Tavistock clinic to be sued by 1000 families

[WarriorN]

Times article I've just seen...

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tavistock-gender-clinic-to-be-sued-by-1-000-families-lbsw6k8zd

I'm afraid I don't have access but the headline alone...

I'm assuming it's for overly enthusiastic affirmative care and not the opposite?

@MoltenLasagne hewouldwouldnthe
The payouts won't be huge because it will only be psychological damage even if that is proven. The puberty blockers are usually reversible. Surgery would be another matter. Sounds more likely greedy no win no fee class action.
Known side effects of GrNH agonists (aka puberty blockers):

• problems with bone density including osteoporosis and loss of teeth
• mental health issues including suicidality
• up to 10 point drop in IQ
• possible blindness
• sterility

Tell me more about how these are reversible?

But these cannot be hypothetical side effects, but proven side effects which have happened.

You need to look at how negligence cases work.

I think.its also recently been revealed they have been linked to idiopathic intracranial hypertension which could lead to permanent blindness. Amongst other things such as nausea double vision and severe headaches.

@MoltenLasagne

Not sure if that posted properly, but 'possible blindness' would have zero legs in a negligence case.

As for the psychological damage it would,need to be proven the damage was caused by the puberty blockers rather than the psychological situation of the child believing they were of a different sex, So already on dodgy ground.

Given the vast majority of children who underwent the " watch and wait" approach grey out of their dysphoria , it should hopefully be able to be proven that preventing brain maturation by given puberty blockers would obviously prevent that thus prolonging the distress.

What The Actual Fuck???

I am a woman.
A long standing poster on here.
Professionally actively involved in challenging this ideology and it's impact on children for years now.
I work with lawyers.
Bloody good female ones.

What a crass, pathetic, unfounded comment.

Oh yes, all those friends who turned their backs on us are going to start crawling out of the woodwork with tails between their legs now.

The reverse ferreting from them is going to be a delight and I will enjoy every minute of it.

And in my rage I've outed myself.
Fuck you.

@Bedazzle

??

Did you read my post

I just watched her interview and thought she appeared very intelligent and knowledgeable of the situation.

In what way is that "a crass, pathetic, unfounded comment"?
**

Although I subscribe to The Times online I am off to buy a copy to leave under the daughter's nose. Since I'm not allowed to talk about it.

What a nasty piece of work you are.

"Maybe you just have a problem with female lawyers?' @Bedazzle

You know what you said.

Nasty pathetic & unfounded.

The poster I quoted didn't appear to hold the female lawyer with much regard, I thought she was 'intelligent and knowledgeable'

I don't see your problem.

@Whatwouldscullydo It has to be proven though. So MRI scans, psychological evaluation and so many confounding alternatives to it being due to puberty blockers. Medical Negligence is very hard to prove. Just saying as I know a lot about these issues, unfortunately

The vindication coming Graham's way is going to be like something we have never seen before, I think he's right and we'll be seeing full-page newspaper adverts from organizations/people apologising.

Well I'm sure it would be lovely to see but I very much doubt there will be any full scale grovelling abject apologies.

Lots of deletions, denials and a tight lipped avoidance of the subject is most likely.

The poster you quoted was me.

So you think having a different view on the lawyers presentation means you can throw out nasty unfounded pathetic slurs?

I despise that kind of approach.

And your casual vile accusation was so far of the mark it couldn't be more wrong.

It is the usual twitter bravado from the extreme genderists over there at the moment. Saying things like 'probably will be not even one':

Yeah... obviously they have not been reading any detransitioner twitter accounts for the past year. I expect there will be enough to make a significant impact.

10 would make a significant impact in that it would bring the case to court and all the newest evidence that either supports or refutes affirming only treatment and the use of any hormonal treatments for young people and children will be read and submitted. Including ALL the accounts of negative side-effects for a treatment program that continues to be glorified.

And 'they are ambulance chasers!'

And here I would say, yes! And if I was one of those families, I would want someone with a class action history who is all about finding liability cases to manage this. If an ambulance chaser with any success record has the confidence to bring this action, then so be it. Who else has put their hands up?

The puberty blockers are usually reversible.

In what sense? Most children put on puberty blockers go onto cross sex hormones, and never go through natural puberty.

But these cannot be hypothetical side effects, but proven side effects which have happened.

You need to look at how negligence cases work.

All children who started puberty blockers at Tanner Stage 2 and progressed to wrong sex hormones are infertile. This is an easy thing to prove. All of these children also have sexual dysfunction. This is an easy thing to prove, so much so that Marci Bowers has publicly stated that all the males Bowers sees for surgery are anorgasmic.

These are not theoretical side effects. There are children and young adults with these effects right now.

I suppose one reason for stating a large number like a thousand is that it will encourage hesitant claimants to come forward thinking they'll be (largely) lost in the noise rather than being one of a few, getting a high profile, and becoming a target. But I do think the number of overstated.

This firm isn't daft, they know about class action suits and how to get people onboard the process. In that sense, yes it is an advert, however you can bet they wouldn't be putting it out there without them already having some parents involved.

As for the Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension, I've mentioned before that my DS has this. Unfortunately it is not a 'pop a pill and you're fixed' disease. It has turned our lives upside down and two years in we're looking at surgical intervention now. The risk of blindness doesn't just disappear due to the prolonged swelling of the optic nerves which causes scarring. The meds are awful and have serious side effects, my DS's schooling and social life has been terribly affected. It used to be called pseudo tumour cerebri because it creates the same environment in the skull as a brain tumour does; and in fact that was the first thing they tested for. It is a debilitating and bloody awful neurological disease that shouldn't be underestimated.

In a strange turn of fate, he was nearly put on lupron some years ago for another issue. Fortunately this was avoided but I felt sick to the pit of my stomach when I saw that IIH is now listed as a possible side effect of it. Sorry, minor rant but some fool chortling on about potential blindness in such a dismissive fashion pissed me off.

And here I would say, yes! And if I was one of those families, I would want someone with a class action history who is all about finding liability cases to manage this

There's always something " wrong"

The emotional blackmail never stops. Distressing information is revealed and the scientist is the " wrong " sort.

An article is written and the paper is the " wrong one "

Now we have the " wrong" lawyer.

Women speak up and it's the " wrong " sort.

If only as much effort was put into really researching the entire protocol as it was trying to find reasons as to why we can discount whoever or whatever exposes the ever increasing cases of harm.being caused. We'd not be in this mess right now.

Potential blindness will absolutely be an issue, surely, if no one was warned about the possibility?

You don't understand how medical negligence works. You can't be sued for a 'potential' situation, only if it happens.

So you think having a different view on the lawyers presentation means you can throw out nasty unfounded pathetic slurs?

You did come across quite TRA-ish in your judgement of the female lawyer.