That's the point. She hasn't got it. If she had it and if it shows what we think it might, the trial would be unethical.
No, YOUR point is that the trial wouldn’t go ahead if this data existed and people knew about it.
The trial is going ahead regardless of whether it exists or not. Because if the data was that important, they would still try and get it. I repeat and clarify, the trial is not going ahead because the data doesn’t exist, it’s going ahead because the data is unavailable and they don’t care enough to pursue it before starting Pathways.
You can’t say “it can’t exist otherwise Pathways wouldn’t be going ahead” because that assumes that the potential existence of such data is a priority for the Pathways researchers as part of their protocol. It isn’t.
But why has no country in the world got it if puberty blockers really are putting young people in wheelchairs and on crutches? I find that difficult to understand. Surely there Finns would have that data?
Because most countries have done exactly zero long term research on physical outcomes, or had significant drop out rates. It is not disputed that bone health is negatively impacted. And it doesn’t matter if it’s hyperbole that they may be so severely impacted as to be on crutches or in wheelchairs because even if it was 100% demonstrable that this was happening in the UK, Pathways would be going ahead. Because if they thought it was important they would look first to see if it’s true. And they aren’t.