Puberty Blocker Trial Paused

[CrocsNotDocs]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/e0a6d8e8751dbca8

Good start. Now shut it down.

Here’s the consultation

https://www.engage.england.nhs.uk/consultation/prescribing-masculinising-and-feminising-hormones/

With last night's catastrophic Glasgow blaze on my mind, I'm thinking of how firefighters have to deal with a volatile, self-fuelling fire that is threarening to rage out of control.

You can't just douse it in water instantly, you have to consider the building structure, what accelerants are present, air draughts and winds, neighbouring structures, and the safety of the fire service personnel.

It takes time, and it is horrifying for onlookers who can still see damage being done before their eyes. But to my mind, the unchecked experiment in 'gender questioning' children is in the process of being put out.

And once they stop naive children being funnelled in, the landscape will change substantially. Much of this movement has been based on.the manipulation of vulnerable children, using suicide threats in a grotesque version of pester power.

Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes (PICO)
template

1. Topic details

Intervention: Feminising medicines comprising oestrogen monotherapy Indication: Children and young people with gender incongruence who identify as a female gender and wish to undergo a binary physical transition ...

In the ICD-11 (WHO, 2025), under conditions related to sexual health, gender
incongruence is split into that identified in childhood (Gender incongruence of
childhood – HA61) and that identified in adolescents and adults (Gender
incongruence in adolescents and adults – HA60).

How many other conditions related to sexual health are there in children?

Previously, feminising medicines for CYP comprised of oestrogen, preceded by
puberty suppressing hormones (PSH). PSH, which is gonadotrophin releasing
hormone analogue (GnRHa) for the indication of puberty suppression, are no longer
available as a routine commissioning treatment option for treatment of CYP who
have gender incongruence because there is not enough evidence of safety and
clinical effectiveness. NHS England and the National Institute of Health and Care
Research (NIHR) are working together to set up a study into the potential benefits
and harms of PSH as a treatment option for CYP with gender incongruence. PSH
are not covered by this PICO.

Population and Indication

Gender incongruence is not uncommon. A survey of 10,000 people undertaken in
2012 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that 1% of that
population had either gone through part of a process to change from the sex they
were assigned at birth to the gender they identified with, or they intended to do so.
Estimates for the proportion children and young people (CYP) with gender
incongruence vary considerably. This reflects a number of factors such as: variable
data reporting by providers; differences in diagnostic thresholds applied and

inconsistent terminology; the methodology and diagnostic classification used –
population surveys give a much higher estimate than numbers based on service use;
and the year and country in which the studies took place. Additionally, a significant
proportion of referred CYP have co-occurring conditions such as autism spectrum
disorder or mental health difficulties (Stynes et al. 2021).
At current referral patterns 69% of referrals to the current commissioned service are
of natal females and 31% are of natal males1
. This data accords with figures
published by the Cass Review in March 2022, which show a trend since 2011 in
which the number of natal females is increasingly higher than the number of natal
males being referred. That change in the proportion of birth assigned females to
males is reflected in the statistics from the Netherlands (Brik et al. 2020).
The number of referrals into the CYP Gender Incongruence Service is currently likely
to be around 1 per 2000 population per year. The current referral profile suggests
that the majority of referrals will be of adolescents following the onset of puberty.
Data from January 2025, shows the current CYP waiting list as 6,2462'

[Bolding and italics mine - AS]

TBF, we've had several trials of ketamine for kids already & another's due to report. The indications are that it's pretty safe & well-tolerated in the appropriate circs (eg; when reducing a dislocation in A&E, for status epilepticus, & for certain cardiological problems) You're right though, current black market ketamine use would disqualify potential participants.

(Though not the crystal form, I regret to inform you that in the US at least, meth can be prescribed to control the symptoms of ADHD in kids & adults.)

Ketamine has been used for children for decades, in controlled setting in hospital for painful procedures.
(It was used to facilitate the rescue of the boys trapped in the cave in Thailand).
It isn't really a comparator to the use of puberty blockers.

