Professor who stopped puberty blockers trial has withdrawn because of liking JKR tweets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The professor who intentionally halted a controversial puberty blockers trial has been withdrawn from any further involvement after accusations of bias.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

Can someone please explain the reasoning behind the trial, because I don't understand how this can even be considered.

• If no medication is given, roughly 85% of young people with gender dysphoria desist after a while.
• We have no way of identifying the children who would make up the 15% who won't desist.
• About 98% of children who take puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones, which sterilise them.
• So we may end up sterilising close to 100% of the original cohort in order to "help" 15% of that cohort.
• However, if puberty blockers are actually helpful for gender-distressed children, and not in fact causing longterm harm, is unclear. In case they do cause harm, 100% of children in the trial would be affected.

What is the other side's reasoning? That puberty blockers are supposedly reversible, and that it is therefore acceptable - in their view - to put the 85% who would desist through the trial?

There is no reasoning. Just sentiment, passion, blind zealotry, and ulteria motives.

• So we may end up sterilising close to 100% of the original cohort in order to "help" 15% of that cohort.

It has been very obvious for quite some time that it is only that sacred 15% who matter and the muggles are considered perfectly acceptable collateral damage in order to

sAvE tRaNs LiVeS ™

There must be some reasoning. We may disagree with them on fundamental premises, but not everyone on the other side is a complete idiot.

You'd think. But then I used to think everyone who was a barrister had to be clever.

I'm sadder and wiser after a decade of this bullshit.

I have to say, I DO think anyone who believes in harming 100% of a group of children to make 15% 'happy' is a complete idiot. And an extremely dodgy person.

They’re not idiots. I think they’re evil narcissists creating a generation of untold irreversible harm for young vulnerable adults. I see it. It’s despicable.

I'm sorry but I have looked. There is no reasoning that makes.sense or even refers to the very straightforward points you lay out.

Ideology in action.

Cass still believes in 'true trans'. Some of them still want to believe.

And given that they've already fucked up countless kids, there's an incentive to keep going rather than admit they were utterly, utterly wrong.

It's despicable.

Agree, not everyone on the other side is a complete idiot.

Some are evil and manipulative.

If TiM are put on blockers they, apparently, may pass better as adults. I think some late transitioning males believe this could have been them and it's a vicarious way for them to live it. The ones, the majority, who would have desisted? Perhaps they think it's 'conversion' therapy working, not maturity and time reasserting reality, so maybe they think they're saving them. Then of course there will be some who get off on it. Forced feminisation porn, I believe, is a thing after all. It's also a numbers game. Every individual that's under the trans umbrella, their family (especially parents who've allowed this to be done to their child), their social circle, are foot soldiers.

If TiM are put on blockers they, apparently, may pass better as adults. I think some late transitioning males believe this could have been them and it's a vicarious way for them to live it.

Anyone who supports giving these drugs to children needs to be reminded that this was precisely the reasoning behind the first experiments on children.

The Dutch protocol came about because of observations that many (male) transsexuals had poor mental health. The doctors speculated that this was because they didn't 'pass', so they did an experiment on some adolescents, using puberty blockers to prevent the irreversible changes occurring during puberty.

It was unethical then, and it's unethical now.

And nobody has ever explained why the drugs should be given to adolescent girls, since the original experiment was designed to prevent changes to the male body at puberty.

Women, even if they are trans identifying, really don't matter to the men driving this ideology except to be used. Useful idiots or for validation, if we're harmed by it, it scarcely seems to be a concern.