Tavistock puberty blocker study published

[PaleBlueMoonlight]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55282113

Finds 43/44 (98%) progress from PBS to cross sex hormones

I've very disturbed by the timing of this being released, with the court of appeal decision pending...

98% no wonder they weren't bothered about presenting it in court.

Also no improvement in psychological function and reduced growth.
How can recommend this?

How can they argue that blockers and cross sex hormones aren't linked?! When out of every hundred children put on blockers, 90+ will go on to hormones?!

No control.

The article is written by the Newsnight team, I notice.

@PaleBlueMoonlight

No control.

That's what jumped out at me, too.

Note: "By Hannah Barnes and Deborah Cohen", not a Ben Hunte in sight. If Ben Hunte cannot be relied on to provide objective and relevant coverage in his specific area when it's required, then what's the point of his role in the BBC beyond ideologically compliant cheerleading?

There we have it then. When children sign up for puberty blockers, it's a guarantee that cross sex hormones will follow, along with infertility and the loss of sexual function. No child can consent to that.

I hope the next appeal is rejected.

The paper is here:
www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.01.20241653v1.full.pdf

Eligibility criteria were ... that the young person:
...
3. fulfils the following criteria relating to GID: a)Throughout childhood (defined as over 5 years) the adolescent has demonstrated an intense pattern of cross-gendered behaviours and cross-gender identity.

But they always say it's nothing to do with stereotypes. What are 'cross-gendered behaviours' other than not conforming to stereotypes?

Why should not conforming to stereotypes have anything to do with making a physically healthy person into a lifelong medical patient?

So the study concluded in 2014/15?

Have they suppressed the findings the whole time? This was a registered clinical trial? What is their reason for the delay?

AND
They refused to give the data to the judge?

The lead author should lose his position for this.

The published study showed that treatment with the blocker brought about no change in psychological function

And there it is.

The article is written by the Newsnight team, I notice.

Yes: twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1337504879959568392

Having looked at a recent burst of ideological cheerleading coming out of the BBC, it starts to look there's some kind of internal conflict over the trans issue with a part of the BBC setting itself up as an investigative skunkworks.

Thanks OldCrone

So no surprises then. It does seem to be as expected and not necessarily providing great results for puberty blocker use.

Still, good to have it finally published and I look forward to reading it.

This needs to get out as widely as possible in the public domain. I hope Newsnight will have a big piece on this tonight. Shocking that the Tavi have sat on this for so long.

Tavistock puberty blocker study published after nine years

omg - this is crazy.

I haven't had a chance to read it fully yet but this link is slightly buried in the article - an interesting snapshot of the internal goings on in 2015.

tavistockandportman.nhs.uk/documents/142/board-papers-2015-06.pdf

Interesting timing!

there was actually a Jimmy Savile Recommendations report!! not sure if he wrote it or whether it was in response to his behaviour.....

18 Jimmy Savile Recommendations Report
Mr Campbell introduced the report giving the background and explaining the draft action plan that would be returned to Monitor once approved. Ms Greatley noted that the language within the draft action plan needed to be tightened up and more detail given for some of the items. Mr Holt raised the question of ID badges, and access to the site more generally and Ms Lyon explained that the management team were looking at the issue and would be bringing a paper to the board shortly.

Thank you OldCrone

"44 patients had data at 12 months follow-up, 24 at 24 months and 14 at 36 months"

That is a ludicrously high drop out rate. Basically 66% of participants were lost to follow-up after 2 years. Haven't read the full paper yet, bit of they don't correct for the fact that most of their participants stopped reporting data, it completely invalidates everything they report.

Picking bits out as I go...they start female children (I’m referring to sex here) on the therapy earlier than males.

The rationale for the sex difference was that the pubertal growth spurt which early intervention aims to avoid occurs typically two years earlier in females (Tanner stage 2-3) than in males (Tanner stage 3-4), thus earlier intervention is required in females

Why would suppressing growth in young females be a good thing, when they want to pass as men later in life, and would therefore want to be as tall as possible?

Has nobody thought this shit through? I’m some random on the Internet and I seem to have a better grasp of this!

What does 'no change in psychological function mean'

I cant work out if this is good in that it doesnt change development or bad in that they still have psychological issues after treatment

The Tavistock disputes this, saying that as those in this study had persistent and consistent gender dysphoria throughout their childhood, it is not surprising they would seek to continue treatment after 16.

and

The published study showed that treatment with the blocker brought about no change in psychological function

I think it's highly likely that it's the blockers that are keeping these children in a dysphoric state...

Hmm... I wonder who would be keen on a treatment that left vulnerable, often autistic children child-sized, and physically and mentally immature. But legally adults.

Tough one. Can't think.