Professor who stopped puberty blockers trial has withdrawn because of liking JKR tweets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The professor who intentionally halted a controversial puberty blockers trial has been withdrawn from any further involvement after accusations of bias.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

And sadly even those this is a well thought out, throughly researched and evidenced response it will get little coverage in the media.

But TRAs and their hand maidens like Cathy Newman will have their knee jerk comments amplified.

And again just makes me feel this is no longer an unbiased review.

Just shocking.

Official who halted puberty blocker trial recused over gender-critical views

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/f6356f192be144ba

This is just horrendous. Scientists being recused for understanding science when those who believe in nonsense and are actual activists are just given a free pass?? It's an appalling piece of journalism. Almost worse than that of Cathy Newman and Natasha Loder.

Very interesting that the Wings Over Scotland blog says it was a 'colleague' who shared Fenelly- Branwell's Teams background. Can you imagine how toxic it must be to work there if you don't believe in the gender bollocks? Seeing that on your weekly team meeting with your Director? It's going to take some very brave person to speak up. So very glad I'm retired.

"Note from Max Davie: I have co-authored this post with my colleague Dr Lorna Hobbs. We have been dismayed at the uncritical way in which the deeply flawed Cass report has been accepted both professionally and in the wider political conversation. We wanted an alternative view, from experienced clinicians, to be out there in the public conversation. We have chosen to publish this on a blog, rather than in a journal or other publication, so that we can publish in a timely way and maximise access for people who might find our writing helpful."

Aye! A critique of a review of an NHS children's service. Who might find that particularly helpful?

Parents?

Health Service Professionals?

NHS Commissioners?

Not a bit of it.

Published on a blog in support of "Crossdreamers" aka transvestites website!
In order to "maximise access for people who might find our writing helpful."

That's who Dr Max Davie and Dr Lorna Hobbs prioritised to have "maximum access" to their critique - transvestites and AGPs.

These people are a danger to children:

Dr Max Davie - Consultant Paediatrician and former Education Lead for the new child and adolescent gender services at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH).

Dr Lorna Hobbs - Clinical Psychologist and former clinician at the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) / former Education Lead for the new child and adolescent gender services at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH).

I do hope that the word "former" in their bios means that they are no longer in positions where they can prioritise the dubious interests of transvestites and AGPs when it comes to the health care needs and well-being of vulnerable children.

I think if you read the Wings article you’ll see plenty of publically stated views of bias towards genderism by the current HRA interim head and others. No supposing necessary.

Wings includes several public statements made by Jonathan Fennelly-Barnwell, Deputy Director of Approvals at the Health Research Authority when the puberty blockers trial was approved and its current Interim Director. Wings notes that none of his activities are in any way unlawful or improper, however:

But it seems reasonable to posit that given his views on “anti-trans arseholes”, his stance as a declared “trans ally” and his membership of the “LGBTQ+ staff led interest group”, Mr Fennelly-Barnwell has at least as much of an impartiality issue as Prof. Jacob George

And I would be in agreement with that view.

To be hounded for believing in biology seems madness. Still.

Are you incapable of disinterest & do you assume that incapacity in everyone else though? Just as a good lawyer can disinterestedly argue a case that conflicts with his/ her personal views, a good scientist privileges scientific method & evidence over his/her personal views.

Hobbs is worse than you think - she "trains" NHS staf in genderwoo.

Here's a good article from Suzanne Moore on Jacob George's removal from iinvolvement in PATHWAYS.

Did the link show? I'll try again

Suzanne Moore on Jacob George

She doesn’t pull any punches…

The clones whose cerebral cortexes have been removed in exchange for a badge, a flag and a lanyard have had their brains filled with pink and blue candyfloss.

Great article, thank you for the link.
As well as liking the 'pink and blue candyfloss' quote, I like the idea of belonging to the “reality-based community” .

Yet every time we get anywhere on this issue, it is two steps forward and one step back because we greatly underestimate the McCarthyite mindset that still dominates our institutions. “Are you now, or have ever, been someone who believes in biological fact?”. “Can some of us opt out of gravity?”. Maybe thinking the Earth is round is just a racist contrast.

