On BBCR4 now - GIDS whistleblower being discussed

[1984in2019]

Not sure who is on to defend the service but he is denying all the issues so far...

You can find his medical qualifications here:

20 years of experience in management and policy-making

Weird to put someone with an MBA up to talk about the safety or otherwise of a medical treatment huh?

Yes. And I was disappointed that Webb didn't ask an obvious question:

"What are your medical qualifications which means you can dispel the concerns of the trained and experienced practitioner?"

I also thought that Paul Jenkins was trying to do that special soft voice that people seem to use when talking about children with gender identity confusions but Justin kept pulling him back to the points in the open letter

But why the need for further research if the drugs are fully tested when being used long term to block puberty

It’s either one thing or the other

We have fully tested the drugs on children for long term use or no we haven’t

Absolutely Cwenryth, you sum it up perfectly.

And the problem is, while we are grateful that BBC Radio are covering this on their flagship news programme, no general listener will be able to get a proper understanding of what this is about. Things are not put in context or explained properly, there's no background given. It was so general as to be pretty meaningless. And there's certainly no joining the dots to look at the bigger picture, with regard to the increasing influence of gender ideology.

This is a critical news story, affecting the future health and well being of increasing numbers of children. Kirsty Entwistle is not the first GIDS whistle blower by any means.

The BBC has a duty to cover this story properly.

Not sure how I missed this thread a few minutes ago. Where is everyone I wondered! .

Glad other people caught the name of the interviewee. I was surprised it was the CEO and not one of the clinicians. I think his role covers the whole Trust, not just the GIDS. Wonder if that means anything eg if nobody with more direct knowledge was willing to be interviewed.

The open letter was to Polly Carmichael. It would be great if she could answer the concerns raised.

I'd have assumed he was a clinician if he was being put up to speak about this topic. It's not a management issue.

Justin Webb's Twitter here if someone wants to ask him why he didn't ask the obvious question:

twitter.com/JustinOnWeb?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

DH heard this interview and said the GIDS representative didn’t have convincing answers to Justin Webb’s line of questioning.

Jenkins is not a doctor. Only two of their Board directors are actually doctors: Dinesh Sinha and Julian Stern. They also have a clinical psychologist and a biomedical researcher, but neither of these is a doctor, and their understanding of pharmacology may be limited - it depends on their exact fields of expertise (with apologies to any clinical psychologists reading as I know many of you are very knowledgable about drugs!). Ditto their nursing director - some nurses are prescribers with a lot of pharma expertise, but not all.

It's the summer holiday - I expect he was left holding the baby for PR matters thus weekend.

He was unconvincing.

Puberty blockers were supposed to provide a breathing space for distressed adolescents to make better decisions.

But 100% of GIDS patients using them go onto cross sex hormones. Mermaids etc have ensured that this is what families of young socially transitioned children expect as their right.

Helen Webberley in an interview talked about the anxiety she had about being wrong about a diagnosis. Turns out her anxiety only relates to the risk of damage to "the trans community" - ie to the cause - the battle for transgender rights. I can well imagine the clinicians shouting "transphobe" at colleagues who dare to question whether a child is actually transgender (whatever that means) have the same mindset.

Anyway kudos to the Today programme for even bringing the subject up.

Let alone what happens to the brain and other parts of body when puberty is blocked

Let’s flip this. If children don’t enter puberty naturally they are given hormones to artificially start puberty because their brain and body needs to develop properly. This is unequivocal.
However if we want to block puberty long term, this is Ok? I can’t quite get my head round the ethics here.

Jenkins said that around 50% of their patients were not treated with medication - which means that around half of these children are

How accurate is that 50% figure? I believe that statistic comes from collecting data over a four year period. Many of the younger children referred would not be old enough to have started puberty in that time frame so would not need blockers, whilst many the older children will have already gone through puberty so would be transferred to adult services to access physical treatment directly.

I believe the real figure is that 70-80% of children referred at around 11- 15 years old are prescribed puberty blockers.

I believe the real figure is that 70-80% of children referred at around 11- 15 years old are prescribed puberty blockers.

These are serious questions that need to be answered.

There’s a massive difference between challenging thought patterns - exactly what psychological therapy is supposed to do - and ‘disputing genuineness’.

I think maybe this problem goes back to how people are conceptualising the idea of "being trans". It's not like saying, yes, this kids feelings show us he has gender dysphoria or an identity disorder, where the cure, ideally, would be to stop having that feeling. It's now an identification of a type of person you are, part of your intrinsic nature that should be accepted and affirmed.

Although as far as I know the medical diagnosis doesn't really fir in there, I am not sure what these doctors are really thinking.

Any response from a horrid TERF, or are they still being vetoed on R4 Today?

Wow he didbt answer any of the questions really did he.

They are reversible. We have a grant to research long term affects. So which is it

He seemed clueless as to what was going on.

Some bloke with stock answers and no medical back ground vs a woman who knows full well what shit will now be hurled at her, likely hood employment will he made difficult in the future for her and the fact the police could turn up any second but she speaks out anyway..

Know who I believe

I also thought that Paul Jenkins was trying to do that special soft voice that people seem to use when talking about children with gender identity confusions

Yes! He clearly thought he was going to get away with a Vic Derbyshire soft pedal. He was dreadful: came across as slippery, evasive, and, well, ignorant.

These people are going to have to give up on trotting out the lines about puberty blockers being safe and reversible soon - half of GC Twitter has seen the analysis of the way they've obscured unfavourable results and tried to avoid publishing research they've already done. Word is getting out.

An ROGD parent has put a very good Twitter thread up:

twitter.com/DadRogd/status/1153197966729109504

with a Vic Derbyshire soft pedal. He was dreadful: came across as slippery, evasive, and, well, ignorant

No wonder they refuse to discuss alongside other people. The very second they get forced to deviate from the script they stumble and faulter and get confused.

I dont even think they even understand the script they are given because they contradict themselves multiple times.

Like rabbits in headlights.

I used to follow Dr Michael Laidlow when I was on Twitter. Would like to have heard him on this programme, reiterating the words in his Tweet here:

Just realised that I knew Paul Jenkins in one of his previous roles. He was a career NHS management apparatchik. He has zilch clinical knowledge or experience

I'm sure he will jump ship and move to yet another well-paid executive position as soon as he deems it expedient to do so.

Dr Laidlaw is an endocrinologist and is very good at explaining the facts - i just wish more people would listen to him. Maybe R4 could invite him on to discuss puberty blockers.

For those who have not yet heard this, have a listen:

Benjamin Boyce and William Malone [endocrinologist]

1 hr 20 mins .. and well worth every minute

Paul Jenkins said 'natal gender', that alone says all that needs to be said about his understanding of the psychosocial and political issues. Nothing he said actually challenged the claims that Kirsty Entwistle said. His line was that he is confident that GIDs is great and that if anything she said was true he'd be disappointed!

I think the GIDs website confirms some of Kirsty's claims. For example.... "Historically, our service used the terms "natal / born" or "biological" to describe the sex and gender someone was identified as at birth. However, we try where possible to avoid these terms now as some people feel that they privilege biology over their lived and felt identity".

Doesn't that speak volumes

Evasive waffle