The thing is, what can be compared to puberty blockers? What other medication can put a halt to an essential stage of development in children, permanently if used for long enough, resulting in them being incomplete adults? In what circumstances could this ever be considered acceptable?

There is a lot of concern atm at the impact on children’s development of Covid lockdowns, a relatively short term and probably necessary reaction to the pandemic. Yet I daresay that many who support PBs will deplore lockdowns (well, I know one).

Yet I daresay that many who support PBs will deplore lockdowns

Weirdly I'd say the opposite: that most people who support PB probably supported lockdowns. I bundle these together as part of an authoritarian leftist view that you will do what you are told in the name of 'compassion'.

I do actually think if any study were ever to be done, the parents seeking PBs should have to agree to be studied also, looking at their psychology/ personality traits, political views, mental health and family history. I think the psychology of people seeking this for their children has been a neglected area.

Partly because they've not been one group.

There is the group of confused frightened parents who trusted and went along with the 'professional' advice.

There are the confused frightened parents who resisted the professional advice and had to become activists against the schools and therapists o protect their children.

Then there are the ones who were delighted to celebrate their child's trans identity as it validated soemthing for them.

Surely these are the only group left who would ever agree to put their child in a trial now?
They should be scrutinised

most people who support PB probably supported lockdowns

I actually agree with that, but genderism isn’t entirely a left vs right divide and there are people who object to interventions such as lockdowns while supporting what they see as individual freedoms, in this case for children and their parents based on the belief that one can be born in the wrong body.

One thought experiment I've been playing with is:

What if 'child' and 'adult' were accepted as an 'identities'?
Why couldn't they be?

How would it be different to a trans identity for a child to say: I know I'm not supposed to be an adult, that's not who I am, I don't want an adult's body, that distresses me, I have a 'child's soul' and want to stay as a child.

How would giving these children PB to help them avoid developing the adult body they don't want, be any different from giving PB to 'trans kids'?

We could do a trial to see if keeping some children's bodies permanently prepubescent makes them happier? Surely according to Cass we should do this trial because they say never growing up would make them happier and relieve their distress about becoming adults.
How would we know this wasn't true if we didn't do the trial says Cass?

Yes we already know it would have negative physical impact for all the children in the trial, but maybe it's worth it to find out who really does have a 'child's soul' and would be happier never getting a adult body?

How would this be any different to the current PB trail?

Surely it wouldn't. But everyone could immediately see: it would be a grotesque experiemnt to prevent children from developing into adults which should never be done no matter what children say they want.

And what they need is help to accept the reality of their physical body in the material world.

Of course, I agree there aren't clear cut divides and the 'reality based' coalition has brought together some very unlikley partners that don't agree outside this issue.
As we see all the time on FWR!

Google though I might want to read this

Immune Cells in the Brain Discovered to Control Puberty and Reproduction - Neuroscience News https://share.google/LodT4uoTPU7y1xllt

I admit to not being sure I understood it, and PBs weren't mentioned, but it does seem it might be pertinent to any experiment such as the Streeting Trial.

@lcakethereforeIam That's really interesting. So in theory if they could block the RANK protein, they could halt puberty.

ok bad example I forgot about the anaesthetic used of ketamine - I was very much referring to street Special K. Maybe a trial of smoking weed to treat school refusal is a better analogy.

Anyway, my general point is that the NHS & medical research isn't there to give people what they want. It's there to try and give people treatments which are effective and appropriate for their health problems. I'm not convinced that gender dysphoria in children even is a health problem TBH.

The trial protocol should remove their plan to provide cross-sex hormones on 'compassionate grounds' at the end of the study. That bit really is a smoking gun that the study team are actively trying to restart the Tavistock blocker/cross sex hormones/surgery conveyor belt.

New article by Helen Joyce in the Critic

https://archive.ph/nNmcw

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-decision-dodgers/