Professor who stopped puberty blockers trial has withdrawn because of liking JKR tweets

[IwantToRetire]

The professor who intentionally halted a controversial puberty blockers trial has been withdrawn from any further involvement after accusations of bias.

Professor Jacob George, who was appointed chief medical and scientific officer at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in January, raised new concerns about the Pathways trial of puberty blockers in February.

Scientists and lawyers have since raised concerns over George's involvement, questioning crucial misunderstandings about clinical trials and medical law.

The professor intervened five months after the trial was approved by his colleagues and more than a month after it was set to start, raising concerns that included participants being as young as 10.

Yet the recent surfacing of a series of social media posts by George indicate a strong gender-critical stance, with an added admiration for JK Rowling.

In the now deleted posts, the professor slated the 'well-meaning idiocy' of the NHS through its denial to adhere to the 'basic biological fact' that gender is set at birth.

Article continues at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15601843/Professor-stopped-puberty-blockers-trial-withdraws-bias-row-JK-Rowling.html

Thanks for this. What an insane world we live in. Here's more from Seen in Journalism: seeninjournalism.substack.com/p/breaking-literally-cathy-newmans

No! Poor guy. Man who under science castigated for understanding science. Surely they can see correlation and causation?

Good lord, the pettiness & hypocrisy is unceasing.

He didn't call a halt to the study though did he. Streeting did.

But saying that you need an ideologically captured person running it does kind of prove the point so well done you guys.

"Man who holds a healthcare position and acknowledges biology is removed for having reasonable concerns"

This is enraging.

As it says in that SEEN article posted above, "a medic who understands that sex is real and important has been removed from a role overseeing research on children which intimately concerns biological sex, while others who take a strongly trans affirmative position (publicly so) remain in place."

I hope they uncover a pile of batshit pro-trans posts by the others involved and expose just how captured this whole field of "science" truly is. Every study I have ever seen on this topic has been run by die hard genderists. They get away with ignoring most of their findings and reorganizing their studies to report some teeny tiny, non-clinically relevant benefit in some obscure outcome. Where is the outrage at the obvious bias there?

I think Wings over Scotland shared just that sort of posting from another involved person on Twitter earlier. shock. 🙄

So perfectly fine to have TRAs hold v senior NHS positions for years and push for gender ‘affirming’ care but not someone who acknowledges science and biology? Sounds par for the captured nhs course.

I had a look at Prof Simonoff's publications & her research at least seems entirely unrelated to trans. Haven't come across any SM, though were I she, I'd have deleted accounts as soon as the Prof George fake outrage blew up.

The HRA is totally captured. From top to bottom.

So I cant quite grasp this.

He took a position on a medical issue based on his medical knowledge, but now because of what he said in tweets, he is no longer medically qualified?

Or they are saying he stopped the puberty trials not for medical reasons but because of his personal believes?

And so has to "recuse" himself.

So he is admitting to one or the other or ???????????

(I hadn't realised that Cathy Newman was such a hand maiden.)

She is, she included Paris Lees in her book “Bloody Brilliant Women History Forgot” 🙄

I'd forgotten that.

Cant remember exactly what at the moment do remember of a number of occasions being really angry with C4 news bias re trans rights.

The presenters are alwasy a bit too smug about how they think rather than being concerned in presenting the news in a clear way.

She also presented that Genderquake fiasco in 2018.

I always remember that advert C4 did sneering about the complaints they got and saying they didn’t care as if it was a virtue. Plays well with their target audience though.

Look up Jordan Peterson being 'interviewed' by her.

That interview was rather eye opening sadly, I don't think she used it as a learning experience. It seems rather pertinent to what has happened to the Professor in relation to the social media output of the others involved in the decision.

They’re suggesting he’s not “impartial” on the issue of protecting children from injury! Please don’t let anyone involved in child healthcare be “impartial” about that.

This is an extremely good article on the subject. Even Cass can't understand the intervention from MHRA. If it were the other way round and Professor George had posted TWAW, we would have been screaming from the rooftops. Can we please bring intelligence and thought back into this subject, not everything is TRA infiltration. I'm handing out tin hats. I expect a backlash but suggest you read the article

www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/pathways-puberty-blocker-trial-recused-jacob-george-qnn669rjx

The comments are almost entirely supportive of him. It was a massive own goal from Ms Newman.

I would like to read this article.

Do you have a share token or archive version please 🙏

(Edited for spelling)

Sharetoken here, they have removed the claim about proof that IK is a woman since it was first published:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/15a0e123-790a-4710-a7d4-5645995a3341?shareToken=b8d3f865b038ca296cca45675f601957

Thanks Igneococcus

How is this article extremely good on the subject? I assumed it was going to reference further reliable research supporting the trial.

Instead, it describes how the TRA supporting healthcare professionals who want to carry on with an unethical medical experiment against children (who are completely unable to conceive what they’re agreeing to), have managed to remove a physician aware of science and biology by claiming he was biased.

Yes, he was. Biased in favour of medical ethics and biology. They’re biased too. In favour of carrying on the medical experimentation on children because…gender: a social construct.

Cass being quoted only serves to illustrate how, like most high powered individuals, she is capable of being somewhat defensive in defending a poorly thought out recommendation that she made as a sop to the pressure from the genderists.

How is this article extremely good on the subject? I assumed it was going to reference further reliable research supporting the trial.

Why? All the pro and anti stuff was done months ago, the point of the article is 'why was Professor George now halting the trial? I expect, as we all should, that the highest standards will apply and therefore any whiff of bias will be dealt with. Professor George has been recused and |I would agree with anyone being recused who showed bias.

Interesting that you think Cass is only relevant if she says things you agree with. Surely this has been a major criticism of Stonewall and TRA's over the years. I hope this is not now us!