Michael Biggs paper on the Tavistock

[RedToothBrush]

Seems to have been published yesterday.

Link to pdf in the following tweet.

This paper when published will document an appalling scandal the NHS is inflicting on children.

Andrew Lewis @ lecandardnoir
Hidden trials. Suppressed results. Misleading parents and children entering trials. Ideologically driven treatments. Cover ups. You name it. #alltrials
t.co/34pe8JOmvG

If this is even half accurate Carmichael should be struck off and jailed.

Worth reading.

Yes, experimenting on children and children's lives is despicable.

Thanks pain. I’m so sorry that you are having to deal with this.

I’m a bit annoyed with myself that I let this get to me yesterday. The topic really sets me off.

The way I see this debate is: specialist doctors used to treating very rare diseases in children are used to working with medicines that aren't backed up by a lot of research. The situation can be quite desperate so it's worth a go.

At the other end of the scale, people like GPs are more used to dealing with common medical problems, for which there are clear pathways for treatment that are very well-established in research. People like GPs are going to be a lot less comfortable with a treatment for which there's such a lack of evidence of its benefits.

There's a real debate to be had about trying innovative medical treatments on very ill children. When this was a matter of there only being 10-15 children per year in the whole country being suitable for puberty blockers, maybe it felt like a reasonable thing to do, to offer this experimental treatment.

But the situation now is that there are more than 2500 of these kids being referred each year - more than 10,000 since 2011 when you count up all the annual referrals. Clearly, we've moved a very long way from the original scenario, and we're more in the territory where GPs are going to encounter these children now and then. It's not surprising, therefore, that people (GPs and many others) are demanding more evidence in favour of these treatments.

There was a moment in 2014 when this treatment - till then, only used as part of a tiny research study - somehow slipped into being adopted as 'standard practice' for the entire NHS. I'm unsure how that could have happened, without a proper write-up from the researchers, publication of the results of the research study and so on. There seems to have been a real failure of process.

My cousin was given something like this drug 50-60 years ago, as she was so short. She's still less than 5', and has been plagued by side effects (are they after effects?) ever since. It was years before she forgave her mum for putting her on them.

As children, I remember her as always angry; she recently said that was because of the growth drugs she was forced to have. I believe her, especially after reading this thread. I love her dearly and am so sad she has had her life so blighted.

I dread to think what these poor children will feel about their parents when they realise everything that is in store for them.

Tammy and Sophocles, I do appreciate your speaking about your terrible experience as it has helped me a little to see my cousin's experience more clearly. Her life is a joy now, btw.

There was a moment in 2014 when this treatment - till then, only used as part of a tiny research study - somehow slipped into being adopted as 'standard practice' for the entire NHS. I'm unsure how that could have happened, without a proper write-up from the researchers, publication of the results of the research study and so on. There seems to have been a real failure of process.

Is this when the memorandum of understanding was given to healthcare professionals? And they had to comply with it. Affirmation only?

Is this when the memorandum of understanding was given to healthcare professionals? And they had to comply with it. Affirmation only?

I’m not familiar with that document and I don’t believe that GIDS operates an affirmation-only policy, although the 2012 British Psychological Society guidelines are leaning that way, for my money. The change I was thinking of is described in the ‘contract’ that NHS England agreed with GIDS to provide a national gender service for young people, in which it sets out what the service will be like. (google E/13/S(HSS)/e ). Para 3.2.6.1 on p.26 describes that the ‘2011 protocol, which following evaluation, has now become established practice.’ Michael Biggs refers to this on p.8 of his article.

Thank you Jux

I’m also now in a good place, but this article got to me.

That’s a really interesting explanation of how we got here, archery2

Has there been any substantial reporting of this in MSM?

archery

Here is the memorandum of understanding. It calls anything other than acceptance, conversion therapy. And was originally intended to be applied to sexual orientation. You can see how many authorities have endorsed it.

www.psychotherapy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/UKCP-Memorandum-of-Understanding-on-Conversion-Therapy-in-the-UK.pdf

There is an analysis by transgendertrend.

www.transgendertrend.com/children-left-unprotected-by-new-memorandum-of-understanding-on-conversion-therapy/

What it means is that for a health practitioner to offer any therapeutic support or exploration of underlying factors, motives or reasons for a cross-sex identity in childhood they are now taking a professional risk.

I understand why TRAs, MRAs etc want self-ID. I don't really understand why government etc have fallen for it, or at least are going along with it. Is it saving money due to demedicalisation? I suspect that. I wonder if there were strings of law suits as in Canada, especially if the respondents then sued for loss of business due to Stupid Law and gained huge sums from the state in compensation, or any other woman harmed in any other way by self ID, would it make the Powers That Be realise that actually it was in the end a lot cheaper to support the many fewer men with gd in the old way.....

Datun

thank you for pointing that out. The 2012 doc also makes the point that it’s been dept health policy since (from memory) 2007 and 2008 not to treat trans IDs as disordered per se. I must confess, a bit of me welcomes things like this. Our girl looks like a boy and is often taken for one. Having a bit of paper that says: her identity provides no grounds for her to seek any treatment kind of protects her from those who would seek to change her. I agree that kids adopt trans IDs as a coping mechanism for things that trouble them. But maybe this memorandum could focus attention on those other troubles directly, which might help the child reflect on the trans stuff? But I don’t know. I suppose I look at these documents nowadays and I instinctively try to think: how could I use this to prevent well meaning but clueless professionals interfere with my child’s head?

sorry, 2007 or 2008