Why the NHS puberty blocker trial is appalling

[Soontobe60]

Stella O’Malley from Genspect telling it like it is - that a state endorsed trial of puberty blockers for gender dysphoric children should NOT go ahead.
the NHS are not walking into this nightmare blindly - there are enough experts out there telling them what will happen happen to these children if they’re given these life changing drugs.
https://x.com/genspect/status/1989896741358113127?s=61&t=gKvvk-rWmOlYFGMZN8QVvQ

The sort of parents who will sign their kids up for this trial
are the sort of parents who should NEVER be allowed to do so.

The fact that children in care will be eligible
shows that safeguarding is being UTTERLY ignored

I came across this from Heather Brunskell- Evans (dated February 2023) warning about the "tyranny of LGBT plus stakeholders in the NHS", particularly in relation to Cass and laying out the grim reality of their ability to intervene and subvert fundamental ethical principles of medical care for children. It makes sober reading:

https://www.heather-brunskell-evans.co.uk/thoughts/the-cass-review-the-tyranny-of-lgbt-stakeholder-politics/

I've worked with parents who believed exorcism would cure autism.

Should we trial exorcism?

Or what if we had families who believed some children's souls were really angels. Low and behold some of the children in those families declared they believed they were angels. They believed that puberty blockers would allow them to preserve their innocent child like bodies in line with their angelic spirit. They had spirit body incongruence.

Would we trial fucking puberty blockers to see if it made them happier??
Because they believed it might??

Exactly.

It's also not just about puberty blockers. It's about safeguarding for any future trial involving children and how piss poor the ethical considerations and issues over consent have been as well as the entire premise of the study. It's 'Bad Science' to use a phrase well known in the area.

Oh this is not good.

Brunskell-Evans lays out what happened between the interim Cass report and the final - the consultation with so-called stakeholders, and the watering down of everything that the interim report had been so clear on.

The opinions of stakeholders are all good and well - collect them, sure, consider them as a separate thing - but they should have no place in a scientific review of the extant evidence, which is what the Cass report was supposed to be.

Was Cass that easily swayed, or was she leaned on to dilute things?

I think what this awful experiment getting the green light has highlighted for me is the shocking fact that huge sections of society genuinely believe that culturally-mediated, sexist stereotypes are natural behaviour. Even paediatricians like Dr Cass seem to believe that children who don't conform to these sexist stereotypes are somehow 'gender incongruent' and therefore need to be medically rectified.

As a society, we're no better than previous generations who believed in eugenics or lobotomies or symphysiotomy.

How can anyone hold the belief that conversion therapy is wrong at the same time as holding the belief that preventing sexual maturity is right?

"The term ‘conversion therapy’ is used to refer to any efforts to change, modify or supress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity regardless of whether it takes place in a healthcare, religious or other setting."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/conversion-therapy-an-evidence-assessment-and-qualitative-study/conversion-therapy-an-evidence-assessment-and-qualitative-study

This is the type of scandal that Nick Wallace and other investigative journalists should be able to explore. We're at a stage where safeguarding children takes second place to "LGBT rights" in the NHS (and depressingly elsewhere). Challenging this leads to cries of "homophobia / transphobia" with questioning / dissent being silenced. Just look at how Hannah Barnes, Sonia Sodha and other journalists who understand the issues were all banned from the meeting about the trial. The very journalists knowledgeable enough to ask critical questions banned and thus silenced.

This article is a prime example of why we should never use wrong sex pronouns. I had to constantly remind myself as I read that the child we were talking about was a GIRL. A girl not growing up into a man as she wished to. Not a boy. It really does fuck with your head.

This article from several years ago in the Times is about some of these parents as encountered by a whistleblower doctor at the Tavistock.

This was the methodology used for the Cass Report to assess evidence, iirc. Has anyone assessed this trial using this scale?

www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp

Bad science yes, Plus appallingly hands off regulation, by the NHS regulators and research regulators who should be doing their jobs stopping this level of bad science taking place, at the time by forcing GIDS to publish whateverthey got approval to do, and then to publish what they actually did do. And then years later in the present day, by following up the NHS records of the young people GIDS ‘treated’.
It’s not ethical to trial inflicting this damage on a new cohort.

Because if this trial is in any way going to be useful it will be random. The people already having been given this treatment very likely aren't.

Although with this particular, social driven, illness, I wager that even random isn't truly random. Tell kids they will kill themselves if they don't get blockers, not hard to imagine the psychological impact of trial participants who get the magic treatment and those that don't. Might take a very long time to see true results.

To be very clear, Pathways research design is NOT a random controlled trial.

https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1995869031266746580?t=DVq2arWeU9_pkIKcFld9Ww&s=19

A thorough and informative piece from Transgnder Trend about how the trial demonstrates a return to pre Cass trans activism:

www.transgendertrend.com/puberty-blocker-trial-cass-activism/

What an excellent piece. And reading the detail, the trial seems even worse than I imagined. The capture in the NHS is so worrying.

So depressing .... our children being sacrificed to the dogma of trans activists.

I have an adult trans grandchild. I love them dearly. But every time I see them all I can think is that if we did not have gender stereotypes there would be no need for all the drugs and surgery and physical destruction. People could just be how they wanted. Starmer could go to an international convention wearing a dress and noone would care.

For my GC, as for so many, it is not about sex at all ... not about who does what to whom ... it is simply about feeling uncomfortable at how they are expected to dress/behave/look.

The road they are on limits their future in terms of relationships. They are young and it all seems just great ... they have loving family who would care for them no matter what. But that is not always how life will be.

This trial is beyond unethical. I just despair.

Wes Streeting on R4 a few minutes ago defending the trial. He said Hilary Cass "recommended" the trial, and that there have been "rigorous" ethical and safety checks.

We need to see the evidence. Let's see the ethics committee report. What rigorous safety checks have been carried out?

And did the Cass report really "recommend" that there should be a trial? I thought it said that the drugs should only be used in a clinical trial. That's not the same as saying that there should be a trial.

I think a lot of people are going back over the Cass report with a fine tooth comb, and are now finding that, while the systematic review was solid, the report itself was built on quicksand. This is from Naomi C:

https://nitter.net/LoudBonnet/status/1995811207584846232#m

The Cass report recommended a PB trial & Hilary Cass has endorsed the proposed PATHWAYS trial.

Exactly. Define your terms.

They are treating children for 'gender incongruence'. Googling that umpteen times just says it's not wanting to conform to social gender stereotypes.

Come the fuck ON Streeting.

Just be the teensy, tiniest bit rigorous, for fuck's sake. Ask the question.

😭

Have they published the patient information leaflet they'll be using? That needs to say clearly that they are expected to be infertile (egg preservation has dismal success rates) and to lack sexual function as 98% go onto cross sex hormones. And that many desist naturally. If it doesn't state the facts that could be open to a legal challenge.

Thoughts??