Back in 2022, I described, in detail, the side effects associated with endocrine-disrupting puberty blockers that are being used on children undergoing transgender medical treatments.
Earlier this year, I noted that French Senators want to ban gender transition treatments for minors, after a report described sex reassignment for young people as potentially “one of the greatest ethical scandals in the history of medicine.”
Now, a doctor who is also an advocate of adolescent gender treatments said she had not published a long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs because of politics.
The doctor, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, began the study in 2015 as part of a broader, multimillion-dollar federal project on transgender youth. She and colleagues recruited 95 children from across the country and gave them puberty blockers, which stave off the permanent physical changes — like breasts or a deepening voice — that could exacerbate their gender distress, known as dysphoria.The researchers followed the children for two years to see if the treatments improved their mental health. An older Dutch study had found that puberty blockers improved well-being, results that inspired clinics around the world to regularly prescribe the medications as part of what is now called gender-affirming care.But the American trial did not find a similar trend, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said in a wide-ranging interview. Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began.“They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years,” said Dr. Olson-Kennedy, who runs the country’s largest youth gender clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.
The study’s primary conclusion was that puberty blockers did not lead to improvements in mental health for children experiencing gender distress. This outcome contradicts some prevailing assumptions about the benefits of “gender affirming care“.
Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a leading Los Angeles physician who runs the largest youth gender clinic in the United States, told the New York Times that she and her colleagues have delayed publication of results from a two-year-long study funded by the National Institutes of Health because they worried that the findings would be used by critics of transgender procedures for minors.“I do not want our work to be weaponized,” Olson-Kennedy told the publication….[T]he unpublished findings contradict preliminary research released by Olson-Kennedy and colleagues in 2022, which found approximately a quarter of adolescents were depressed or suicidal before starting either puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.It also contradicts the seminal Dutch study that has become the foundation for most gender clinics worldwide, which concluded that puberty blockers significantly improve the mental well-being of children with gender dysphoria.
And while the study may have focused on mental health issues, there are still numerous other potentially severe consequences that may result from using puberty blockers on young people. For example, In July 2022, the FDA issued a warning that puberty blockers carry a risk of pseudotumor cerebri. This condition can cause symptoms such as headaches, vision problems, and elevated blood pressure.
Puberty blockers can decrease bone mineralization, potentially putting children at risk for weaker bones. This effect may be reversible once treatment is stopped, but long-term studies are still needed to confirm this projection.
And a 2017 report revealed significant side effects in women who were given one particular puberty blocker, Lupron.
The Center for Investigative Reporting revealed in 2017 that the FDA had received more than10,000 adverse event reports from women who were given Lupron off -label as children to help them grow taller. They reported thinning and brittle bones, teeth that shed enamel orcracked, degenerative spinal disks, painful joints, radical mood swings, seizures, migraines and suicidal thoughts. Some developed fibromyalgia. There were reports of fertility problems and cognitive issues.
The non-publication of this study is a premier example of clear bias in research dissemination, which is the direct consequence of the ideological capture of the sciences (in this came medical science). Clearly, all relevant scientific data should be made available to inform medical practices and policy decisions, regardless of political sensitivities.
Pseudoscience practices, such as hiding data that fails to support a narrative, create toxic policies.
Given the data, it is clear the French were right — “gender affirming care” in children is “one of the greatest ethical scandals in the history of medicine”.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY