Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Puberty Blockers. How exactly did we get here?

101 replies

AlisonDonut · 18/04/2024 12:32

I thought I'd write this as I see so many questions about why they are so contraversial and there is so much info being thrown about that it can be overwhelming.

So a brief history and how they were taken on by the Gender Clinics.

The main crux of the issue is that they are GnRH analogues. GnRH- which are gonadotropin-releasing hormones are released by the pituatory glands and GnRH analogues stop this process from happening. They control and regulate the development of the sex hormones in both males and females.

So they were used decades ago to 'treat' homosexuals when homosexuality was illegal. If a homosexual was arrested for having gay sex for example, the option was to go to jail or agree to take this drug. One key person who this happened to was Alan Turing, who later committed suicide. They have been used as well to 'treat' paedophiles.

They are also used to treat 'precocious puberty' in very young children, and are used for a very short time due to the known affects of the drug. It is also used for endometriosis.

Sidebar: the FDA in the USA reports 25,000 adverse effects, and it is linked to at least 1,500 deaths. And that is for use 'on book' ie being used for the things is it regulated to be used for.

So back in 2003, when the main cohort of people wanting to 'transition' was males, somewhere in a clinic in Amsterdam, it was suggested that these GnRH analogue drugs could be used in males who were being treated for 'gender dysphoria' because the drugs would suppress the physical development of the voice, the growth of a beard, the jawline and height and what grown up men who had 'transitioned' wanted to look at was allowing other men to pass as women more easily when they grew up.

They tried this drug on Patient Zero, and drug seemed to work.

Sidebar: a 22 year follow up study on Patient Zero reports that he hadn't managed to sustain any long term relationship, was ashamed of his genitals, but was assessed as a positive outcome because he had a job. It was reported that 'the concept of regret in transition isn't the most helpful framework'.

In 2004 meanwhile, at the GIDS in the Tavistock in London, Sue Evans reported that this was now being prescribed and there was no evidence as to the success of these drugs and a 16 year old boy had been referred for these drugs after 4 sessions. She blew the whistle but it was completely ignored.

Sidebar: it is impossible to do a blind or double blind study on puberty blockers as if a placebo is given, puberty will continue to develop so it becomes obvious very quickly.

It appears that across the board, the drugs were being used, off book ie they have never been approved for use to block puberty as a treatment for 'gender dysphoria' and the use ramped up over the years. The useage was also expanded to girls.

In 2011, the clinic in the Netherlands did a follow up of 70 people who had been prescribed these drugs as teenagers. They seemed to have done two surveys on them. The Utrecht Gender Dysphoria scale was used, which was initially done in their actual sex and the follow up which they used the opposite sex scale to measure the success, [the survery switcheroo]. They also used another 'Body Image Scale] which was also swapped out for the opposite sex scale. It is unclear how long any of these people had been on the Puberty Blockers, and unclear if they ever asked about any other side effects of the drugs.

Out of the people that responded, 15 dropped out [didn't respond]. They said they wanted to see who had gone on to full surgery but in other reports I found that these HAD gone on to full surgery, so who knows. They found that issues had been had by the other 55, of which some didn't fulfil the surgery requirements because they now were obese, or had diabetes, some refused to complete the survey and others couldn't be operated on due to 'short penis length'. It is unclear how many of the original 70 proceeded to surgery or whether it was 'successful' or not. It is unclear how much input the Dutch Clinic had with anything after the puberty blockers. It in unclear if there were any actual girls in this cohort.

Sidebar: if you start searching for treatment of homosexuals using Lupron the internet takes you down a road, and the end of which is that 'Lupron is no longer available'. However there are many names for the same drugs now. If you start searching for treatment of precocious puberty or endometriosis you get a swathe of reports on the damage and side effects and catastrophic issues from people whose lives have been destroyed by this drug, even after just a few weeks treatment. If you however search for puberty blockers, there is just the 'safe, effective, reversible' information from a huge range of clinics and what I would consider reputable medical insititutions.

The reason that the Cass report took 4 years is the impossibility of actually finding out anything concrete from any studies, it is like trying to nail oily spaghetti to a jelly wall using prawn crackers. The internet resists any cross referencing from one 'treatment' and named drug across different treatment protocols and links between one report saying the drug has massive catastrophic side effects and it should be a last and final treatment to another saying it is completely safe and reversible.

I've synthesised a fair amount of this information from the interview between Stella O'Mally and Sasha Ayed and the two medics who developed the Dutch Protocol, and using their actual words.

Michael Biggs did a deep dive into this protocol here which establishes that the use was documented as a standard treatment in 2001 by the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association which later became WPATH. Two years before the Dutch Clinicians said that the drug regime began being used.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
RethinkingLife · 19/04/2024 02:12

AlisonDonut · 18/04/2024 13:56

So much niggles me about this whole shebang.

Anyway this just came along on my x timeline...about them looking at a Lupron Protocol for Autism back in 2009.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2009/05/critics_say_lupron_is_no_mirac.html

When Dave Gorski (of Science-Based Medicine blog) was Orac and blogged as Scienceblogs, he wrote a lot about the Geiers and their Lupron Protocol for autism (plus chelation). Gorski heard about it in 2006, wrote about it 2009.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/chemical-castration-for-autism-after-three-years-the-mainstream-media-finally-notices/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/chemical-castration-of-autistic-children-leads-to-the-downfall-of-dr-mark-geier/

Brian Deer wrote about it in BMJ, 2007.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1839225/

Autism Research: What makes an expert?

Autism activists are behind a journal's decision to retract a paper claiming a preservative once routinely used in vaccines is responsible for the condition. Brian Deer examines the facts

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1839225

AlisonDonut · 19/04/2024 05:28

One mention of Viner in the Cass Report.

Carmichael, P., Butler, G., Masic, U., Cole, T. J.,
De Stavola, B. L., Davidson, S., Skageberg, E.
M., Khadr, S., & Viner, R. M. (2021). Short-term
outcomes of pubertal suppression in a selected
cohort of 12 to 15 year old young people with
persistent gender dysphoria in the UK. PLOS
ONE, 16(2). doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0243894

OP posts:
AlisonDonut · 19/04/2024 05:29

And in 1996 they were publishing about the feasibility of the treatment.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J056v08n04_05

OP posts:
MrSand · 19/04/2024 06:08

Found this about patient zero. FG. A female. Which doesn't make sense if they were looking to prevent males from developing in order to pass.

They weren't. The original motivation for using GnRHAs was to reduce the dosage of cross-sex hormones required. So in a female, by stopping her body producing oestrogen, the testosterone dose to obtain a masculinizing effect could be lower.

The use of the same drugs to prevent natural puberty is a later development. This early history is covered very comprehensively in Hannah Barnes's book.

NecessaryScene · 19/04/2024 06:27

And in 1996 they were publishing about the feasibility of the treatment.

There's a paper that gives me the chills seeing it.

I'm going to come over all Jeff Goldblum.

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

But then could anyone have truly anticipated the societal impact? But you get the impression absolutely zero thought was applied about any potential ethical issues.

(In that sort of area, classic Asimov story I'd recommend - The Dead Past. That's a Wikipedia page with the plot summary, or you can read it in a scan of the original magazine publication.)

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision · 19/04/2024 07:42

TheDogThatBarked · 18/04/2024 23:52

Wikipedia certainly seems to think it was DES, which would make sense. And it's a drug with its own very nasty history - actually, there are quite a lot of parallels with GnRH analogues in that reapect.

Agreed. I hadn't thought about the parallels myself before, but yes, definitely.

I take it you already know, but I don't think many people are widely aware of its effects.

I would recommend that MNers google "DES daughters" if it's a term they're unfamiliar with.

DES was prescribed to pregnant women to reduce miscarriage risk, and it took decades to make a link between it and birth defects. The cohort of women who were exposed to DES prenatally and who seemed outwardly unaffected as infants grew up to have increased rate of infertility (partially because it turned out DES exposure affects uterus development in female fetuses), increased rates of rare reproductive cancers and so on. I believe the same goes for men, but I've never read about that in detail. I do recall reading that prenatal exposure to DES was linked to an increased rate of hypospadias in male infants.

Justme56 · 19/04/2024 07:54

I haven’t looked through all the information but when I was looking at something else it came up that the use for ‘adolescents’ first appeared in WPath 5 which was 1998.

AlisonDonut · 19/04/2024 08:15

MrSand · 19/04/2024 06:08

Found this about patient zero. FG. A female. Which doesn't make sense if they were looking to prevent males from developing in order to pass.

