Debate on the puberty blocker trial this afternoon, 23rd June

[RoseInAPot]

Opposition day debates today, instigated by the LOTO Kemi Badenoch. She has chosen two issues: defence, and the puberty blocker trial.

Sometime this afternoon, will be worth a watch.

Well they're all in Hansard now, all their votes have been recorded. Everyone in the future will know exactly who supported this despite the obvious harms being spelled out to them.

I thought Rebecca Paul's contributions were particularly good.

Ridiculous. So then vote to harm dc with medical trials

Adults are idiots

No. You really should read the Cass report.

It makes clear that there’s a gaping hole in the reasoning about why these drugs are being prescribed.

The decision is made to prescribe them, and then lots of stories are made up about why. The ‘time to think’ story is just one of several narratives retrofitted to the prescrbing practice.

Activists are incredibly keen to give these drugs to children, but there is no consistent explanation for why these drugs are the correct treatment for this condition. Which is a basic minimum requirement for prescribing, you’d think.

I think that the data linkage study should be done first. James Murray says that the NHS is committed to delivering it and that the relevant organisations have been told to provide the data. Yes it might be more limited than a trial, but it also might ultimately mean that no trial needs to be done. Around 2000 children have already been given the blockers; those outcomes should be studied first.

100% agree.

Cass believes without a trial young people will continue to get drugs from "unregulated and dangerous routes."

It's very common for patients who are addicted to benzodiazepines to ask their doctor to prescribe high doses "because if you don't I'll just buy it from the streets". Doctors generally respond by discussing and documenting the risks and their advice.
Would Cass argue that the doctors should just prescribe, in order to avoid patients getting the drugs from "unregulated and dangerous routes"?

"Around 2000 children have already been given the blockers; those outcomes should be studied first."

Wow. 2000. And we don't know the outcomes.

The trial protocol also shows that the NHS has given up on the detransitioners it has already created. Genspect has long been arguing that the health service has a moral responsibility to complete the data linkage study before exposing a new cohort of young people to the documented harms of blockers. Recommended by the Cass Review, the data linkage study would follow up on what has happened to the estimated 2,000 gender distressed young people who were put on puberty blockers by the disgraced NHS Tavistock Clinic. We know there are harmed patients among them, because some of Genspect’s Beyond Trans service users are detransitioners who were first set on the path to irreversible medical harm by a prescription for puberty blockers issued by the Tavistock. The data linkage study is our only way to secure long-term outcome data, something the trial protocol itself admits PATHWAYS will not provide.
The trial protocol effectively claims that completing the data linkage study is pointless. It sees no benefit in trying to understand the experiences of irreversible medical harm and regret that Beyond Trans service users share with us in our weekly peer support meetings. The Tavistock did not collect ‘standardised data’, and the protocol therefore argues that the data linkage study, “would not provide alternative evidence” about the effects of blockers. This is an implausible and unforgivable excuse. A lack of standardised data does not mean there is no data to learn from at all. The PATHWAYS trial has access to a whopping £10 million in funding. If a mere fraction of that sum were devoted to carefully tracking the trajectories of previous Tavistock patients, we would undoubtedly learn something pertinent about the risks and benefits of proceeding with another puberty blocker trial. The NHS’s refusal to do so, and its reckless drive to place still more children in harm’s way, will be felt as an acute betrayal by detransitioners everywhere.

https://genspect.org/the-pathways-puberty-blocker-trial-betrays-vulnerable-young-people/

Am I right in thinking they weren't allowed to mention the pending judicial review? I seem to remember there's a rule against mentioning current court cases.

I get that exposing Labour is partly why Badenoch called the debate, but I suspect this vote is going to be a real burden for Labour over time. 270 Labour dimwits voted for this Mengelian experiment, just when they were starting to sound a little more reasonable on the trans issue and Burnham had managed to put a stop to discussion about letting men into women's loos.

Every thing that goes wrong with this trial, they should be blamed for it.

I was considering maybe voting Labour again, but I certainly won't be now.

Oh this is terrible. Those poor children who have been let down by the adults who should have been looking after their best interests

Were the votes subject to the whip? Is this why voting was mainly on party lines? I don't see why Labour would want to tie themselves so firmly to what some of them must realise is going to be a future medical scandal

My comparison to Mengel was not made lightly.

Are you kidding you would give drugs that are deigned to castrate men to a child? Read this sentence back a few times please, and try to keep an open mind.

This experiment was backed by Cass, who proposed it and supports it. This gives the MPs cover. I suspect that many are only backing it because Cass is saying it should happen, even though the Labour government at one point tried to stop it (although it's not quite clear what the government's position is this week, it keeps changing).

Politicians rarely think that far ahead. They're wedded to short-termism and whatever keeps them their seat now.

Plus, it's possible that a lot of them won't be around when the scandal hits. We won't know what's happened to these children for another 20 years maybe, after they have "grown up " and tried to "detransition" and tried perhaps to have families of their own. Then the lawsuits will start.

I'm hoping that many parents will see the harms being done to their children's bodies and remove them from the trial, but I suspect that is a forlorn hope. Most parents will just see formerly distraught children who haven't had what they've been told that they want, turn into "happy" kids because they have their candy now.

And of course there are the parents who want to give their children these drugs... There will be at least a few of those.

Plus, it's possible that a lot of them won't be around when the scandal hits. We won't know what's happened to these children for another 20 years maybe, after they have "grown up " and tried to "detransition" and tried perhaps to have families of their own. Then the lawsuits will start.

I don't know about that. The first detrans lawsuits in the US are featuring very young people. So this cohort could start suing as early as 10 years from now. Moreover, there's a whole previous cohort out there, which we know already has its detransitioners, so technically it's only a matter of time now until one of them decides to sue.

Most parents will just see formerly distraught children who haven't had what they've been told that they want, turn into "happy" kids because they have their candy now.

But the kids won't be happy, will they? Not for long, anyway, since the puberty blockers won't solve their real problems.

Yes this is all down to Cass. I’m afraid we can’t pick and choose which bits we like unfortunately.

We can only hope re the lawsuits, and I do hope it's sooner rather than later, but it can be considerably harder to bring legal action here in the UK. It's a ridiculously long process and claimants need to consider their risk for costs if they lose.

Even 10 years from now, many of these politicians will no longer be in politics anymore, and I've rarely seen any appetite for pursuing former politicians for votes/endorsements they made previously (if ever). It's normally for corruption (see Peter Murrell). And, someone correct me please if I'm wrong, I don't think you can go after someone legally for something they said or voted for while an MP.

A judicial review might help, but we all know how long those take.

I would be very happy to be wrong about all of this.

I agree, these kids won't be happy, but they'll definitely demonstrate "happiness " if they are finally getting what they want. So will their parents, until they realize this won't fix anything.

it can be considerably harder to bring legal action here in the UK. It's a ridiculously long process and claimants need to consider their risk for costs if they lose.

Very true. This is good in some cases, but unfortunately it's quite the hurdle in this one. Though the existence of the JKR fund might help, I guess? I think it would be applicable to detrans women suing, at least?

Very good point re The Fund. I had forgotten we have that. That makes me feel a bit more positive this morning 🙂

Of course politicians can, that’s their job.

better than your “I reckon they’re fine and when adults take them there aren’t any side effects” which is demonstrably wrong.

Since when have we been obliged to be in complete agreeement with everything an individual says or everything contained in a document? The Cass Report was a report, to help policymakers decide policy. It wasn't meant to be prescriptive. As with many things, it was mostly good but also had serious flaws (e.g. this trial). The original trial wanted to experiment on even younger children and have no lower age limit at all and Cass supported that. Should the regulator have not demanded a lower age limit because "we can't pick and choose"?

The Pathways experiment literally admits that there are potential risks. Why do we have to support those potential risks? Especially when the benefits are not clearly defined and nor is the supposed problem of "gender incongruence" that the experiment supposedly aims to resolve.

If you want to resolve the problem of "gender incongruence" then define what it is first (beyond "feels") and explain just what causes some kids to allegedly reject their healthy bodies. Is it social? Is it caused by trauma? Because there's no other explanation for rejecting a healthy body and wanting to block and destroy one's natural healthy development (beyond the rubbish that some adults are feeding these kids about how it's all ok to do this to their body).

It's also possible (although, having read its protocol I can imagine that the experimenters will try to spin everything as positive) that the trial will find that the risks outweigh the benefits or confirm some risks that were feared but had been obscured in previous similar experiments. It will be difficult for the experimenters to admit that in their findings (even though they admit adverse results are a possibility), because they are then basically admitting that they knowingly gave harmful medication to children (although the blame will probably then be put on 11 year olds for supposedly "assenting").

I wonder what all the MPs who voted for this experiment will say if there are adverse findings.

Pathways experiment protocol

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/they-knew

WPATH paid a team at Johns Hopkins to find out whether transitioning children actually works. The team, led by Dr Karen Robinson, did the reviews, graded the evidence and reported back. It found “little to no evidence.” That was not the answer WPATH wanted, so WPATH made sure the answer never got out. After all, it had written into the arrangement that the research be used “for the benefit of advancing transgender health in a positive manner”. It sat on the inconvenient data, until Robinson was reduced to complaining in writing that WPATH was “trying to restrict our ability to publish.”