Hilary Cass sent a document to every single MP and Peer, justifying and defending the puberty blockers trial

Eh?

No. Medical records will show eg. Any increased cancers, bone deficiencies, overall health etc.

It might not be perfect, but it's a lot better than experimenting on healthy children, for an undefined condition because otherwise their parents will buy them illegal drugs off the black market...

Forget the harms of puberty blockers.

It is not even clear what is even being treated.

What is the condition that needs PBs?

I have always regarded puberty blockers as having a similar "feel" to them as the discovery that led the well-attested treatment for brain-damaged children who had lost the ability to walk (sorry, this was a long time ago and I can't find the report but I remember it well: I had an interest in it because of a friend of one of my children who was helped as a result of it). It was found that in order to learn to walk, infants had to go through a progression of stages in the right order, with what the author of the study called "creeping" and "crawling" both being necessary for an older child, who had been put back by injury or other trauma, to be able to progress to relearning the skill of walking.

If a natural progression is interrupted, in other words, you have to return to the beginning and go through each stage to arrive back where you started.

How is it proposed to take children, who have been "blocked" at the age of eleven or twelve, through the necessary stages of puberty for them to develop thereafter along what I will carefully call standard lines?

I imagine that previous, recent pb use will show up in blood tests.

I think it is likely that at least some of the parents involved in the trial will have steadfastly held out against the demands of their children to procure blockers online and would not do this under any circumstances. Your 100% claim was a bit too dogmatic for me.

Why are people against a trial?
Is it ethics combined a fear they’re not as harmful as you assume?
(I am firm in my belief that a trial will be a nail in the coffin of PBs, so I think it would prevent harm in the long run, although I’m on the fence because it will mean children are going to be harmed although I am telling myself probably not as much than if they weren’t in the trial because their stupid parents are likely to force illegal, potentially adulterated, versions on them behind closed doors with no medical monitoring. Other days I’m like this is ridiculous, why are they even arguing, there’s enough evidence to show a high likelihood these are unsafe, why are they clinging to straws, why should we allow this to continue)

They can stop the trial if children are losing fertility, it doesn’t have to be a case where you carry on until everyone is sterile.

But that’s not how it works. The children don’t start off with sperm/fertility and lose it. They never develop it because of the treatment. So you can’t “stop it if they become sterile or infertile” because the decision to start it has rendered them persistently sterile/infertile. The only way to fix that is to allow puberty to resume, which we know won’t happen. And even then it’s not 100%.

We know the suicide risk is exaggerated, but it’s not a total lie.

It is a total lie. There has never been a proven suicide solely because of an inability to get PBs. If suicide was a problem, there would have been an epidemic of suicide that PBs solved. But there wasn’t. So it IS a total lie.

Can I ask if you are against the trial and is it purely for ethical reasons?

Yes, it’s entirely unethical to knowingly inflict known harms on these children just to prove it is unsafe and not helpful to treat a diagnosis based on sexist stereotyping of children’s behaviour.

It will be more reliable than what we have so far.

Sorry my mistake. Still it was illegal and parents were smuggling it in.

So medical records are going to record illegal drug use in detail? Come on. That’s not realistic.

I think it’s 2years because clinical trials usually start short and then long term ones are authorised or not based on results.

Cannabidiol, not THC.

Well all that goes to show is that the PB trial will be even more unreliable as you can't trust that the cohort has been honest about their medical history 🤷

It may not be proven unsafe because I think the follow up period is too short a time in which to find out.

It’s approved for use on children and adults with a severe form of epilepsy
https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/medical-cannabis/

This is a recent change because of the issues I related above where parents were smuggling it in because their children would have dozens of seizures a day and this was only substance that could control the epilepsy.

"Children who had been transitioned at Jo's age or younger" says Cass of her hypothetical case.

No suggestion there that the children had agency in the matter: this was clearly a decision made by someone other than the child.

Why on earth would a scientist not observe this and ask questions about it? Why on earth would a scientist assert it and apparently not realise what she was saying?

Why would you need to rely on self reporting?

You can look at medical records for a start.

And this PB trial only tracks for two years. It's completely useless in terms of assessing long-term risks.

I don’t agree with your conclusions. A medical team can monitor the health of the children in ways no parent can. They can stop the trial if children are losing fertility, it doesn’t have to be a case where you carry on until everyone is sterile.

We know the suicide risk is exaggerated, but it’s not a total lie.