They weren't. The original motivation for using GnRHAs was to reduce the dosage of cross-sex hormones required. So in a female, by stopping her body producing oestrogen, the testosterone dose to obtain a masculinizing effect could be lower.

The use of the same drugs to prevent natural puberty is a later development. This early history is covered very comprehensively in Hannah Barnes's book.

Again, as I said in my original post I took the words from the discussion with the two medics in the interview with Stella and Sasha.

They apparently developed this Dutch Protocol which is used worldwide and said it was to reduce the outward appearances for males. Because at the time, it was a very male oriented issue.

But other evidence suggests that doctors were already doing it, and it was already in the Harry Benjamin [to become WPATH] two years earlier.

So was it a Dutch Protocol at all? Is their reasoning valid? What actually happened in the development of these drugs on minors and how did they choose who to give it to?

Was the Dutch Protocol just a manipulative way of working out how to swing the 'results' to show a positive?

I don't know, which is why I started the thread.

If you have more documented evidence about the original motivation please can you post it. So much has been written about all this but trying to find some sort of thread that runs through it all is very difficult indeed.

OP posts:
AlisonDonut · 19/04/2024 08:26

Justme56 · 19/04/2024 07:54

I haven’t looked through all the information but when I was looking at something else it came up that the use for ‘adolescents’ first appeared in WPath 5 which was 1998.

Standards of Care V5 1998

http://www.genderpsychology.org/transsexual/hbsoc_1998.html

Standards of Care V4 1990

http://www.genderpsychology.org/transsexual/hbsoc_1990.html

Gosh the difference between the two is huge, and no references to explain why that I can see on first view.

OP posts:
RainWithSunnySpells · 19/04/2024 08:53

I've just read the linked articles from 2009 and 2011 about father and son team Dr Mark Geier and David Geier (not a doctor) and their 'Lupron protocol' used on children with Autism. The article explians that Lupron is a drug called leuprolide acetate, a synthetic analog of a hormone known as gonadotropin releasing hormone. We've read a lot about these GnRH drugs on this forum as 'puberty blockers'.

What an eye opening read, it's horrific!

What I have learnt throughout this whole mess is the power of ideology.
1 Give GnRH to autistic children = Dr struck off.
2 Give GnRH to children with a 'gender identity' (a cohort with a high percentage of autism) and it's 'gender affirming care.'

RedToothBrush · 19/04/2024 09:12

Interesting to see the infected blood scandal in the news today:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68831061

The true scale of the number of medical trials using infected blood products on children in the 1970s and 80s has been revealed by documents seen by BBC News.

They reveal a secret world of unsafe clinical testing involving children in the UK, as doctors placed research goals ahead of patients' needs.

They continued for more than 15 years, involved hundreds of people, and infected most with hepatitis C and HIV.

AND

Luke O'Shea-Phillips, 42, has mild haemophilia - a blood clotting disorder that means he bruises and bleeds more easily than most.

He caught the potentially lethal viral infection hepatitis C while being treated at the Middlesex Hospital, in central London, which was administered because of a small cut to his mouth, aged three, in 1985.

Documents seen by the BBC suggest he was deliberately given the blood product - which his doctor knew might have been infected - so he could be enrolled in a clinical trial.

The doctor wanted to find out how likely patients were to catch diseases from a new version of heat-treated Factor VIII. Though he had never been treated for his condition before, Luke was given heat-treated Factor VIII to stop his mouth bleeding.

A letter from Luke's doctor, Samuel Machin, to another expert in haemophilia, was submitted in evidence to the public inquiry into the infected blood scandal.

Writing to Peter Kernoff, at London's Royal Free Hospital, Dr Machin detailed the treatment of Luke and another boy, asking: "I hope they will be suitable for your heat-treated trial."

Months earlier, Dr Kernoff had called on fellow doctors in the field to identify patients suitable for clinical trials. Specifically, he said, they had to be "previously untreated patients", known as "PUPs" in the medical community.

They were also nicknamed "virgin haemophiliacs" - a term written on Luke's medical record by Dr Machin.

"I was a guinea pig in clinical trials that could have killed me," Luke told the BBC.

"There is no other way to explain it - my treatment was changed so I could be enrolled in clinical trials. This change in medication gave me a fatal disease - hepatitis C - yet my mother was never even told."