SEEN in Journalism have also done a good substack on this.
https://seeninjournalism.substack.com/p/breaking-literally-cathy-newmans

Yep, nothing to see here, move along.

Poll - one day left:

Should the MHRA reinstate Professor Jacob George to oversee the Pathways puberty blocker clinical trial?

https://x.com/AdeleWatersRx/status/2028609762959499557

https://www.thetimes.com/article/82222c39-ed48-4e2a-9b55-d682079df079?shareToken=af773e55175751496a690ab95134faeb

Tomorrow is the deadline for the MHRA to reply to my FOIR:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mhraandkingscollegelondonpa#incoming-3320906

Dear Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency,

Ref the MHRA statement on the PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial, 20 February 2026
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-statement-on-the-pathways-puberty-blocker-trial

A letter to Kings College London is attached to this statement
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6998b06d047739fe61889efb/Sponsor-letter110226.pdf

This letter refers to a 7th Nov 2025 letter from the MHRA to Kings College London:

Subject: Invitation to discuss proposed amendments to Clinical Trial Protocol

"I write further to the MHRA's letter of 7th November 2025. As you are aware, there is a great deal of public and professional interest in this trial. MHRA keeps under review all of the representations that have been made. I write now to discuss potential amendments that we believe will strengthen the trial protocol."

Please supply:

1. a copy of the MHRA letter of 7th Nov 2025 to Kings College London
2. any correspondence arising from that letter
3. Minutes of meetings, emails and any other correspondence informing the contents of the letter of 7th Nov 2025
4. Minutes of meetings, emails and any other correspondence informing the contents of the letter attached to the MHRA statement of 20th Feb 2026

https://x.com/i/status/2036530311723459024

Max Davie is the doctor they quoted in the Times story about Professor George.
A bit rich to have such an activist talking about the need for impartiality. But then the story did originally claim the Algerian boxer had tested as a woman!

Hi @POWNewcastleEastWallsend is there any update on this. The link you shared doesn't work and I'd be interested to see what the MHRA has said.

It all smacks of an activist witch-hunt.

I couldn't get the link to work either, but I managed to find the request. This link might work.

MHRA and Kings College London: Pathways Puberty Blocker Trial - a Freedom of Information request to Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency - WhatDoTheyKnow

They've refused on the grounds of cost, but suggested that they might consider a request limited to questions 1 and 2 of the original request.

@POWNewcastleEastWallsend Do you intend to send this further request?

I'm not totally optimistic that you'd get a response, given that they also say this: We will review any new request received, however, please note that we cannot guarantee that any new request will not attract one or more exemptions under the Act, but it is our suggestion for you at this stage.

I think they'll probably find another exemption, but I'd keep asking anyway, and if necessary go to the ICO at the end if they refuse to answer.

Apologies for the broken link! Looks like my bookmarked link inserted a <p> string in the middle for some reason.

The MHRA refused my FOIR on the grounds that it would be too expensive to comply.

I had the option of asking for an Internal Review or Clarification of how I could bring the FOIR within the cost limit of £600

I decided to go for a request for Clarification in the first instance.

Thank you for posting your question because it reminded me that I still needed to do this - done now!

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mhra_and_kings_college_london_pa

Drat! You read the reply more closely than I did and I did not spot this bit:

"They've refused on the grounds of cost, but suggested that they might consider a request limited to questions 1 and 2 of the original request."

