Women, even if they are trans identifying, really don't matter to the men driving this ideology except to be used. Useful idiots or for validation, if we're harmed by it, it scarcely seems to be a concern.

If TiM are put on blockers they, apparently, may pass better as adults. I think some late transitioning males believe this could have been them and it's a vicarious way for them to live it.

Anyone who supports giving these drugs to children needs to be reminded that this was precisely the reasoning behind the first experiments on children.

The Dutch protocol came about because of observations that many (male) transsexuals had poor mental health. The doctors speculated that this was because they didn't 'pass', so they did an experiment on some adolescents, using puberty blockers to prevent the irreversible changes occurring during puberty.

It was unethical then, and it's unethical now.

And nobody has ever explained why the drugs should be given to adolescent girls, since the original experiment was designed to prevent changes to the male body at puberty.

If TiM are put on blockers they, apparently, may pass better as adults. I think some late transitioning males believe this could have been them and it's a vicarious way for them to live it. The ones, the majority, who would have desisted? Perhaps they think it's 'conversion' therapy working, not maturity and time reasserting reality, so maybe they think they're saving them. Then of course there will be some who get off on it. Forced feminisation porn, I believe, is a thing after all. It's also a numbers game. Every individual that's under the trans umbrella, their family (especially parents who've allowed this to be done to their child), their social circle, are foot soldiers.

Agree, not everyone on the other side is a complete idiot.

Some are evil and manipulative.

Ideology in action.

Cass still believes in 'true trans'. Some of them still want to believe.

And given that they've already fucked up countless kids, there's an incentive to keep going rather than admit they were utterly, utterly wrong.

It's despicable.

I'm sorry but I have looked. There is no reasoning that makes.sense or even refers to the very straightforward points you lay out.

They’re not idiots. I think they’re evil narcissists creating a generation of untold irreversible harm for young vulnerable adults. I see it. It’s despicable.

There must be some reasoning. We may disagree with them on fundamental premises, but not everyone on the other side is a complete idiot.

• So we may end up sterilising close to 100% of the original cohort in order to "help" 15% of that cohort.

sAvE tRaNs LiVeS ™

Can someone please explain the reasoning behind the trial, because I don't understand how this can even be considered.

• If no medication is given, roughly 85% of young people with gender dysphoria desist after a while.
• We have no way of identifying the children who would make up the 15% who won't desist.
• About 98% of children who take puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones, which sterilise them.
• So we may end up sterilising close to 100% of the original cohort in order to "help" 15% of that cohort.
• However, if puberty blockers are actually helpful for gender-distressed children, and not in fact causing longterm harm, is unclear. In case they do cause harm, 100% of children in the trial would be affected.

What is the other side's reasoning? That puberty blockers are supposedly reversible, and that it is therefore acceptable - in their view - to put the 85% who would desist through the trial?

The MHRA twice rejected my full FOIR but has now supplied a copy of the 7th Nov 2025 letter to Kings Health Partners about the Pathways Puberty Blockers Trial.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mhraandkingscollegelondonpa/response/3407657/attach/html/4/2.03%20CTA%20Acceptance%20of%20Amended%20Request%2014%20redacted.pdf.html

07/11/2025

Dear [REDACTED],

THE MEDICINES FOR HUMAN USE (CLINICAL TRIALS) REGULATIONS 2004 S.I. 2004/1031

Our Reference: СТА 14523/0296/001-0001
IRAS ID: 1011645
PRODUCT: Decapeptyl, Decapeptyl, Prostap, Gonapeptyl, Zoladex
Protocol number: 3646-PATHWAYS

NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDED REQUEST

I am writing to inform you that the Licensing Authority, having reviewed your application in collaboration with the Research Ethics Committee, accepts your amended request for a clinical trial authorisation (CTA), with effective received date of 25/08/2025.

COMBINED REVIEW MEDICAL - Remarks: *REMARKS

Clinical Remarks:

The following comments are for future consideration / information only and do not affect the approval status of your study. No response is required.

1. The sponsor is reminded that at the end of the trial, all trial activities (e.g., IMP dosing or access to the IMP, follow- up visits, or data collection) must be completed. Therefore. IMP treatment or access to the IMP cannot continue as part of this trial once the protoco-defined end of the trial is reached.

For post-trial access, the sponsor should note that under UK legislation the provision of unlicensed medicines is only possible either within an approved and active clinical trial or, for an individual patent i.e., not as part of a study. under the remit of Guidance Note 14: The Supply of Unlicensed Medicinal Products ('Specials').

2. While the proposed safety monitoring is considered acceptable for the monitoring of the individual participants included in this clinical trial, the sponsor should be aware that different monitoring requirements may be necessary to support any change in the terms of the marketing authorisation for the licensed products used in this CTA.

Statistical Remarks:
The following comments are for future consideration information only and do not affect the approval status of your study. No response is required.

i. The sponsor is advised that in study design use of too many stratification factors may be less successful at achieving balance.

ii. The sponsor is advised to consider the burden to participants when assessing a large number of outcomes, balancing the need for information versus completeness of data. Considerations should be given to ranking the various outcomes in terms of their importance to patients as well as to support regulatory decision making.

iii. Regarding analysis method, the sponsor is advised that use of a treatment policy strategy for handling death is not acceptable since data after death do not exist.

iv. The sponsor is reminded that intervals following Bayesian principles have a fundamentally different interpretation compared to the intervals described which follow a frequentist statistical approach. Results based on frequentist approach will be required for regulatory decision making. Furthermore, Bayesian methods should be "calibrated" to have good frequentist properties in particular with regards to type I error control. Therefore. it is important to assess the operating characteristics of the Bayesian design (e.g. power and type I error rate).