We don’t have rock solid proof of cause and effect. We have correlations and risk factors based on studies of adults who took PBs in the past.

Edit: Can I ask if you are against the trial and is it purely for ethical reasons?

THC (cannabis) for children with seizures that were arrested for Class A drugs trafficking until the UK did the clinical trials and then legislated a medical exemption. Because it was proven safe.

THC isn’t safe for children at all 🤨

The child abuse part is being ignored, and puberty blockers are now being proposed as the only way out.

(Instead of therapeutic psychological help
for the little boy he actually is to see if his natural self can emerge.

A pp pointed out the case following a botched circumcision of a male baby, one of male twins, whose parents saw John Money talk about transsexuals and so thought, with Money’s encouragement, that he could be brought up as a girl and therefore be a girl instead, Brenda. He was accordingly castrated at 17 months and a sort of vulva in outward appearance was created. His brother had escaped the castration was brought up as the boy he was.

Following 12 years of suffering the abuse of Brenda being told he was something he was not, he was finally told the truth.

His brother was affected by too by all that had happened with ‘Brenda’, followed by the sudden revelation of the truth. He
became schizophrenic.

‘Brenda’ shot himself aged 38.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml

These Dr Faustises and Mengeles can go to hell.

We suspect it based on retrospective studies of adults that have taken PBs. This isn’t the gold standard of scientific evidence. This allows doubt to creep in and the activists are capitalising on the doubt.

As far as sterilisation goes, multiple cancer treatments do that to children

With the alternative being death.

And with the activists framing this as also life threatening due to suicide risk…

Which we know to be a lie.

I think we need proof they are unsafe and to know all the ways they are unsafe.

We know a lot of this already.

A clinical trial is usually the first stepping stone to getting widespread consensus that a treatment is too dangerous and it’s a crime to give it to a child. As along as we say it’s not proven safe, they are going to argue well it is not proven unsafe.

So, again, ethically, the ethics team in charge of this study has to be happy to proceed knowing that it will a) sterilise children and b) there is not only no evidence so far it will benefit their mental health, it’s entirely illogical that altering a child’s body will improve their mental health.

In February this year I came across minutes from an NHS meeting attended by Cass in 2022 where the PB trial was discussed and agreed. They looked legit, but I was of course sceptical. Then next day, I saw Cass on TV saying exactly that!

Then there's this letter she wrote in 2022 supporting a trial and referencing the meeting I saw the minutes to...

<a class="break-all" href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143956mp_/cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Cass-Review-Letter-to-NHSE_19-July-2022.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="blank">https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20250310143956mp/cass.independent-review.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Cass-Review-Letter-to-NHSE_19-July-2022.pdf

What claims? This is basic behavioural science and there are historic precedents. If you can’t get treatment x that you are brainwashed into thinking your child needs, you will try and procure it from the black market. Look at all the parents sneaking in THC (cannabis) for children with seizures that were arrested for Class A drugs trafficking until the UK did the clinical trials and then legislated a medical exemption. Because it was proven safe.

The exact opposite will happen here, imho, it will be proven unsafe and any parent with common sense is going to not get any version of PB for their child, they will begin to be open to other options like counselling.

One thing about all this I don’t really get is why genderists and TRAs want a trial. We already know PBS cause harm and such a trial is likely to prove that beyond doubt (which is why many sane people are against it, because they don’t want this group of vulnerable children to be harmed).

Following up those who have already been on PBs is the obvious way to do a study without causing further harm, yet genderists don’t want this and many of those involved are the ones who have failed to do follow-ups or actively refused to reveal information.

if they genuinely think PBs are harmless, the correct treatment for childhood sex dysphoria and have great outcomes, why wouldn’t they be super-keen on follow up research? The fact that they’re not suggests they do know PBs are harmful so why are they pro-trial?

I know it all makes no sense anyway but

As far as sterilisation goes, multiple cancer treatments do that to children. And with the activists framing this as also life threatening due to suicide risk…

I think we need proof they are unsafe and to know all the ways they are unsafe.

I recall all the arguing about leaded petrol and whether the fumes were really that bad for children inhaling car exhaust. It took decades to get leaded petrol eradicated.

A clinical trial is usually the first stepping stone to getting widespread consensus that a treatment is too dangerous and it’s a crime to give it to a child. As along as we say it’s not proven safe, they are going to argue well it is not proven unsafe.