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.”'

Oh wow. I didn't know about that. Thank you for sharing.

So they have been reverse-ferreting away from what they now would presumably accept as misinformation for quite some time then.

I was aware of the outcome of sheep testing that the TT article mentions, but hadn't seen it put this succinctly before:

Would parents say yes to puberty blockers if they knew that trials on sheep suggest that blockers impair brain development in significant areas, which is not reversed if blockers are discontinued? We know there is a window of development in puberty which, if missed, cannot be regained at a later stage.

I'm so very sorry for your friend, who had his twilight years blighted and for his friends and family who had to witness his suffering. At least for myself I had a hard end date to the treatment (and got 30 days of relief at the end of it before the endo came back with clogs on)

They are evil drugs and I've not heard or spoken to anyone who has either been prescribed them or supported family and friends on them who sees them as the benevolent, harmless cure for all things hormonal that the medical and GI influencers claim.

Hugs to you and yours

Thanks, pawsed. And I'm sorry the endo came back.

I'm scunnered at the thought of anyone giving these drugs to children because of 'gender incongruence'. It's so mad.

Cross-posting from petitions thread

This is excellent. From Women's Rights Network:

Join Heather Binning who hosts this week’s special guests Louise Irvine, co-chair of the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender and Terry Patterson from Thoughtful Therapists. Louise and Terry explain why there are enormous concerns from sector experts regarding the ethical grounds and outcomes competence of the UK puberty blockers trial called ‘Pathway’, a medical trial which will involve around 220 children under the age of 16. We hear explanation of the scrutiny stages that UK clinical trials must successfully pass through in order to be granted approval, as well as questioning how this safety net has failed

Rosie Duffield MP
Today I received a response to the cross-party letter sent to wes streeting by Parliamentarians who want to Stop the Puberty Blocker Trial contents:
https://nitter.net/RosieDuffield1/status/2011132765454889358

Thanks for posting the letter @fromorbit

Is there no way of incorporating some research into the cohort who went through GIDs and the Tavistock to assess them now using some of the criteria in this upcoming trial. I have some grave concerns but it would appear that Wes Streeting HAS been guided by ideology dressed up as science.

Confirms no lower age limit. Children under 12 eligible.

@ArabellaSaurus it reads as if he had a gun to his head. Little bits of him justifying what he has been told to say quite frankly. I would love to know Sir Robert Winston’s take on this trial.

This rigorous scrutiny that the trial has been through, did it ask 'what are we treating and why is sterilisation and mutilation the answer'?

As far as I could see there wasn't alot of rigour around the ethics of sterilising kids for playing with the wrong toys Wes.

Even TRA fanatics WPath thinks the trial is wrong

EPATH, WPATH, and USPATH Release Joint Statement on Ethical Concerns Regarding UK PATHWAYS Trial
Jan 9, 2026

EPATH has joined WPATH and USPATH in issuing a joint holding statement outlining significant ethical concerns regarding the UK Government’s proposed PATHWAYS randomized controlled trial on gender‑affirming care for adolescents.

As organizations dedicated to advancing high‑quality, evidence‑based transgender healthcare, we fully support rigorous research. However, the current PATHWAYS study design raises several issues that conflict with internationally recognized ethical standards for clinical research and adolescent care.

https://epath.eu/epath-wpath-and-uspath-release-joint-statement-on-ethical-concerns-regarding-uk-pathways-trial/

Streeting to meet clinicians critical of the trial!

Minister karinsmyth responds to Rosie Duffield's question (which references KBtheYoungOG who's in Parliament today) about the harms of puberty blocker trial.
We welcome her answer that WesStreeting, as requested by PreetKGillMP, is finally going to meet clinicians critical of the trial.

https://nitter.net/LabWomenDec/status/2011055731231838382

It’s bad when even WPATH have issues over its design and ethics…

Their criticisms are more along the lines of children being denied PBs because they are in the arm of the trial that defers treatment for a year.

I hope they continue to speak up loud and proud about how it's very important to give children unevidenced medication that irreversibly impacts critical brain development and bone density (whilst also sterilising children).

#OperationLetThemSpeak

Ah, true.

Good to see my MP signing the original letter. Thanks for sharing.

Wes Streeting is absolutely plummeting in my estimation.

Which one of them hasn't?

Phillipson had me fooled for a while about being fairly sensible, but first the SCJ and now the SEND issue.....?

I honestly wouldn't vote for this lot again if they were the only party left.

He was my only bright light in the Labour firmament. But it has dimmed and sputtered out now.