"To the scientific world, it was an incredible benefit being a virgin haemophiliac," he added. "To be a clean petri dish to understand science through, I was without question a part of that."

AND

Before he died, Dr Machin gave evidence to the public inquiry, when he confirmed that Luke had been recruited to Dr Kernoff's study.

He denied this had been done without Luke's mother's knowledge. "This would have been discussed with his mother, although I acknowledge that standards of consent in the 1980's was quite different to what it is now," Dr Machin said.

However, Mrs O'Shea told the inquiry she was "absolutely not" told about the trial. "With an innocent child of three and a half I would not have considered such an action. I would never ever have allowed my child to be part of a trial - never," she added.

Documents reveal doctors knew Luke had contracted hepatitis C as early as 1993, but he was not told until 1997. One medical record states a positive test result and says: "Have not discussed with patient or family."

AND

However, evidence of the clinical trials have raised wider concerns.

"A patient should always be given the best possible treatment and they should always have given informed consent - if those two factors haven't been achieved then a trial would be seen as very problematic," says Professor Emma Cave, Professor of Healthcare Law at Durham University.

Professor Edward Tuddenham, who was a haemophilia doctor at the Royal Free Hospital in the 1980s, confirmed these fears. When asked if he thought ethical standards had been met during clinical trials in the 1980s, he simply answered: "No."

The BBC's investigation has revealed that Dr Machin and Dr Kernoff were among a community of doctors with similar research ambitions.

AND

A specialist school near Alton, in Hampshire, was attended by a large cohort of haemophiliac boys. The school for disabled children had an NHS haemophilia unit on site, so boys who had bleeds could be treated quickly and then return to lessons.

Their doctor, Dr Anthony Aronstam - who has also since died - used his "unique" cohort of boys for extensive clinical trials. One series of experiments considered whether using three to four times more Factor VIII than normally required by a child would help to reduce the number of bleeds he had.

This was preventative treatment, know as prophylaxis, and involved repeated injections with infected Factor VIII products and follow-up blood tests. The high concentrations of infected blood products were administered to the boys without their - or their parents' - consent.

Of the122 pupils attending Treloar's College between 1974-1987, 75 have so far died of HIV and hepatitis C infections.

"Despite knowing the product was riddled with hepatitis, they started a trial that required us to have way more of it than we needed," says Gary Webster, who was unknowingly enrolled.

AND

Dr Kernoff's pursuit of clinical advancement through research was rigorous, as was his hunt for suitable subjects for trials - PUPs and virgin haemophiliacs - which led to those involved getting young and younger. A four-month-old baby was involved in a trial.

Luke O'Shea-Phillips as a young child

Infected blood scandal: Children were used as 'guinea pigs' in clinical trials

They were given infected blood products in trials without their knowledge, the BBC has found.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68831061

RedToothBrush · 19/04/2024 09:17

I feel like autistic children and children in care are easy targets at this point.

TheDogThatBarked · 19/04/2024 09:25

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision · 19/04/2024 07:42

Agreed. I hadn't thought about the parallels myself before, but yes, definitely.

I take it you already know, but I don't think many people are widely aware of its effects.

I would recommend that MNers google "DES daughters" if it's a term they're unfamiliar with.

DES was prescribed to pregnant women to reduce miscarriage risk, and it took decades to make a link between it and birth defects. The cohort of women who were exposed to DES prenatally and who seemed outwardly unaffected as infants grew up to have increased rate of infertility (partially because it turned out DES exposure affects uterus development in female fetuses), increased rates of rare reproductive cancers and so on. I believe the same goes for men, but I've never read about that in detail. I do recall reading that prenatal exposure to DES was linked to an increased rate of hypospadias in male infants.

I'm not an expert about DES but I understand there was also a degree of deliberate concealment of the risks even after they became apparent.

NotBadConsidering · 19/04/2024 09:25

The sad thing about the Blood Scandal RTB is it was 40-50 years ago and it’s still only all coming to light now.

These children whose bodies have been irreparably adulterated may not see the harm till then either, but I would hope they don’t have to wait that long for justice.

RethinkingLife · 19/04/2024 09:26

OldCrone · 18/04/2024 23:20

I think the drug used as that time was diethylstilbestrol, a synthetic oestrogen.

