Pathways Puberty Blocker Trial - High Court Proceedings start 27th July

Absolutely.

I think that public interest is high is going to be an issue for the judge who will pretend not to be influenced by it.

This is a highly contentious proposal to conduct an experiment (there is no way of getting away from that)

funded by the public purse.

One thing that I was concerned about is that it was hammered home in court how urgent this is; that some identified participants will age out of the trial if approval is not given right now and will be disappointed.

This trial hasn't happened at any time in the last 40 years - or indeed, ever. There's no urgency for it to start in August 2026. If it's delayed, some identified participants may age out but other new participants can be identified who will have aged in. The cohort of children who will (or won't) benefit from PB's existed 10 years ago, now, and will still exist in 10 years time. Different names in the cohort in each era, but that's the thing about longitudinal studies, you can begin them at any time.

So what's the rush?

So what's the rush?

With any luck the number of children transed by their parents will fall over coming years as the power of the social contagion diminishes & trans becomes less fashionable. Perhaps they are worried that with numbers falling they won't be able to recruit sufficient patients for this trial?

@Hedgehogforshort
The Judge was a funny one to work out. Very normal, seemingly not very well versed. At times he stopped and gazed into the middle distance as he thought, which I liked.

Sharper than he had first appeared on day 1 when questioning the NHS etc lawyers. Absolutely no suggestion of bias. Well aware this would be appealed by whichever side and said he'd made his colleagues in the Court of Appeal aware. I liked him. Just frustrating that lawyers get more ennervated by 'law stuff' and 'what did that case about planning permission for a power station say?'

Definitely IANAL

Perhaps they are worried that with numbers falling they won't be able to recruit sufficient patients for this trial?

Dream on!

Really good point.

The lawyer from the Maudsley took on the 'tug at the heartstrings' role in that question. She was the one who said people might get these dangerous drugs from illegal sources - that's the hurry. And they've already been waiting so long.

I hope the judge took the point that recruiting children / families now and then making them wait on the results of the Judicial Review is a cruel thing to do. He seemed to think it might be safe to recruit now because no-one will get any blockers before November. But making them go through those hoops and then saying you can't have it after all is like waving candy in front of a baby and then snatching it away.

And it's going to ratchet up the stakes for the judicial review itself in a way that's not healthy for justice and possibly even dangerous to some participants in the review.

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here, but I'm perfectly capable of reading an entire thread if I feel like it. My post was about someone else's argument on a completely different thread. Not sure what your problem is?

The problem is that the study won’t give the information needed to understand physical & mental health impacts in perpetuity. It only asks about happiness for 2 years then stops. It’s pointless and the exact sort of study tgat Cass previously criticised. I can’t understand why it was approved to proceed.

If they had 200 kids desperate to get on this trial amd the parents all agreed and the Drs did too, and it was all a proper lifelong health study I’d be totally behind it. If those families are daft enough to be Guinea pigs then let them do it - but at least study the hell out of it - like the 1950 birth cohort - with follow ups forever. But they have to take our insurance policies to cover future medical bills so the state cant be sued or cover future costs

To be clear I’d rather there was an outbreak of common sense and it’s stopped. But if it goes ahead it has to be made better than it is now

@BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp
I meant no offence just that you have may have missed the post where she (kirschencherries) slightly changed her stance.
Perhaps I wrote my post in a slightly hight handed way but I'm on your side!

That's ok, you don't have to be on my side, it's just a discussion. I just noticed that you edited your post to specifically tag me, so clearly you felt quite strongly about something. I was comparing Nick Wallis' argument, which @Kirschcherries had mentioned, with an argument I saw on another thread.

I'm sure that if @Kirschcherries had found something untoward in my post, she would have said something. It's unnecessary to tag someone on behalf of another poster. I'm sure she can speak for herself.

Thank you for explaining.

@BridgetYourFortyDaysAreUp yes I would have said something.😀 I had no issue with a respectful debate.

@KnottyAuty You may have missed my follow up post which was proposing that maybe we need to redirect the campaign to make the PB Trial a longitudinal study that tracks physical and mental health for the whole of those 200 children’s lives.

I agree with you that the current trial is insufficient to gather long term meaningful data.

Yes, I was unnecessarily defending her, you're right.

This is my issue with the whole thing and, especially as we have a recent longitudinal follow up study from Finland that does in fact reveal the LT effects of PB/medical interventions [“GAC”], the whole bloody thing is redundant!

I am fuming that Keira, James and the BPG even have to argue this at all as it should have been a total non-starter.

My objection to any trial of PBs has always been that it's impossible for either children or parents to give informed consent but that doesn't appear to have been raised as an issue.

Except that now,the judge will need to click on "show more" to get the full summary! 😆

When we see the deep tax payer pockets of the NHS and the govt being used to fund opposing an application for a JR and pushing for the PB trial, isn’t it at this point that we’re allowed to say that the group in question is not the most marginalised ever?

And point out how judicial, governmental, and medical professional heavyweights seemingly stand in the men’s corner to insist on letting them have what they want. As always, women and children are marginalised.

I’ve just popped this on the Netherlands thread but it probably is more directly relevant to this one. The concept of “Tooth Fairy science” is critical to understanding the claimant’s position IMO

https://genspect.org/the-nhs-puberty-blocker-trial-science-built-on-make-believe/

This. Every single time.

The drugs will probably harm you, we just don’t know how much and for how long. And they may bring perceived benefits, but we can’t objectively measure these or tell you how long they will last. We also have zero evidence that any benefits are better than less harmful interventions. Please sign here.

Thank you.

This is bang on. As a piece of research it is fatally flawed so is it just a way to treat 200 ‘patients’?