The authorisation is effective from the date of this letter although your trial may be suspended or terminated at any time by the Licensing Authority in accordance with regulation 31. You must notify the Licensing Authority within 90 days of the trial ending.

You are reminded that a favourable opinion from the Ethics Committee is also required before this trial can proceed, changes made as part of your amended request may need to be notified to the Ethics Committee. If not already provided, please follow the guidance on our website on informing us of the registration status of your trial (where applicable).

You are reminded that from 1 January 2022 you will need to comply with the requirements specified in the following guidance, where applicable:

Import of IMPs from listed countries to GB: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatons/importing-investigational-medicinal-products-into-great-britain-from-approved-coumtries

Supply of IMPs to Northern Ireland:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/supplying-investigational-medicinal-products-to-northern-ireland

Substantial amendments to clinical trials:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-substantial-amendments-to-a-clinical-trial

Any required substantial amendment to your Clinical Trial Authorisation should be submitted and approved as soon as possible and before 1 January 2022.

Yours sincerely.
Clinical Trials Unit MHRA

----

That is the letter referred to in this letter from the MHRA to Kings College London:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6998b06d047739fe61889efb/Sponsor-letter110226.pdf

Which is linked on this page:

News story
MHRA statement on the PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial
20 Feb 2026
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-statement-on-the-pathways-puberty-blocker-trial

I am not sure if the 7 Nov 2025 MHRA letter tells us much more - I am a bit distracted by this coming in the same day as the local elections. I am standing for Party of Women and I am dashing off out again now.

Drat! You read the reply more closely than I did and I did not spot this bit:

"They've refused on the grounds of cost, but suggested that they might consider a request limited to questions 1 and 2 of the original request."

I updated the FOIR asking for Clarification before I spotted your post

🤦‍♀️

Apologies for the broken link! Looks like my bookmarked link inserted a <p> string in the middle for some reason.

The MHRA refused my FOIR on the grounds that it would be too expensive to comply.

I had the option of asking for an Internal Review or Clarification of how I could bring the FOIR within the cost limit of £600

I decided to go for a request for Clarification in the first instance.

Thank you for posting your question because it reminded me that I still needed to do this - done now!

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mhra_and_kings_college_london_pa

I couldn't get the link to work either, but I managed to find the request. This link might work.

MHRA and Kings College London: Pathways Puberty Blocker Trial - a Freedom of Information request to Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency - WhatDoTheyKnow

They've refused on the grounds of cost, but suggested that they might consider a request limited to questions 1 and 2 of the original request.

@POWNewcastleEastWallsend Do you intend to send this further request?

I'm not totally optimistic that you'd get a response, given that they also say this: We will review any new request received, however, please note that we cannot guarantee that any new request will not attract one or more exemptions under the Act, but it is our suggestion for you at this stage.

I think they'll probably find another exemption, but I'd keep asking anyway, and if necessary go to the ICO at the end if they refuse to answer.

Hi @POWNewcastleEastWallsend is there any update on this. The link you shared doesn't work and I'd be interested to see what the MHRA has said.

It all smacks of an activist witch-hunt.

Max Davie is the doctor they quoted in the Times story about Professor George.
A bit rich to have such an activist talking about the need for impartiality. But then the story did originally claim the Algerian boxer had tested as a woman!

https://x.com/i/status/2036530311723459024

Tomorrow is the deadline for the MHRA to reply to my FOIR:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mhraandkingscollegelondonpa#incoming-3320906

Dear Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency,

Ref the MHRA statement on the PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial, 20 February 2026
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-statement-on-the-pathways-puberty-blocker-trial

A letter to Kings College London is attached to this statement
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6998b06d047739fe61889efb/Sponsor-letter110226.pdf

This letter refers to a 7th Nov 2025 letter from the MHRA to Kings College London:

Subject: Invitation to discuss proposed amendments to Clinical Trial Protocol

"I write further to the MHRA's letter of 7th November 2025. As you are aware, there is a great deal of public and professional interest in this trial. MHRA keeps under review all of the representations that have been made. I write now to discuss potential amendments that we believe will strengthen the trial protocol."

Please supply:

1. a copy of the MHRA letter of 7th Nov 2025 to Kings College London
2. any correspondence arising from that letter
3. Minutes of meetings, emails and any other correspondence informing the contents of the letter of 7th Nov 2025
4. Minutes of meetings, emails and any other correspondence informing the contents of the letter attached to the MHRA statement of 20th Feb 2026

https://www.thetimes.com/article/82222c39-ed48-4e2a-9b55-d682079df079?shareToken=af773e55175751496a690ab95134faeb

Poll - one day left:

Should the MHRA reinstate Professor Jacob George to oversee the Pathways puberty blocker clinical trial?

https://x.com/AdeleWatersRx/status/2028609762959499557

Yep, nothing to see here, move along.

SEEN in Journalism have also done a good substack on this.
https://seeninjournalism.substack.com/p/breaking-literally-cathy-newmans