It's sometimes difficult not to see a level of disinformation in contemporary narratives that assert Turing was one of the first Gay men to go on estrogen (accurate as to drug although fractally wrong as to intent) as part of a trans identity.

https://williamaferguson.substack.com/p/trans-out-your-dead?s=r

Trans Out Your Dead

How Trans Rights Activists Are Declaring The Dead "Trans" As They're No Longer With Us And Can't Object To The Anachronism

https://williamaferguson.substack.com/p/trans-out-your-dead?s=r

JanesLittleGirl · 19/04/2024 11:32

AlisonDonut · 18/04/2024 22:47

Found this about patient zero. FG. A female. Which doesn't make sense if they were looking to prevent males from developing in order to pass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/15/magazine/gender-therapy.html

Thanks for this Alison.

It does all seem incredibly murky and the FG evidence is worryingly anecdotal.

AlisonDonut · 19/04/2024 12:49

As an aside whilst I look for the SOC3 definitions, I am reminded that the DSM which is the manual to go to for disorders, was made up in the first place by a load of psychiatrists in a meeting. See Barry's video here.

Jester Special Must Watch - The Scam Manual Driving Medical Experimentation on Children

https://youtu.be/6JPgpasgueQhttps://cepuk.org/Join the Programmehttps://thewinningmindset.co.uk/join/Join this channel to get access to perkshttps://www.yout...

https://youtu.be/Q8a2wYKNc8A?si=1gufSFBGsWFJvjmE

OP posts:
lifeturnsonadime · 19/04/2024 12:55

Got to be honest the connection between the lupron, autism and gender identity and the push on gender non -conforming autistic kids is ringing some serious alarm bells for me.

unwashedanddazed · 19/04/2024 16:15

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.17150

Link to a recent review of all the available research on puberty blockers and brain function.

TLDR: Not many studies; all bad news.

Stayupallnight · 20/04/2024 09:05

Ketzele · 18/04/2024 21:28

My dd was on puberty blockers (for precocious puberty) and it is terrifying reading these threads!

Same. My daughter was given them every few months for two years then they told us they had to be stopped as they can cause damage to the heart so we had to let nature take it course.
Up til that point no one at the endocrinology clinic has told me of any side effects or potential damage at all, they had been very blasé about the whole thing.
I’m really worried reading all this stuff now.

i will also add that the injections were very painful for my child , I can’t imagine any parent putting their child through these hormone blockers for emotional reasons, I only did it as it was very complex precocious puberty relating to my daughters serious genetic condition.

AlisonDonut · 20/04/2024 09:47

Stayupallnight · 20/04/2024 09:05

Same. My daughter was given them every few months for two years then they told us they had to be stopped as they can cause damage to the heart so we had to let nature take it course.
Up til that point no one at the endocrinology clinic has told me of any side effects or potential damage at all, they had been very blasé about the whole thing.
I’m really worried reading all this stuff now.

i will also add that the injections were very painful for my child , I can’t imagine any parent putting their child through these hormone blockers for emotional reasons, I only did it as it was very complex precocious puberty relating to my daughters serious genetic condition.

Why would they, they use them all the time these days?

This is all so unbelieveable but it is likely that by the time the givernment review actually happens into these drugs and their use, all the people prescribing them will be retired or dead. That's how this stuff seems to go.

There seems to be absolutely no governance any more. No medical ethics. No scientific method. Nothing that anyone can rely on.

I'm still trying to find a copy of the Harry Benjamin/WPATH Standards of Care version 3 with the definitions at the time in it. 1985 apparently.

OP posts:
DameMaud · 20/04/2024 11:20

Not sure if this is already on here @AlisonDonut
But could be useful addition?:

Michael Biggs research:

The Dutch Protocol for Juvenile Transsexuals: Origins and Evidence

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2121238

AlisonDonut · 20/04/2024 12:40

In the OP on the last paragraph but it is definitely worth reading.

OP posts:
DameMaud · 20/04/2024 12:47

AlisonDonut · 20/04/2024 12:40

In the OP on the last paragraph but it is definitely worth reading.

Oh yes! I see that now. Sorry Alison.
Good enough to repeat though maybe

AlisonDonut · 20/04/2024 12:59

Absolutely.

Any more old studies or papers would be more than welcome. Especially if any study or report prior 2001 that introduces the concept in some way is found.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread