Landmark NHS England Report: Science Doesn’t Support Gender-Affirming Medicine
Dr. Hilary Cass: “I can’t think of another area of pediatric care where we give young people a potentially irreversible treatment and have no idea what happens to them in adulthood.”
For years, critics have raised serious concerns over the shoddy evidence behind gender-affirming care, the aggressive, no-questions-asked model for treating gender dysphoria in young people.
Those critics now have a powerful ally in England, according to a landmark report commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS) and released last evening, April 9. The leader of the four-year study, Dr. Hilary Cass, just confirmed what they’ve been saying all along: gender medicine is “built on shaky foundations” and the evidence used to justify it is “remarkably weak.”
As we wrote here, the American Academy of Pediatrics recently doubled down on its commitment to gender-affirming care, tossing aside the traditional “watching and waiting” protocol. Under that approach, doctors proceeded with caution, allowing gender-dysphoric children to naturally progress through puberty while treating them with counseling and psychotherapy rather than sex-altering drugs.
But now, based on evidence that has been challenged as fraudulent and misleading, doctors readily “affirm” a child’s stated desire to change genders by prescribing puberty-blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and irreversible surgeries.
Meanwhile, the number of detransitioners who have come to regret these life-altering drugs and procedures is mounting, and so are the lawsuits, including ones we’ve covered here. They say they were used as guinea pigs to test out a reckless, unscientific treatment plan.
The new report from England agrees.
From the British Medical Journal:
Clinical guidelines used widely around the world to treat children and adolescents who raise issues about their gender were developed in breach of international standards on guideline development, a review set up by NHS England has concluded.
The review … calls for far reaching changes to the way children and adolescents with gender dysphoria and gender incongruence are treated. In an interim report in 2022 it recommended that these young people be brought within the mainstream NHS and treated by multidisciplinary teams that would look at them holistically, providing psychosocial interventions where needed.
…
Cass noted, “The World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) has been highly influential in directing international practice, although its guidelines were found by the University of York’s appraisal to lack developmental rigour and transparency.”
…
Cass’s review pointed out that although most of the guidelines described insufficient evidence about the risks and benefits of medical treatment “many then went on to cite this same evidence to recommend medical treatment.”
Although the final report was just released, the NHS has already started to respond to its earlier findings. England’s sole provider of gender identity services, the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, was closed down last month based on an interim report that it was “not a safe or viable long-term option.” And as we reported here, puberty blockers were also discontinued at that time.
The Cass report found “the evidence for the indicated uses of puberty blockers and masculinising/feminising hormones in adolescents are unproven and benefits/harms are unknown.” Because of the potential risks puberty blockers pose to to neurocognitive development, psychosexual development and longer-term bone health, they should only be offered under a research protocol.
“The reality is we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” Cass says in the report.
Young people who think they want to change sex often present with a host of mental health issues, including trauma, abuse, and autism. The report recommends practitioners treat these young people “holistically” and not solely on the basis of their gender presentation.
“You don’t make those decisions in a state of mental distress,” Cass told the editor of the British Medical Journal in an interview.
For teenagers, a lot of things feel urgent, she reminded the audience. But those feelings, including discomfort with their gender, can change over time: “What we don’t know, is whether it’s going to feel the same for them in five to ten years time.”
And as the report reveals, there was never enough research to support these radical treatments in the first place. “I can’t think of another area of pediatric care,” said Cass, “where we give young people potentially irreversible treatments and have no idea what happens to them in adulthood.”
Full interview with the BMJ here:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well, gee, I’m surprised…
I’m sorry, but “having a powerful ally in England” is about as comforting as having an overseas SHTF bank account in Venezuela.
England is twice as far down the lunacy slope as we are. Corrections will be issued, followed by sackings and cancellations, making British navels again safe for never-ending contemplation.
But, there it is. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Maybe one should note that the report didn’t actually say transitioning was bad, it seems to have said merely that there was no long-term evidence that it is a safe or positive intervention for the patient.
Is that better?
IMO we should accept efforts to move the ball forward towards ending the travesty of butchers preying upon misguided and confused adolescents. The perfect can not become the enemy of the good or even the ‘not bad’ if we want to win this thing.
Oh, I agree that the existence of this study is a good thing. I just predict it will have zero legs, just like the outrageously censored Great Barrington Declaration.
The real gender difference is in brain operation: do you abstract from feelings or multiply feelings endlessly? That doesn’t change regardless. Two ways of dealing with complexity.
They make you apt at running governments or households, respectively.
“I can’t think of another area of pediatric care,” said Cass, “where we give young people potentially irreversible treatments and have no idea what happens to them in adulthood.”
Oooh! Ooooh! My hand is up!
I can think of one – mRNA “vaccines.”
The vaccines underwent trials, then there are literally billions of data points of deal world data, masses of studies on the vaccines. This is an absurd statement
The trials before mass vaccination were minimal and shoddy. Vaccinating the control group several months in, which effectively destroys any evidence of difference in reactions is just one example of bad practice.
“The trials before mass vaccination were minimal and shoddy”
Nope these were phase 3 trials with 10’s of thousands of participants, with a full data set analysed by 3rd parties.
“Vaccinating the control group several months in” I assume you mean vaccinated as part of the general vaccination programme, this is an assertion since the vaccination programme was over a period of time and age dependant in terms of priority. Its also an ethical issue, given the evidence clearly supported the safety case there was no reason not to vaccinate them. This has been backed up by real world data, we now know in great detail what the risks are for vaccination and it does not support your vaccine sceptic position.
Pfizer™ both bankrolled and conducted the “studies” that were used to gain the Emergency Use Authorization for their modRNA serum. There was no real analysis by any 3rd party as that would have given away the whole thing. That their modRNA serum was neither safe nor effective. Did not stop infection.
Did not stop transmission. If Pfizer™ had nothing to hide then why did they request (demand?) that the court seal their data for 75 years from public scrutiny. What was in those data sets that Pfizer™ wanted to hide.
@lucifer morningstar
Yes there was a 3rd party analysis that’s exactly what happened.
Repeating the same dumb points isn’t much of an argument.
When you can actually address the evidence as demonstrated by multiple meta analysis and studies come back to me.
Pfizer has admitted that their testing didn’t include whether the jab prevented either contracting Covid or whether it blocked transmission. In fact the many later studies data show the ‘jab’ did neither. Moreover they indicate that natural immunity is at least as effective and given potential side effects (more of which are being observed) natural immunity was the better choice for the vast majority of the population.
Transmission reduction is a secondary concern with respect to vaccines.
“Moreover they indicate that natural immunity is at least as effective” This is a silly thing to say, because it requires you to take the full effects of the illness in question so whilst that’s fine if you survive without any permanent damage it doesn’t help those who die, does it.
“potential side effects (more of which are being observed)” This is pure BS, numerous studies have been done and found the vaccines to be very safe. In particular the risk of side effects from the vaccine vs being unvaccinated and getting the full effects of covid is much lower.
And for those who were not frail/elderly, obese and/or had an already comprised immune system Covid wasn’t a big deal.
By all means protect the most vulnerable with the offer of a Jab so long as full disclosure of the potential adverse impacts is made and very importantly the relative efficacy of the jab v natural immunity for their particular risk group.
If you believe the safety BS then how much money, time and effort are you spending on allowing private lawsuits to go forward including class action suits against the Pharma companies, medical providers who administered the jab and any employer or entity, including the govt, which required the jab? Surely if the jab is as safe as you claim then these folks can easily win in Court.
Transmission reduction is secondary ONLY to immunization, neither of which the fake covid vaccines accomplished. They didn’t stop you from getting sick and they didn’t stop you from giving it to others. That’s called a complete fail.
@commochief
Why do you repeat the same talking points. It’s like talking to a zombie. The notion that it’s only the elderly is silly, the death rate followed a roughly exponential relationship with the only category that was debatable with respect to effectiveness vs risk as young people. For the rest the evidence was strongly towards vaccines being a benefit. That’s just fact.
Why on earth would I care about lawsuits against pharma. For one the evidence is very clear. Sue away, waste money why not. Just making the lawyers rich
@ironclaw
“They didn’t stop you from getting sick” You seem to have a very poor grasp on what a vaccine actually is. The purpose of a vaccine is to reduce the harm from a particular disease by giving someone a weakened version. That inherently means that some ‘sickness’ is inevitable. The question is the level of harm reduction which has been demonstrated over and over and over and over again. I cannot state more clearly what a non argument this is when you actually look at the evidence.
“That’s called a complete fail” That would be your argument especially in light of the stats showing the death and hospitalisation rate of the unvaccinated.
Uhhh…
Remember being told that the vaccines were “95 percent effective ” (or some similar ridiculous number)
At the time, I didn’t read the fine print, because I didn’t believe that they could possibly know, given the short period of testing.
Remember being told categorically that if you got vaccinated that you would neither get the Wuflu nor communicate it?
Then when that became obviously false, we were told that it was “milder”? How in Hades do you measure that? The same way you came up with the six foot rule?
“Remember being told that the vaccines were “95 percent effective ” No the claim was 95% efficacy which was the trial result, this has a particular meaning in the context of a vaccine see
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00075-X/fulltext
Effectiveness is how a vaccine works in the real world which is a more complicated question given the number of variants. For the original variant and Delta effectiveness reached 83% according to the following meta analysis (read the paper for the specifics)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(23)00015-2/fulltext
“We found that the vaccine effectiveness of the primary vaccine series against SARS-CoV-2 infections begins at an adequate level, as defined by WHO, of 83% at 14–42 days after series completion; however, vaccine effectiveness decreased significantly by 112 days after vaccination, reaching 47% by 280 days after vaccination, well below an adequate level. For COVID-19 hospitalisations and mortality, vaccine effectiveness levels were also adequate at baseline (>90%), but similarly reduced 112 days after vaccination; although, vaccine effectiveness remained high over time (>75%).”
“Remember being told categorically that if you got vaccinated that you would neither get the Wuflu nor communicate it?” Your conflating simplistic public messaging with the science which has a more nuanced view
“Then when that became obviously false, we were told that it was “milder”? How in Hades do you measure that?” Its not entirely clear what you are referring too here
“The same way you came up with the six foot rule?” Its entirely logical to have a reasonable distance between persons to reduce contagion as part of a range of measures.
The modRNA serum underwent a very quick, abbreviated safety study under Trump’s lunatic “Operation Warp Speed” program, was issued an Emergency Use Authorization (not an actual full FDA approval) and then released upon an unsuspecting population. Within months. Months not the years it actually takes to develop and approve a safe & effective vaccine by the FDA.
And unfortunately, those “billions of data points of deal (sic) world data” and “masses of studies on the vaccines” come after the fact and are revealing the truth of the matter. And that truth ain’t pretty. The modRNA serum was failure from start to finish. It failed to prevent infection. It failed to prevent transmission. It did not confer long term immunity as originally claimed. It failed. It was a massive and unnecessary failure that didn’t need to happen.
Vaccines take a long time in part because they undergo development in stages to avoid commercial risk. Operation warp speed removed that commercial risk. Phase 3 trials were completed allowing a reasonably robust assessment by 3rd parties of safety and effectiveness. This has now been demonstrated by real world data.
“And that truth ain’t pretty” The truth is the vaccinated population had a lower death and hospitalisation rate when compared to the unvaccinated population. This is the primary purpose of a vaccine.
“It failed to prevent infection” And, this isn’t entirely true, it had a limited effect on transmission as opposed to ‘failed to prevent’, nor is this a primary concern, only secondary.
“It did not confer long term immunity as originally claimed” I don’t recall anyone making this claim.
But they were not complete. The control group given the placebo wasn’t maintained so no data exists for the control group who were subsequently given the jab.
Bottom line is you and other Covid Maniac Karens lose credibility every time y’all start up this nonsense. No one will trust anything you state as a result.
@commochief
I’ve already dealt with the point elsewhere with respect to the control group being given the vaccine. It’s not a good argument, at all.
It’s difficult to take you seriously when you can’t come up up witha coherent argument. For all your bluster about me being a Karen I’m the the one with studies, stats, meta analysis and non crazy people on my side.
You cannot possibly compress ten years of testing into 4 months, those fake vaccines were experimental and poorly tested. In addition, with hindsight we know they didn’t even work.
Sure you can most issues present themselves within weeks. The question of what issues occur is a question of stats and sample size. In other words being able to spot rare occurances which was dealt with by having a large study. And even if I grant you a ‘poor study’ (I dont) real world data has verified the safety and effectiveness. You simply don’t have an argument.
With hindsight we know that anti vaxxers are really poor at science and prone to being gullible. Soz
Barty, I’m an infectious diseases doc also trained in microbiology and epidemiology. Those COVID19 trials were not done according to the standard methodology of rigor required of the vast majority of other vaccine products. At best, the COVID19 mRNA vaccines were only 50% effective, if at all. The endpoints were marginally achieved, and often the results were based on shifting sands of what defined a suitable outcome. Their EUAs (emergency use approvals) were based on panic, and not on solid evidence of properly executed Phase III clinical trials normally required by FDA, EMEA and other approval agencies.
“Those COVID19 trials were not done according to the standard methodology of rigor required of the vast majority of other vaccine products.”
Demonstrate this, be precise on what you think was not in accordance with a ‘standard’ methodology.
“mRNA vaccines were only 50% effective”
This is just false see
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(23)00015-2/fulltext
Emergency approvals were based on people dying in large numbers from covid. This doesn’t negate the fact that adequate safety data was gathered nor does it negate the fact that real world data continues to demonstrate the original safety data was correct. In reality the only differences were a refinement on the understanding on the risk profile and that’s it.
That’s the understatement of the decade. It is pathetic that this report could not bring itself to actually say what a bunch of sick, deranged liars the WPATH animals are, and that society would be well-served to imprison all of the sick lowlifes in that organization who have been trying to foist the worst abuse on children that we have ever seen.
NOTHING associated with the NHS is any sort of ally. They have merely issued a, still, mealy-mouthed rejection of the sickest practice Western society has ever seen. Big whoop. Everyone with even half a brain and a shred of decency has known from the start that boys cannot ever become girls and girls can never become boys and that anyone who uses surgery to help carry out this farce is a sick f**k who should be in jail.
I trust the NHS about as much as I trust the French. We might have similar positions on specific issues but I would never consider either of them an ally of any sort. The NHS probably wants to stop wasting money on letting little boys play as girls and go back to spending it on euthanizing all of Great Britain.
“The NHS probably wants to stop wasting money on letting little boys play as girls and go back to spending it on euthanizing all of Great Britain.”
Do you actually know anything about the NHS
Yes, of course I do. Do you know anything about how their treatment algorithm approval processes work?
1. It’s not clear that you do.
2. The claim is that the NHS wants to euthanize everyone which is a silly thing to say.
3. Treatment algorithms are a means to standardise treatments, in other words to give the same service and level of care across the NHS
4. It’s not clear how treatment algorithms is related to the original claim.
What’s crystal clear is that you come here to LI in total ignorance, to spread other people’s swamp narratives and gaslighting, while sea-lioning professionals who actually work in the areas you pontificate about and who actually know things.
@henrybowman
“What’s crystal clear is that you come here to LI in total ignorance, to spread other people’s swamp narratives and gaslighting, while sea-lioning professionals who actually work in the areas you pontificate about and who actually know things.”
I stated obvious deficiencies in the presented argument, of which no counter has been made, I’ve also pointed out that the actual evidence directly contradicts said Dr’s knowledge.
Your response is based on feelings, it provides no substance to counter any part of any statement I’ve made instead you automatically reach for fallacious reasoning without stating a single argument.
Feel free to counter some of the claims:
1. That you know anything about the NHS and in particular treatment algorithm approval processes
2. That the NHS wants to euthanize everyone
3. That I’m wrong about what a treatment algorithm actually is
4. That they have nothing to do with the original claim (see 2.)
5. That the DrSamHerman is correct in his claim regarding MRNA vaccines effectiveness is 50% despite having been linked to a meta analysis that not only directly contradicts the claim but shows the claim to be grossly over simplified.
6. The clarification sought on what PRECISELY the methodological issues were with respect to covid 19 vaccine trial protocols AND how it is that real world data supports the safety data that the trials showed.
I look forward to your specific responses to the claims rather than the feelings based response you just provided.
I read the entire 360 plus pages of the Cass report. Your characterization of it is incorrect. It’s surprisingly detailed, frank, and it pulls no punches. It’s also highly critical of WPATH. One look at the negative reactions from the trans activists to it is a good indicator of just how scathing the report is. The report is another giant nail in the coffin of these sick twisted “gender affirming” practices, and that’s a good thing.
No effing duh..
When /our people/ are the regime in power, we’re gonna hunt down every 101 year old ‘medical professional’ who transed children in the 2020s like we hunt down Auschwitz tower guards and bookkeepers today.
No need. Weitz & Luxenberg (law firm) will do the “hunting” for you, with TV ads. If you ever see such an ad, you will know this has reached critical mass for the plaintiff’s bar. (The numbers are probably still to small and the damage yet to emerge.)
No. I’m talking criminal prosecutions, prison time, not mere civil lawsuits.
The parents who allowed their children to undergo this should have their genitals mutilated.
Breaking news: the sun comes up in the East.
Why do we need studies only to confirm the obvious truths?
Duh.