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.”'

I wonder who the Lead Pharmacist in Clinical Trials is?

According to the info on the thread

Children will be allowed to go through up to 12 months of bone density degradation or up to 2 weeks of vaginal bleeding before they are taken off the trial.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-statement-on-the-pathways-puberty-blocker-trial

Mentions:

• A lower age limit of 14

• Sterilisation

• Bone density

• Cognitive impairment

• Legal action.

Anyone else detect a note of panic?

Let’s hope this will focus Streeting’s mind a little more so he permanently calls a halt ti this.

Utterly mind blowing that this trial was supposed to go ahead on children as young as 8 without the newly proposed safeguards of taking kids out of the trial after 12 months if they show any of those serious and potentially irreversible health problems.

Of course the children have absolutely no incentive to report the vaginal bleeding to any adult if they fear it might get them kicked off the blockers

Its a pdf, so cant cut paste. Some screenshots:

Too young to have their gametes preserved. Ffs.

Start thinking now of excuses for why you supported sterilising children

I am bloody delighted by this. I hope the 'pause' turns into a 'gosh I didnt realise it was quite that risky, maybe we should do that study on the kids who've already had it first' and then a can kicked into the long grass where it gets forgotten and rusty.

I'd love someone to stand up and say this is a terrible idea and we won't do it, but will accept a political perma delay if it effectively halts it.

There was a case earlier this week, a child who suffered avoidable brain damage at birth due to medical negligence. The judgement hugely increased the amount of damages the child and family were eligible for. When I read the article I thought of this. The country is possibly already on the hook for damage to thousands of young bodies who've been through the GIDS grinder. The Fox case in the states is another recent development.

However, I'm not seeing any new information. They were prepared to go ahead with the trial anyway I'm not sure why this has paused it. Although I'm pleased it has.

The only new info as far as I know is that v brief mention of the law suit...

Here

Irreversible bone damage.

Cass described this trial as "vital" on national TV less than a week ago.

Between a too close friendship with Mandy and the ‘Streeting Trial’, Streeting is not looking as good as he once did. He really could’ve done much more looking into the effects of PBs instead of constantly referencing Cass when concerns were raised.

I have drug induced osteoporosis. It is the most awful, painful, debilitating condition.
Children need every single bit of bone density they can lay down before they stop growing.

The problem with the study is that even if we agree with the parameters of outcomes and side effects being ‘allowed’, parents and young people will lie due to their desperation for the medication. I don’t doubt and have never doubted the desperation is real. It’s whether it is in their best interests. I agree with those earlier saying a longditudinal stud is needed. At 14 you might minimise side effects or claim it’s all wonderful- but at 34 you may have a different perspective.

And if names, nhs numbers, birth certificates are changed, how do you maintain monitoring? What is the law on this?

Osteoporosis is horrendous, I'm sorry you have this. I had it due to early menopause. It is an absolute fucker of a condition.

So sorry that has happened to you. reading about it being done to physically healthy children must have given you the horrors (I mean, it gave lots of us the horrors, but you know).

I haven’t been keeping up with the thread so just read the last few posts. I thought nothing shocked me about the lengths people will go to to fulfil the frightening entitlement they feel to access children’s bodies. And especially how just by adding the ‘trans’ label these entitled people can suddenly both actively neglect to safeguard that child and can then actively go out of their way to give the child products that physically, and it appears that emotionally and cognitively, harm these distressed kids that they’ve labelled ‘trans’.

I mean WTF. It’s not acceptable medical treatment if it’s based on no evidence and shows no benefits, and at its heart, doesn’t even know what is treating the patients for. We want to give dangerous harmful drugs make adult aged people’s bodies to appear more childlike? That’s not a respectable goal of medicine is it. That’s a terrifying aim, when you think about it.

How as a society are we still acting like this is an acceptable thing?
Yes they’re absolutely kids in distress about all sorts of things who need urgent psychological help. But no, there’s never been any such thing as a ‘trans child’.

And this made up label should never be allowed to be used as a cover to allow harm to children and a lesser level of active care for them and safeguarding for them. That’s actual transphobia in action and it appears to be happening very publicly right in front of us.

Yes. Although great news, honestly reading through it strikes me as odd.

Cut off of 14 years old - most kids have at least started puberty by then. From the perspective of the trial doing the whole 'time to think' thing, 14 is too late.

The whole 'but they will need cross sex hormones and won't be able to get them until 16' part. This appears to be a given in the letter. Again, so not really a 'time to think' as we have been told.

Can't quite put my finger on it, but...

On Reddit people are complaining that the 'harms' the MHRA describe (stopping normal development) is exactly what the drugs are intended to do.

I mean, has the penny dropped?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/feb/20/uk-clinical-trial-into-puberty-blockers-paused-after-medicines-regulator-raises-concerns

The Lawsuit
The Links to Epstein
The Petition
The Internet
The realisation that people are not going to let this lie

The potential for this to blow the NHS and their obsession with this ideology completely apart including potentially opening the Pandora's Box of what exactly have the Tavistock and the Adult Clinics been up to all these years in a court of law.

Lets not forget they promoted the guy Russell Viner that did the first 'trial not trial' to President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health from 2018 to 2021. A man who broke his own age restrictions at the very start of all this.

They do not want all this over the media now that the links to Epstein and the funding and the pdfs are out there.

I do think saying that there must be a minimum of age 14 completely destroys the point of puberty blockers to stop puberty, thus rendering the whole trial pointless.

It really does highlight that any child given blockers to stop puberty is being abused because they can't possibly understand what is happening to them.

I wait in hope for this to come out in the wash. It will. In time.