Talk by Dr Aidan Kelly (Tavistock)

[rogdmum]

This is worth a listen from around the 15 minute mark for anyone concerned about the use of puberty blockers.

Some quotes from the talk:

“We are putting responsibility back on the family because we don’t have the evidence base to say ‘it’s these kids or it’s these kids’, or how we can pick out which kids should go forward and which kids shouldn’t. “

“The blocker is not a benign thing, it comes with - I don’t mean financial costs- it comes with downsides, especially around energy- if the young person has mood difficulties the blocker can sometimes make that worse- it also takes away those sex hormones, so that whole thing I was talking about, of being attracted to, developing crushes, when all your teens and peers are getting into relationships and developing social connections in that sense- that’ll be gone, well not totally gone, but that drive that interest whether it’s the opposite or same sex or whatever will be greatly reduced. And we do worry, because we don’t have long term evidence for this. We do worry for what impact that might have on their identity because sexuality is such an important part of your identity,who you’re attracted to.”

“It can often mean you are signing up to be a patient for the rest of your life. In a way you taking what is essentially a physically healthy, you know it’s not got medical- you might say internally in terms of gender it’s not right- but medically it’s a healthy body and you’re introducing medication and making it dependent on medication, so ethically it’s really quite a complicated area, especially for children.”

“We’ve only started talking about fertility in the last 4 to 5 years. Before that, we were putting people down this pathway and actually they were coming back to us 15 years later and going, “oh, you never really said, you know.” And that’s what I mean about this being such a new area, CoS we weren’t even doing hypothalamic blockers under the age of 16 until 5 years ago. We don’t have people who are 40 to 50 to see, you know, how’s your life been, were we right to intervene so early? We don’t know.”

What I come away with from that is how complicated it all is.

It isn't complicated. That is why they stumble over the language.
They are drugging and surgically altering children for money.

There is a darker possible reason that involves those who might find something positive in legal adults who have been developmentally stunted in body and mind, but I am trying to not get deleted here...

Yeeeessssss..... I always ask the question ‘who benefits?’ Who benefits from young transwomen who have not gone through male puberty but look like young teen girls?

And I felt sick listento Ben (GNC centric describe the ‘mentors’ of the trans youth group who ‘taught’ mentored the young transboys In the group about sex. So yeeess. I know always ask the question. Ultimately, who benefits from this.

Just adding a link to another thread about the £600,000 research grant which the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has awarded to a biased group of researchers for a 30 month project, named "Identifying the health and care needs of young trans and gender diverse people". Mermaids and Dr Helen Webberley are involved.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3950229--600k-Oxford-research-project-on-trans-kids

Lily Maynard has written about it here.

lilymaynard.com/costing-the-kool-aid-oxford-university/

Yep bewilderens

Not complicated at all

Stop surgery and un proven drugs on kids

It’s really that simple

It isn't complicated. That is why they stumble over the language.

Yes, I agree.

One thing I find curious, not sure I can articulate it properly.
A lot of the people I've seen interviewed on this (Polly C, etc) come across as almost intentionally naive, like 'oh, yes actually we don't know what the outcomes will be' and 'yes, actually we did have some people saying we didn't tell them they'd be infertile' (I PARAPHRASE) - sort of "open" about what they don't know, when forced to say.

But they must know, they must, surely, that there's potentially an avalanche of court cases on the horizon? They must know it's really ethically bad to be flying by the seat of their pants on this? But they don't seem to have a proper paper trail of 'who said it was ok' - if I were them I'd be establishing as firmly as I could that 'X's research suggests this is the best method' or 'this approach was approved by X person', deflecting anything away from me just sort of going along with it even as I question it...? Even actually starting up some longitudinal studies?
[not that this is ethically any better, but at least you can say you were following orders/ the best and fullest current research, so to speak]

Unless I'm really wrong (it's possible, I miss a lot) and they are doing this - it's the spoken interviews that seem so wishy washy.

I guess my question is - who do they think is going to take the rap for all this when the shit hits the legal fan?

There’s a lot to discuss and I’m only half way through but apart from the bits that past posters have highlighted these bits stuck out as well:

“Ummm, I’ve never given it [puberty blocker]...” (18.00)

Why is HE giving it? Why is it HIS decision? He’s not an endocrinologist. Are they just working at the behest of these therapists?

(15.38) “Often we are putting responsibility back on the family because we don’t have the evidence base to say ‘it’s these kids, and not these kids” or how we can pick out which kids should go forward and which kids shouldn’t, it’s really a holistic piece of work to make sure the young person - well! As much as they can the young person - but also really the family and are thinking about everything they need to be thinking about, engaging with conversation, are open and honest about any difficulties that things have gone on in the past, just so we know if they come back to us in 10 or 15 years - not that they’ll come back to us but - that if they THINK back themselves in 10 or 15 years they think back and go ‘you know what, I made the right decision for me at that time’”

The mask slipped there. Covering their arse legally. “It was all your decision, don’t blame us.”

