Streeting declares the puberty blocker trial 'safe'

[ArabellaSaurus]

https://archive.ph/CFzK4

'On Monday, Mr Streeting reiterated that he was not “comfortable” with the trial, which involves more than 200 people under the age of 16, but said there were significant “checks, balances and safeguards” that made it safe.

He told Sky News: “The thing I’ve had to continually weigh up is that for lots of people who have been through this sort of gender identity treatment, they describe it as life-affirming and life-saving. But there is an understandable degree of public anxiety and concern.

“The crucial reassurance is that not just anyone will be able to sign up to this trial. They will go through extensive assessment by expert clinicians locally that will be reviewed nationally, and every young person would need to assent.
“They’re not old enough to consent. They would need to assent, and they would <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/CFzK4/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/17/children-cannot-consent-puberty-blocker-trial-wes-streeting/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">need the consent of parents.

“And so there are lots of checks, balances, oversights and safeguards and constant monitoring in a way that disgracefully wasn’t there before. That’s what gives me the confidence and assurance of knowing this trial is safe.

“There is a debate about whether this is the right thing to do. I understand that, and there’s one thing we’ve learnt about this particular area of policy is that we shouldn’t silence, debate, dissent, disagreement.

“So we’ll continue to have that, and we’ll continue to be subject to scrutiny and challenge.”

Mr Streeting admitted that the children who will be involved in the trial are “very young” and that the drugs are “very strong”.

But he claimed he had tried to take the “politics out of what has been an extremely <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/CFzK4/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/25/nhs-puberty-blockers-trial-repeat-tavistock-whistleblowers/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">difficult and sensitive issue”.

Despite the research going ahead, the Health Secretary added: “I think there are still big questions about how we ever ended up in this situation where these sorts of drugs were being routinely prescribed with and we’re continuing to get into that and looking.
“There’ll be another study looking at what’s happened to that cohort of young people over time.”'

Yes. Anyone still using the term "LGBTQI+" is not a thoughtful person.

He clearly hasn't listened to all the people with DSDs saying that "Intersex" is an outdated and offensive term, and that they don't want their medical issues to be used in this way.

Quite. And including T as part of LGB is not

thought out either.

Oops! Wrong thread - will ask to be deleted

The plot thickens, it's quite sickening how much power the Rainbow Mafia have amassed if they can even subvert a public debate in the House of Commons, it's hard to see how we can say with live in a democracy if he continues as the Chair. 😮

Should the speaker intervene here, or what?

Stacking the deck again....

Even if JS MP has been somehow randomly selected to chair the debate, shouldn't the speaker's office be alive to the fact that (at best) he would inevitably find it difficult to chair objectively AND that it looks like a stitch up? They need to find someone capable of dealing with the debate neutrally. We need to hear both sides. For the seriousness of the issue to be fully aired for the uneducated and for the sunlight.

It is eventually going to have to be faced that someone who has a political alliance to this movement is compromised and unable to be in any position of responsibility that requires impartiality and even handed treatment.

The movement requires and demands open, proud and heavy bias. Even handedness, open mindedness and tolerance is sin. It's foundational to the movement, which also believes that honesty and ethics mean nothing, and that every deck must be stacked to ensure its dominance.

Anyone with a family member who is a transitioner is so deep into conflict of interest it should automatically be something declared with their role kept separate from any possible decisions or actions that would require said even handedness, lack of bias and tolerance owed to service users, particularly in positions of responsibility and care.

I'm confused to fuck. Debates in Westminster Hall are chaired by MPs on the Panel of Chairs. There are 40-odd of the buggers. Conspicuous in his absence from this list is the arsescrape that is JS.

committees.parliament.uk/committee/11/panel-of-chairs/membership/

It's the petitions committee. he's the chair.

Petitions Committee - Membership - Committees - UK Parliament

How many other WH debates arising from petitions has he chaired instead of the MPs on the Panel of Chairs? Would this be the first?

He says he's leading the debate as the Chair of the Petitions Committee, not that he's chairing it. I think that means that he'll be speaking first, against the petition.

Format of petitions debates - MPs' Guide to Procedure - UK Parliament

According to this page, "A member of the Petitions Committee opens the debate, and can speak for or against the petition."