Epath:

'Key Concerns Highlighted in the Statement

Risk of Coercion and Compromised Informed Consent: The proposed model links access to gender‑affirming care with participation in the study. This structure risks undermining voluntary informed consent by placing young people and their families in a position where declining participation may limit access to clinically indicated treatment.

Delayed Access to Medically Necessary Care: The study design includes delaying or restricting puberty‑blocking treatment for adolescents who meet clinical criteria. Such delays may prioritize research objectives over patient well‑being and contradict established clinical guidelines.

Ethical and Clinical Issues with Late Initiation of Puberty Blockers: Initiating puberty blockers later in adolescence introduces additional risks and may not align with best‑practice care pathways. The statement emphasizes that research must not compromise the health or safety of participants.

Need for Meaningful Inclusion of Lived Experience: The statement calls for the integration of transgender adolescents, their families, and community stakeholders in the design and governance of any research that directly affects them. Patient‑reported outcomes and lived experience must be central to ethical and effective study design.

No Single Study Should Determine Access to Care: The organizations stress that the PATHWAYS trial should not be used as the sole basis for national policy decisions. Adolescents who choose not to participate must retain full access to the complete range of evidence‑based gender‑affirming treatments.'

Notes:

1. Risk of Coercion and Compromised Informed Consent: The proposed model links access to gender‑affirming care with participation in the study. This structure risks undermining voluntary informed consent by placing young people and their families in a position where declining participation may limit access to clinically indicated treatment.

'Clinically indicated' - with no evidence base for that indication.

1. Delayed Access to Medically Necessary Care: The study design includes delaying or restricting puberty‑blocking treatment for adolescents who meet clinical criteria. Such delays may prioritize research objectives over patient well‑being and contradict established clinical guidelines.

Established guidelines with no evidence base.

Initiating puberty blockers later in adolescence introduces additional risks

What risks?

and may not align with best‑practice care pathways.

Pathways invented on the basis of fuckall.

1. Need for Meaningful Inclusion of Lived Experience: The statement calls for the integration of transgender adolescents, their families, and community stakeholders in the design and governance of any research that directly affects them.

What 'community stakeholders'? How would having a family member who says they are trans qualify anyone in research design?

Patient‑reported outcomes and lived experience must be central to ethical and effective study design.

Sounds a bit Action For Trans Health tbh.

1. No Single Study Should Determine Access to Care: The organizations stress that the PATHWAYS trial should not be used as the sole basis for national policy decisions. Adolescents who choose not to participate must retain full access to the complete range of evidence‑based gender‑affirming treatments.

Which treatments?

It's not a trial - it's pushing children in one direction only.

How many boys will end up with a tiny penis as a result of deliberately stunting their normal growth?

It's far more likely that a young man with a tiny penis will go on to have vaginoplasty but far less likely if he is allowed to go through a normal puberty and experiences an orgasm.

What about the parents?
How many of them have mental health issues themselves such as BPD, NPD, Munchhausen syndrome, bipolar or have done a mickey mouse degree in gender fantasy?

Modern-day politicians are nearly all careerists.
They have no moral compass - they bend in whichever direction the wind is blowing. The only thing that matters to them are votes and holding onto their well-paid job with a great pension.

They don't actually care about anyone other than themselves - with a handful of very noticeable exceptions such as Rosie Duffield and Joanna Cherry.

Munchhausen syndrome, bipolar or have done a mickey mouse degree in gender fantasy?

Exactly. And also those repulsed by children not conforming to the norm expected for their sex.

1. Delayed Access to Medically Necessary Care: The study design includes delaying or restricting puberty‑blocking treatment for adolescents who meet clinical criteria. Such delays may prioritize research objectives over patient well‑being and contradict established clinical guidelines.

That can only have been written by a transactivist. Never could this be called ‘medically necessary’. At most you could say possibly psychologically advisable under certain circumstances.

This us supposed to be a trial anyway, so even if the term medically necessary potentially made sense in the case where a doctor is destroying a normal physical function of growing up ( this doesn’t make sense) how do they already know it is medically necessary before the trial?

Need for Meaningful Inclusion of Lived Experience: The statement calls for the integration of transgender adolescents, their families, and community stakeholders in the design and governance of any research that directly affects them. Patient‑reported outcomes and lived experience must be central to ethical and effective study design.

Integration of...community stakeholders. ...lived experience... What are community stakeholders in this context? Do they mean the schools that the children being experimented upon go to? Are they expecting the schools to participate in the experiment? What if the child goes to a school that takes safeguarding seriously and does not afirm delusion, nor allow children to use the opposite-sex facilities or let boys compete in girls' competitions (rare, but, I hope, do exist).

This has echoes of trans-IDing men using unconsenting women in their fetishes.