No more puberty blockers for children from the NHS - reported in the Times!

[MrsOvertonsWindow]

This is massive - and long overdue

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/97ce2e81-2884-42f5-bb82-2a2778f2cc91?shareToken=9568e79f0683beea68ffe5e978b05a29

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001x4l9

From about 6.30

Dr Bell from 11.00

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001x4l9?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Try that - I can't remember when the relevant segment was

Ah, from the times of posts it starts at about 7 mins in

Mostly, I’m angry and incredulous that so many medical professionals have behaved so unethically whilst believing they are on the “right side of history”.

This last image you present just makes me want to cry.

That is a really interesting way to look at it. I have heard (but not dived into the research myself) that you are many times more likely to become addicted to alcohol if you start drinking at a younger age (mid teens?) than if you start drinking alcohol in your 20s.

Which if true, does suggest that once you have matured you are less likely to develop unhealthy coping strategies dependent upon alcohol even though you have easier access to alcohol whereas if that's how you numb your problems as a teen then it's a harder pattern to break. I appreciate that as I don't know the studies, it could be that the younger access to alcohol was a proxy for a lack of supervision and care or even neglect and other ACEs if that wasn't adjusted for.

Going through puberty, growing up is important, the hubris of these doctors and activists that didn't consider the full impact of halting children's development.

I fully expect we'll be told that it was only ever a tiny minority of children they thought PBs were the right treatment for and it was all over blown. As if we couldn't see what has been happening in the USA and Canada and that activists here also wanted PBs and cross sex hormones on demand.

No, but it could be made very difficult if the GMC issued guidance, and/or the MHRA made manufacturers put a contraindication into their product licences. Prescribers would be on thin ice with their professional indemnity insurers.

And at about 13 min he talks about the “penetration of the ideology overwhelming clinical practice”. I think he mentions ideological capture later on as well. I wonder if that made ED think a bit more about his own position?

I think this is a breakthrough. If a clinical trial actually receives ethics approval and recruits subjects I will eat my hat.

The idea that use of puberty blockers in this way has been considered “experimental”, yet never worthy of a clinical trial, is appalling.

Well said

Shouldn't have been a thing in the first place. Good news, nonetheless.

Thank you - this is what we. have been saying all along - but what do we know, we are only non-transwomen, and bigoted as hell.

If you look at screening, which identifies something that requires preventative treatment in a population at higher risk, it needs a very high diagnosis bar, and clear evidence that the treatment results in an improved outcome with least harm. This is regularly reviewed by a specialist committee.

Here, they have been taking a cohort of children at risk of something that can't be adequately defined, that about 80% will grow out of and have been giving a large proportion an unevidenced treatment and not documented the outcomes, with very little supervision.

Tis madness.

What I love, is that as more information comes to light on any area of gender ideology, we have are shown to be right. Every time. Every time the concerns we raised are shown to come to fruition.

What do you think about that then, ' less heat, more light, Nandy.'?

The idea that use of puberty blockers in this way has been considered “experimental”, yet never worthy of a clinical trial, is appalling.

I’ve read that one of the problems is that it’s difficult for any trial to meet ethics approval because they know the side effects of blocking a child include sterilisation and loss of adult sexual function.

Also it would be nigh on impossible to have a control group because no child who wants puberty blocking drugs would agree to participate once they realised they were in the control group.

I wonder how they plan to get around all these issues for the purposes of the planned trial.

I find the prospect of a study quite worrying. I’ve read somewhere that they will select the children who have had persistent “gender dysphoria” since early childhood. I don’t know if this is true but if it is wouldn’t this be more likely to include those children who grow up to be gay/lesbian adults? I just can’t comprehend how a study can possibly weed out future gay people.

As I say, I don’t expect they will.

This is NHSE saying “We’re not going to fund something that hasn’t been proved to be beneficial”.

They aren’t going to say “Stop now, it’s obviously insane and dangerous”, because they would be accused of being politically/financially motivated.

This approach essentially says “Show is the evidence and we’ll reconsider” putting the ball firmly in the court of the gender woo clinicians, where it will stay, because no-one is going to touch a proper clinical trial with a barge pole.

For starters, it probably won’t get off the ground as pp have stated - no-one can define the disease state that is being treated.

Even if it did it won’t get past ethics.

If it somehow got past ethics it would find recruitment difficult, with all that sunlight.

And in any case the last thing the gender woo clinicians really want is an actual bona fide clinical trial because they are beginning to realise they won’t like what it would report.

The children growing up in sexist, homophobic environments. Or with ideological parents. Or who have experienced sexual abuse. The persistent from early childhood cases are so much more worrying IMO because it suggests the parents didn't meet their children with acceptance. Devastating if these children get failed a second time.

What evidence leads you to assert that "a persistent from early childhood child has parents that didn't meet their children with acceptance"?
Given everything we know about the impact of Mermaids and all the other child sex change charities, isn't it far more likely that parents of these children were sucked in by the be kind / believe your child demands, often promptly socially affirming their infant / young child while failing to critically evaluate the dangers to children of this and the nature of normal childhood exploration of roles?

Regarding clinical trials, I’m only on the periphery of this part of science but I too can’t see how a properly controlled clinical trial could ever get past MHRA and ethics approval given what is already known about PBs.

What could be feasible is if existing and previous Tavistock and similar patients agreed to their records being made available for a post hoc analysis/critical review and maybe follow up interviews. The data would not be as scientifically robust as a proactive gold standard clinical study, because it’s reliant on whatever doctors recorded at the time rather than to a defined protocol. But a record review would not involve new patients being exposed to the drug. The study would still needs ethics approval, but I think it’s less problematic as it’s not involving new treatments. There are posters on here who obviously know more about study design than me - would this come up with anything useful in terms of support or not for PB use? I’m already thinking that we know Tavistock didn’t follow up many patients so there will be huge gaps, but it could be useful to then document clearly what the gaps are and what the implications are.

I’m thinking of children like Susie Green’s child, who were constantly punished for not matching the social stereotypes associated with their sex.

I've done clinical research in the past and all I can say is "Good luck getting this shit past the ethics committee."

Of course, that was then and this is now . . . 🙄

Does anyone know if any of the Lib Dems have commented so far? I wonder if they’re still being funded by the puberty blocker manufacturers?

There is this from a lib dem candidate for hackney and stoke Newington
https://twitter.com/RebeccaJones_03/status/1767603483228717479

This is awful news for children. My heart breaks for the poor trans children who will be forced to go through the wrong puberty against their will. Hopefully this is overturned soon, it’s seriously cruel.

Blocked and hidden all dissenting voices, obviously, and just perfect politics

Goodness - a Lib Dem who conflates safeguarding children from medical harm with "anti trans activism"

Given the Lib Dem's woeful history of fostering predators at the highest level in their party (think Cyril Smith) I'd be very careful before publicly dismissing an NHS England pronouncement that puberty blockers aren't safe for children - especially if I was standing for public office.