I updated the FOIR asking for Clarification before I spotted your post

🤦‍♀️

The MHRA twice rejected my full FOIR but has now supplied a copy of the 7th Nov 2025 letter to Kings Health Partners about the Pathways Puberty Blockers Trial.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mhraandkingscollegelondonpa/response/3407657/attach/html/4/2.03%20CTA%20Acceptance%20of%20Amended%20Request%2014%20redacted.pdf.html

07/11/2025

Dear [REDACTED],

THE MEDICINES FOR HUMAN USE (CLINICAL TRIALS) REGULATIONS 2004 S.I. 2004/1031

Our Reference: СТА 14523/0296/001-0001
IRAS ID: 1011645
PRODUCT: Decapeptyl, Decapeptyl, Prostap, Gonapeptyl, Zoladex
Protocol number: 3646-PATHWAYS

NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDED REQUEST

I am writing to inform you that the Licensing Authority, having reviewed your application in collaboration with the Research Ethics Committee, accepts your amended request for a clinical trial authorisation (CTA), with effective received date of 25/08/2025.

COMBINED REVIEW MEDICAL - Remarks: *REMARKS

Clinical Remarks:

The following comments are for future consideration / information only and do not affect the approval status of your study. No response is required.

1. The sponsor is reminded that at the end of the trial, all trial activities (e.g., IMP dosing or access to the IMP, follow- up visits, or data collection) must be completed. Therefore. IMP treatment or access to the IMP cannot continue as part of this trial once the protoco-defined end of the trial is reached.

For post-trial access, the sponsor should note that under UK legislation the provision of unlicensed medicines is only possible either within an approved and active clinical trial or, for an individual patent i.e., not as part of a study. under the remit of Guidance Note 14: The Supply of Unlicensed Medicinal Products ('Specials').

2. While the proposed safety monitoring is considered acceptable for the monitoring of the individual participants included in this clinical trial, the sponsor should be aware that different monitoring requirements may be necessary to support any change in the terms of the marketing authorisation for the licensed products used in this CTA.

Statistical Remarks:
The following comments are for future consideration information only and do not affect the approval status of your study. No response is required.

i. The sponsor is advised that in study design use of too many stratification factors may be less successful at achieving balance.

ii. The sponsor is advised to consider the burden to participants when assessing a large number of outcomes, balancing the need for information versus completeness of data. Considerations should be given to ranking the various outcomes in terms of their importance to patients as well as to support regulatory decision making.

iii. Regarding analysis method, the sponsor is advised that use of a treatment policy strategy for handling death is not acceptable since data after death do not exist.

iv. The sponsor is reminded that intervals following Bayesian principles have a fundamentally different interpretation compared to the intervals described which follow a frequentist statistical approach. Results based on frequentist approach will be required for regulatory decision making. Furthermore, Bayesian methods should be "calibrated" to have good frequentist properties in particular with regards to type I error control. Therefore. it is important to assess the operating characteristics of the Bayesian design (e.g. power and type I error rate).

The authorisation is effective from the date of this letter although your trial may be suspended or terminated at any time by the Licensing Authority in accordance with regulation 31. You must notify the Licensing Authority within 90 days of the trial ending.

You are reminded that a favourable opinion from the Ethics Committee is also required before this trial can proceed, changes made as part of your amended request may need to be notified to the Ethics Committee. If not already provided, please follow the guidance on our website on informing us of the registration status of your trial (where applicable).

You are reminded that from 1 January 2022 you will need to comply with the requirements specified in the following guidance, where applicable:

Import of IMPs from listed countries to GB: https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatons/importing-investigational-medicinal-products-into-great-britain-from-approved-coumtries

Supply of IMPs to Northern Ireland:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/supplying-investigational-medicinal-products-to-northern-ireland

Substantial amendments to clinical trials:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/guidance-on-substantial-amendments-to-a-clinical-trial

Any required substantial amendment to your Clinical Trial Authorisation should be submitted and approved as soon as possible and before 1 January 2022.

Yours sincerely.
Clinical Trials Unit MHRA

----

That is the letter referred to in this letter from the MHRA to Kings College London:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6998b06d047739fe61889efb/Sponsor-letter110226.pdf

Which is linked on this page:

News story
MHRA statement on the PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial
20 Feb 2026
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-statement-on-the-pathways-puberty-blocker-trial

I am not sure if the 7 Nov 2025 MHRA letter tells us much more - I am a bit distracted by this coming in the same day as the local elections. I am standing for Party of Women and I am dashing off out again now.