Tavistock puberty blocker study published

[PaleBlueMoonlight]

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

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

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

WPATH are a patient group with some clinicians who seem to need a bit of CPD in critical thinking.

Someone recently told me that anyone can become a member of WPATH.

They gave an analogy of say a professional society eg royal society of xxxx where you'd have to have certain qualifications and a more common or garden group that gives its self a fancy name and becomes quite 'official' as so many join it and its popular but you don't have to hold certain professional qualifications. A lot do but it's not a stipulation.

WPATH is the latter.

Not sure if this has been posted yet. But this is a rebuttal to Laverys recent piece.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-this-academic-gets-wrong-about-trans-rights-in-britain

Jessie Singal also did a rebuttal.

SophocIestheFox

"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?"

That is such a good point back on page one.

@Italiangreyhound

SophocIestheFox

"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?"

That is such a good point back on page one.

It is.

Unless you go down the rabbit hole of who benefits from children and young teens staying close to that physical build forever.

Can someone explain how cases of medical negligence work? And when police get involved and charges are pressed?

Unless you go down the rabbit hole of who benefits from children and young teens staying close to that physical build forever.

Which was at least one whistleblowing clinician's concern at the Tavi.

I want to know a great deal more about the one subject who didn't go on to cross-sex hormones. Why didn't they? What was different? How are they now?

www.transgendertrend.com/the-tavistocks-experiment-with-puberty-blockers-part-5-the-belated-results/

OMG. They could have added 250 more children to the study? They can't tell if their fucking treatments are having any positive effect whatsoever. They can, however be quite certain they're turning the kids they're treating into lifelong medical patients at risk of osteoporosis.

And they chose not to investigate whether their treatments have any benefits (a sample size of 300 would have been enough!), and carried on administering them anyway. At who knows what cost to thousands of children all over the world who are being given these unevidenced treatments. Fuck these people.

Is there any mechanism whatsoever by the Tavistock treatment data can be examined properly by competent people? Is that something the judiciary can intervene on? Probably not, right, but I can't get over this. Not only did they not know what they were doing to these kids, they didn't want to know. It's unforgivable.

@allmywhat

Is there any mechanism whatsoever by the Tavistock treatment data can be examined properly by competent people? Is that something the judiciary can intervene on? Probably not, right, but I can't get over this. Not only did they not know what they were doing to these kids, they didn't want to know. It's unforgivable.

"They didn't want to know"

THIS.

@allmywhat

Is there any mechanism whatsoever by the Tavistock treatment data can be examined properly by competent people? Is that something the judiciary can intervene on? Probably not, right, but I can't get over this. Not only did they not know what they were doing to these kids, they didn't want to know. It's unforgivable.

Completely agree. It's criminal, isn't it (and if it isn't, it should be).

inews.co.uk/news/gids-tavistock-gender-hormone-treatment-clinician-trans-800657

I can’t make head nor tail of this really.

Is progressing from PBs to cross sex hormones a single treatment pathway or isn’t it? GIDs claimed it isn’t, the judges said it is, and now this anon GIDs clinician says it is and kids in it should be allowed to progress as usual.

Make your minds up, GIDs!

That inews article is quite confusing. It doesn’t get around to stating ‘why’ pbs have been subject to the ruling. None of the side effects such as bone density, joint issues etc or the effects of stopping puberty - fertility and future sex aspect.

It also doesn’t make clear the mental health aspect that needs to be ramped up either in support of or as alternative to affirming treatment (and the studies that have shown pbs can adversely effect mental health).

In fact, it makes out there are oodles of patience (supposedly GIDs says there are very few on pbs) and that there is no alternative to affirming treatment....

It seems yet another fear spreading article that also highlights the issues within the clinic. Also points out the complete lack on the clinics part to get thorough research done when they knew it was being expected. Such a lost opportunity to have some solid data about the effectiveness of their treatment plans.

Seeing the shoddy journalism around this topic makes me fear for the quality of journalism on subjects I know less well.

The internet has been terrible for news quality. I think I will have to actually take out a paid subscription this year, as the only news org who seem to make enough out of click bait to also employ real journalists for the proper stories are The Mail.

Tootsweets23 - "They didn't add any others to the study despite have hundreds of additional patients that they didn't anticipate, despite receiving £1.3m to conduct this research."

That is interesting. I have seen it claimed elsewhere (sorry, I can't recall where) that the reason that the research was so shoddy was that it was unfunded and so staff were fitting it in around their clinical work.

They definitely had funding, MoleSmokes. They also had to appear before at least 2 Ethics Committees before they were allowed to start the 'research' and were supposed to report regularly on progress (which they didn't).

The whole thing is a shambles and a scandal. I really hope that Carmichael will be investigated seriously. She honestly shouldn't be allowed to get away with what she's done, or allowed to be done.

Oh I don't doubt that they had funding, Jux - I just wish I could remember where I saw the apologia that was all, "Poor Tavi clinicians, struggling to fit in this research around their clinical work because it was unfunded."

The Ethics Committee shenanigans were scandalous - I can't remember now if the NHSRA felt the ethics situation needed tightening up or if they were totally complacent about it. From what I can recall of that report they were over-keen to accept explanations along the lines of, "That's how the system works". Good at least that they spotted that the Tavi was providing misleading information to patients and parents about Puberty Blockers - the old "Pause Button, time to think" myth.

Yeah, the ease with which they got through Ethics was scandalous and shameful (I say 'ease' because under the circumstances they shouldn't really have got it through Ethics at all), and wouldn't have if they'd not had a friend who 'became' a Chair of yet another Ethics Cttee - the third time they'd tried, I think? He bears some responsibility too; can't remember his name, but it's almost certainly in a thread somewhere on fwr....

Maybe we should have tiers of Ethics Cttees checking the ethics of lower Ethics Cttees?

(On a different, but as contentious a note, it's so delightful to see the possibility of so much red tape returning to Britain, isn't it?)