the transphobia, cis gendered children going through precocious puberty like I did and my daughter did are denied medical treatment as doctors are now too scared to prescribe puberty delaying treatment, which has been used safely for decades.

This is not a benign condition, going through puberty too soon robs children of their childhood, destroys mental health, invites inappropriate comments and attention, results in short adult stature, eating disorders and increased risk of multiple types of cancer.

Years of not Decades. The lupron class action is still rumbling through the crts in the US, and the contaminated blood scandal, enquiry and crt cases are still happening and thats from the 70s, 80s and 90s in the UK. This is the equivalent of thalidimide, sodium valporate and blood scandal all rolled into 1 and timesed by a 1000 so its a marathon of a case not a sprint like individual cases are.
And remember you need the clinical data so waiting for the cass review and the outcomes data which may now come out will have delayed things aswell

Interesting authors.

The FOI in the article could well be exactly as they report.

I wonder how long a clinical negligence case usually takes, especially one with multiple parties involved?

the only way to get the trial stopped in favour of the already available (?) data being examined thoroughly is to keep emphasising the fact that no clinics want to share the data (it should be anonymised?).

There must be a reason for this. And we need to keep pushing back until they come clean.

Found this from earlier this month:

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/news/health/the-real-tavistock-clinic-scandal-1000-court-cases-that-never-materialised/

It's got lots of referenced links in it.

IIRC the Keira Bell court case found that the Tavistock record keeping had been abysmal. I'm thinking specifically of the appeal case that she lost and the judge commenting on how bad data keeping was.

Also, I wonder what happened to the ~1000 (?) parents that were taking the Tavistock to court. Perhaps I already knew where this got to but have forgotten. Will have a quick Google.

Beowulfa I assure you it's equally incomprehensible to some of us who work in the NHS.

I think the group of young people who went through some form of transitioning at that time are unwilling to share their data for reasons of privacy and paranoia that they will be on a list of people to target later on. It is very stressful and it would be easier if the reasons and parameters were explained more clearly. It is a cohort of people with neurodiversity, anxiety, co morbidities.

The fear of being outed remains very strong, stronger than a desire to demonstrate how successful it has all been. That alone must be an indication how unsuccessful it has all been.

Weirdly, I want them to be happy. They were children, dreadful shit was done to them, the least they deserve is that they've navigated a way through all and found a safe harbour. It would still doesn’t tell us that in an alternative, sane, universe the same kids left to grow up (for want of a better word) normally would not have been just as happy and healthy.

I suspect it'll be a mixed bag. I think a real reluctant to share data is it's going to be a mess. Missing, inconsistent, incoherent and ideologically driven. The children, whose welfare should have been at the heart, will have been an afterthought. Still I suspect some of the institutes got a shit load of grants and those CVs weren't going to pad themselves.

I work in a top-rated STEM department in a top-rated university. The sustained lack of interest in follow-on data is totally incomprehensible to me. It just couldn't happen in the field I work in.

There is also the possibility that they didn't keep records, which would be an awful admission to make because keeping clear, accurate, contemporaneous records is a basic patient safety requirement. It includes adherance to protocols, procedures, clinical governance, and audit. Clinical Audit has been a requirement for at least the last 25 years. It strikes gloom into the hearts of junior doctors but it has to be done in order to monitor outcomes. So presumably the Tavistock, being an NHS service, would have been doing all that?

All the young adults who have transitioned should be queuing up to tell researchers how great their lives are after transitioning as children.

And all the clinics should be proud to advertise how successful it has been with the data that will show exactly how safe and effective child medical transition is.

Why would they possibly want to suppress such positive data I wonder 🤔

If only they had somewhere to put all this evidence - let's call it a memory hole - where it would all be completely destroyed forever.

I'm sure they would, if they could. I bet Olson-Kennedy wished she'd had one too.

Yes of course, but I'm sure it won't stop them giving it a try. GDPR, data protection, patient confidentality, 'Oh, they were Dr so-and-so's patients and she's left so we don't have any data'. I've had a little experience of trying to do research on health data, so I've heard a good few excuses in my time. The other problem I've noticed is that you can find some fields left blank, even where you might think they were quite important. Like the box marked 'Diagnosis'!

GDPR has exceptions that I do think can be used for this purpose.

This includes for public interest in healthcare research.

I believe last time they used the following exemption to an exemption:

But the exemption and the exceptions only apply:

• if the processing is not likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to an individual;

So I think it will be going to court.

Yes, large organisations have a knack of making information disappear. Or anything disclosed will be incomplete, or will be withheld 'because of GDPR'. So they may not get a whole lot more as a result of this.