Horrendous.

No you are completly right bishopgiggles.
Polly Carmichael said in her interview on newsnight, i dont know, we dont know.
It was stiking how much she didnt fucking know.
Which would maybe be fair enough if she worked in a restaurant for nmw and wasnt sure if something is vegan.
Then you go to the person who does know and give the customer what they want, no harm no foul.
But shes the director, this is not a vegan licking mayo off a bun its children being sterilised and mutilated.
She didn't go to the people who know because nobody has been bothered to find out and nobody seems to know.
Heads need to roll for this.
The question is, whos head?

@bishopgiggles

One thing I find curious, not sure I can articulate it properly. A lot of the people I've seen interviewed on this (Polly C, etc) come across as almost intentionally naive, like 'oh, yes actually we don't know what the outcomes will be' and 'yes, actually we did have some people saying we didn't tell them they'd be infertile' (I PARAPHRASE) - sort of "open" about what they don't know, when forced to say.

But they must know, they must, surely, that there's potentially an avalanche of court cases on the horizon? They must know it's really ethically bad to be flying by the seat of their pants on this? But they don't seem to have a proper paper trail of 'who said it was ok' - if I were them I'd be establishing as firmly as I could that 'X's research suggests this is the best method' or 'this approach was approved by X person', deflecting anything away from me just sort of going along with it even as I question it...? Even actually starting up some longitudinal studies?
[not that this is ethically any better, but at least you can say you were following orders/ the best and fullest current research, so to speak]

Unless I'm really wrong (it's possible, I miss a lot) and they are doing this - it's the spoken interviews that seem so wishy washy.

I guess my question is - who do they think is going to take the rap for all this when the shit hits the legal fan?

WPATH gets mentioned a lot, along with the Yoghurt Kart principles (sorry, deliberate silliness on my part, I'm sure someone will be along with the proper name soon). This is precisely the reason - to provide a vague 'standard' to point to so that those responsible for these heinous decisions on the ground can shift the blame to 'international best practice/guidance'. That's why the studies are minimal and slapdash, because they know the turds are flying towards the rotary blade fan at velocity, and the only hope they have of avoiding the full reckoning is to keep everything as loosey goosey as possible so the waters stay as muddy as possible for as long as possible.

So are you saying heads are gonna roll for this and the people involved already know that but they're trying to stop their own heads going off down the hill?
FloralBunting

Heads definitely need to roll. Its beyond sick and disgusting that this is happening.
Only a sick fucker would think this is ok.

are you saying heads are gonna roll for this and the people involved already know that but they're trying to stop their own heads going off down the hill?

You've said it more succinctly than I have, but yes. And given the current iteration of cancel culture and mobs of righteousness, I expect that certain figures within the medical and political establishment, at the very least, are seeing the way the wind is blowing and getting ready to dive out of the blast ratio.

Good point regarding WPATH. There does seem to be a shift towards “we look to them for guidance, they’re our world body”. But clearly they’re a lobby group, not a respectable medical body.

There is no doubt in my mind there is a deliberate shift in clinics worldwide to protect themselves.

They know.
www.lupronvictimshub.com/lawsuits.html

@bishopgiggles

One thing I find curious, not sure I can articulate it properly. A lot of the people I've seen interviewed on this (Polly C, etc) come across as almost intentionally naive, like 'oh, yes actually we don't know what the outcomes will be' and 'yes, actually we did have some people saying we didn't tell them they'd be infertile' (I PARAPHRASE) - sort of "open" about what they don't know, when forced to say.

But they must know, they must, surely, that there's potentially an avalanche of court cases on the horizon? They must know it's really ethically bad to be flying by the seat of their pants on this? But they don't seem to have a proper paper trail of 'who said it was ok' - if I were them I'd be establishing as firmly as I could that 'X's research suggests this is the best method' or 'this approach was approved by X person', deflecting anything away from me just sort of going along with it even as I question it...? Even actually starting up some longitudinal studies?
[not that this is ethically any better, but at least you can say you were following orders/ the best and fullest current research, so to speak]

Unless I'm really wrong (it's possible, I miss a lot) and they are doing this - it's the spoken interviews that seem so wishy washy.

I guess my question is - who do they think is going to take the rap for all this when the shit hits the legal fan?

Maybe because by the time the shit hits the fan and these children are questioning adults the people that will have medicated them will be retired and won't have to deal with the fall out?

So how do we hold these slimy sneaky fuckers to account?
Polly Carmichael will not slink away scott free. It cant happen.
I want to see lots of heads rolling, that includes not only the people that have directly contributed to this absolute horror show but also everyone who endorsed it and encouraged it.
'Wrong side of history' needs to come back to bite these sick fucks sooner rather than later.
The whole thing makes me so sick with rage and despair.
I just don't get how anyone thinks this is ok.
Im a gender non confirming, recovering anorexic, possibly asd woman.
I don't think those things are required to be against sterilizing gay autistic and traumatized kids but maybe it helps..
I don't get how anyone can be for this or defend it.
Hopefully soon they will be failing to do so in court.

I managed to watch about 10 minutes of this, starting at 15 mins. He's a very poor speaker which makes it very difficult to watch. I stopped after the bit about the gender unicorn and how it's a useful tool to get children to plot on a 'continuum' how 'manly' members of their family are.

That comes just after his comments about how difficult it is for children to understand what 'gender expression' is. But why are they being taught about this in the first place? The fact that he's having to explain this to an audience of adults indicates that it's not something that people need to know.

Prof David Bell, psychiatrist at Tavi said in the Scottish Parliament that the WPATH guidelines are "not worth the paper they are written on".

They are being reviewed, but, yes, seems to be a distinct lack of critical thinking in them.

It's not complicated. I'm a GP with no special training in this area. I know from medical school that there is a natural physiological window for puberty, and also that puberty is vital to sexual, intellectual and physical development. Anyone with a medical degree who pretends not to know this is lying.

Anyone with a medical degree who pretends not to know this is lying.

Does he have a medical degree? He's a clinical psychologist.

Of course the endocrinologists who actually prescribe the hormone blockers are medically qualified, so they know this.

@OldCrone

Anyone with a medical degree who pretends not to know this is lying.

Does he have a medical degree? He's a clinical psychologist.

Of course the endocrinologists who actually prescribe the hormone blockers are medically qualified, so they know this.

Yes, I didn't mean him specifically, but anyone actually prescribing the drugs must know it.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Prof David Bell, psychiatrist at Tavi said in the Scottish Parliament that the WPATH guidelines are "not worth the paper they are written on".

They are being reviewed, but, yes, seems to be a distinct lack of critical thinking in them.

WPATH are a professional organisation for people who make a living from people who transition using surgery and hormones. Critical thinking isn't something they would be interested in.

I agree there are some very sinister motivations which have led to this taking hold. But I still want to understand how it could have happened in a clinical setting.

Is it to do with the nature of this type of work, engaging with families and children in difficulty?

I'm guessing normally it is a very hard slog with ambiguous outcomes. I'd guess it can take a lot of time and effort to get a full understanding of a child's problems, and even more time and effort to start addressing them. Maybe when they leave your care you don't always know if you've helped.

In that context it must be very appealing to have a young person delighted to receive a prescription, grateful that you've helped them, feeling optimistic about their future. They wanted a solution and you've provided it. Sounds satisfying - as long as you don't think about it too closely.

Could that possibly explain any of this?

@ThePonderer

I agree there are some very sinister motivations which have led to this taking hold. But I still want to understand how it could have happened in a clinical setting.

Is it to do with the nature of this type of work, engaging with families and children in difficulty?

I'm guessing normally it is a very hard slog with ambiguous outcomes. I'd guess it can take a lot of time and effort to get a full understanding of a child's problems, and even more time and effort to start addressing them. Maybe when they leave your care you don't always know if you've helped.

In that context it must be very appealing to have a young person delighted to receive a prescription, grateful that you've helped them, feeling optimistic about their future. They wanted a solution and you've provided it. Sounds satisfying - as long as you don't think about it too closely.

Could that possibly explain any of this?

Very much so. Most of the harm in medicine has been done by doctors with good intentions. The number of Shipman-types actively trying to harm patients is small. Most doctors like to see themselves as altruistic - it flatters our egos. I'd guess this is true in many professions, but the outcomes are worse in medicine because almost all medical treatments involve possible harms, so doctors get desensitised to the risks. I'd go round the bend if, every time I prescribed an antibiotic (for example), I let myself worry about every possible side-effect. To survive as a doctor, you have to learn to live with the fact that sometimes you will harm patients. Obviously, if you are a conscientious doctor, you try only ever to give treatments if they are more likely to do good than harm, but the benefit/harm balance is by no means always clear-cut.

NB I am not saying this to justify anything that has happened at the Tavi, only to try to explain how well-meaning doctors (and other clinicians) may have got caught up with it.

Most big medical scandals, from frontal lobotomies to the Bristol heart surgery scandal in the 90s, have been brought about by doctors who told themselves they were doing the right thing.

Thank you MrsNoah - very interesting.

There seems to have been so little curiosity about whether there were harms to consider, let alone what they might be.

It's astonishing that GIDS did so little work on following up outcomes for their patients past the age of 16.

@ThePonderer

The whole thing comes off as one giant experiment

I wonder if there's a slightly different attitude to experimental treatment among psychologists, as opposed to medics who deal with physical problems? Could it be that as a psychologist whenever you treat somebody there's always a possibility that you and they won't definitively know what part of the treatment made the difference, or even whether the treatment did make a difference?

[Apologies if this is deeply offensive to psychologists, and way off the mark! It's a genuine question about whether there's a difference in approach.]

I think there is probably something in what you are saying. Even a lot of the psychiatric drugs, how they work and long term outcomes aren't well understood.