Newsnight has done a follow up report on Tavistock Clinic finding that concerns were first raised in 2005

[stumbledin]

Unfortunatley didn't here all of this. But Newsnight has had to fight to get hold of a report showing concerns about GIDs are over a decade old.

Started at about 25 minutes into the programme.

I was alerted to this episode of newsnight by a post made on social media from a transgender acquaintance I've know from way before I was GC funnily enough.

The gist of their post was basically that GC journo's had PAID Dr David Taylor to lie about the questionable practices of GIDS and Tavistock so as to make the GC side more valid

I had previously thought that this person was a somewhat grounded individual but going by their social media activity for the past few years they have fully spiraled into TRA cultism. Their posts include gems like "The GC movement is funded by the far-right", "Sex is more complicated than male and female" and so on. They also used to state that AGP is not a thing until very recently when their tune changes to "Well there are men that may have this fetish but..."

TRA truly functions as a fundamentalist religion which demands you to detach from reality, it is a purely emotionally charged movement that rejects any nuance and critical thinking.

It rots the brain.

The BBC is the worlds most visited news site. Whether that article is on the front page, or on the Health page you can guarantee it will be getting lots of views.
Stats:
1.5 billion monthly page views
61 million monthly video views
179 million monthly unique browsers

It starts about 26 minutes in.
Deborah Cohen is a great reporter.
Sue Evans
Kirsty Entwhistle
Martin Taylor

These are such valid questions. Where is the follow up of patients? Where is the evidence base for how they work? This issue that many patients would have been better served by being referred to CAMHS but underfunding there meant that the patients stayed in GIDS. It’s so sad. These are just kids. They can’t possibly know what they are consenting to- because nobody actually knows what the full risks and implications of these invasive physical treatments are for them long term.

I would be very interested in seeing how the 2005 cohort are doing now. They will be adults. We could have had good evidence. I just feel so sad

I've seen it stated that the reason many of that early cohort is impossible to trace is because they were issued with new NHS numbers when they changed gender. It's madness that nobody thought that through.

These are such valid questions

As the report said 15 years ago "this isn't rocket science". It's just following standard medical practice.

It's just following standard medical practice.
Exactly. The rainbow glitter lobby that claims they are standing up for the ‘rights’ of this group of distressed children, have in fact advocated successfully to put these kids in a special category where normal safeguarding, evidence-based medical care, proper mental health care, normal standards of consent, emotional support if they change their mind, standard opportunities to take part in research, have regular routine follow up, retain their right to have an open future and avoid becoming a lifelong medical patient, retain their natural sexual and reproductive function, bone density, IQ, normal benefits of puberty etc, are all taken away.

They don’t care about the actual interests of the kids, just the political symbolism the kids represent. If they cared, they would be rushing to support and listen to detransitioned people and calling for a ‘pause button’ on providing any child with this experimental treatment with no follow up.
But they’re not doing that.

It's good if Deborah Cohen is on the case. She is a bloodhound for medical scandals.

I wonder how much info was leaking out 15 years ago? I can't believe it's only the last few years that we've become aware.

I wonder if the media hid stuff too, because of the sensitivities?

Did the NHS purposely hide information by issuing new NHS numbers. Surely they knew they had to keep track. Men and women's health care needs are different.

Wow it is such a mess.

Has anyone got a link to the report which was released to the journalists under FOI?

I've found the ICO decision notice here: ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2020/2618201/fs50881691.pdf

I've also found the original response to their FOI request, where the Tavistock refuse to release the information (although it's not listed in their dislosure log on their website).

tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/documents/1568/FOI_19-20065_GIDS_Endocrinology_Referrals_-__Report_and_Meetings.pdf

It seems to me that the Tavistock are fobbing off complaints by saying 1. They are important because there is a rising demand (and also need more money to cope with it). 2. It is not their job to screen for co-morbidities - it is all CAMHS fault.

All whilst being blissfully unaware that if the latter was appropriately funded to start with (and didn't have a penchant for fobbing parents off) there wouldn't be an increased demand for the former. If CAHMS was overhauled and funded properly an autism assessment and diagnosis wouldn't take three fucking years. How disgusting that they want more money whilst actual mental health services for kids are pretty much non-existent.

I would be very interested in seeing how the 2005 cohort are doing now. They will be adults. We could have had good evidence. I just feel so sad.

It's just so mad they never followed them up. One would have thought there would be some professional curiosity at the very least, aside of issues such as audit etc. and caring about the outcomes.

If they had followed up they might even have a body of evidence supporting their treatment policies.

It light of the recent publication of the Cumberlege review of vaginal mesh, hormonal pregnancy tests and sodium valproate the actions (and inactions) of GIDS look very bad. There are issues with the Cumberlege review (it doesn't look at casuality, and actually there is no strong evidence that hormonal pregnancy tests did cause developmental problems), but it does clearly highlight women repeatedly raising concerns about healthcare and being ignored for many years. The recurrent narrative from GIDS ex-staff and whistleblowers is all very reminiscent of this. Their failure to publise the outcomes of the initial puberty blocker trial is pretty damning, and isn't going to look good in court.
Also interesting to see the sort of payouts being given to people with lost reproductive functioning due to medical negligence - a woman with missed cervical cancer was awarded damages to cover the cost of foreign surrogacy - not looking to get into a debate on surrogacy, but it shows that the courts will make the NHS pay if they erroneously destroy your reproductive capability.

Cumberlege review:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53266057

If the medical needs of Trans patients were not followed up, that is a socking dereliction of duty.

eg Transwomen in their late 50s will be getting prostate problems which may not be properly treated if their notes are incorrect

I'm so glad this has come to light. It would appear the Tavistock are saying the report is no longer relevant, because they have suddenly decided to change their treatment protocols. Why have they?

Was that before or after they tried to wriggle out of responding to the FOI?

What reason have they given for changing their treatments? If a 15-year-old report has got nothing to do with it.

Where is the evidence for treatment change? And why does it only just suddenly matter?

Do they really think that that is going to cut the mustard? More spineless, hurried papering over the cracks? Nothing to see here.

It's infuriating that they, with so many others, have fallen hook like and sinker for this nonsense.

Exploring a gender identity? When they can't even explain what one is.

My question is what the bloody hell do they think gender dysphoria is trying to solve??

Or is it something without cause, plucked from the air with no clue as to how it got there?

I hope they are held accountable, from start to bloody finish. Every unanswered question, every signed off unevidenced report, all of it.

👏

Passing the buck to CAMHs is bullshit, it is woefully underfunded. My daughter had to be actually suicidal before they took any interest.

If the NHS could look into the reasons why it is incompetent and negligent with such frequencey, the money used for payouts and legal fees would transform the money available for CAMHs etc. Last year legal costs/payouts were £2billion, yes that's £2billion