(Edit: That's just my interpretation of the situation. I could be wrong.)

Ok, that seems fair enough, I think. 🤔

OK. I think that I have worked it out. JS is chair of the Petitions Committee and was forced to allow the petition to be debated (sad face for JS). The debate will be chaired by an MP who is on the list of the Panel of Chairs (which doesn't include JS - another sad face for JS). However, JS gets to make the opening statement in the debate which gives him the opportunity to frame the debate ((happy face for JS). Of course this only works if the other interlocutors follow his lead and the Chair leans in his direction.

We will see what happens and be guided by the outcome.

Apologies if this has already been posted. NHS docs, minutes and correspondence relating to the trial:

https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/news-updates/pathways-trial-minutes-and-decision-correspondence/#minutes-and-decision-correspondence

According to Hannah Barnes, Minutes show:

1. Ethics committee met 3 times times - over Zoom 2) First meeting attended by NINE; second by FIVE; third by THREE people, where final approval agreed 3) Only one person was present at all meetings - the 'Lead Pharmacist in Clinical Trials'

https://x.com/hannahsbee/status/2021568748780437917

Rebecca Paul MP has written to Wes Streeting

https://x.com/Rebecca_SPaul/status/2021533651704709583

Hannah Barnes 'Interesting intervention on Pathways puberty blocker trial, asking what - if any - specialist & independent clinical advice was given to the ethics committee who signed off on the research, given what's emerged from published minutes about the process & who was involved'

Bloody hell is ANYTHING AT ALL done properly now? Or is that like honesty and ethics, the 'wrong side of history'?

Because I have to say, the right side of history seems apparently about on a par with a chimps' tea party.

If true (and we know Hannah B is a very reliable source) then this showcases how these dangerous ideas get adopted in the NHS. Pushed by trans extremists determined to use children to support their niche ideas about sex change and then signed of with the minimum of professional intervention that completely sidesteps all safeguarding principles.

Just going through the minutes.

'The Committee asked for assurance that the researchers were confident that the risk/benefit
balance was appropriate for the study. The applicants stated that there was genuine equipoise at the minute and that there was no data at present on the cognitive impacts of puberty blockers.
They also stated that there would have been a series of clinical assessments made by the gender
service and national MDT which will consider the overall risk/benefit of the treatment and that
participants would be monitored closely throughout the study. The Committee accepted the
response.'

Wtaf! The ethics committee is told that there is no data re cognitive impacts of PB and they just shrug??!

I do look forward to the emotive wailing at the HoC debate about how very important it is for men's happiness to.... subject children to a potentially life destroying experiment passed by an ethics committee apparently run by the Muppet Show.

This trial gets ever more nauseating.
"Children are being paid to take part in an NHS puberty blocker trial, The Telegraph can reveal.

Some 226 children who believe they are transgender will be given puberty blockers as part of an investigation commissioned by Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, into their effects on the young.

...... It can now be revealed that the children taking part in the trial will be incentivised with the promise of up to £500 in vouchers for completing psychometric tests."

Full article: https://archive.ph/lcdQY

That is the point where you do research - it is what equipoise means, that there is a balance between current treatment (which might be do nothing) and newly proposed treatment and it is not clear which is the better approach. It is unethical to do the research if there is clear evidence that one is better.

All trials attempt to be at the point where the potential harms and benefits of the new treatment are equal to continuing with current treatment. It's normal to do trials where you don't have good data on what the impact may be - that's how you get the information.

OMFG.

It's normal to do trials where you don't have good data on what the impact may be - that's how you get the information.

Not knowing if a treatment is good or not is not enough. There must not be a better way to obtain the data, including through animal studies. For example, the applicants for this trial said there was no data on cognitive impact. Apart from clearly being untrue, if it were true then that should be reason enough to say experimenting on children is unethical. It is clear that biologically they could have a cognitive impact, so in the true absence of data, the next step should be animal studies and review of children who have previously taken PB. You do not jump straight to ‘let’s give 200 children this drug and see if it causes irrevocable harm because we don’t know if it does.’

They should be doing a retrospective audit of the hundreds of children already treated in the Tavistok clinic before even considering giving
(bribing) another large cohort of children experimental drugs.
Oh wait...