New Study Shows Puberty Blockers May Cause Permanent Harm

[Ana the Ist]

Top experts call for sea change to treating transgender kids

'Studies have shown that there is no good evidence for the routine use of puberty blockers,' Oxford University endocrinologist Ashley Grossman said ahead of the release of long-awaited UK review.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Who would have thought that blocking the natural development of children would have significant lifelong consequences?

That study, and Professor Grossman's comments, bring into question the 'reversibility' of puberty blockers — a key claim of the trans campaigners who promote the drugs and say they 'pause' puberty and buy time for trans kids to make decisions about their gender.

I have to wonder if parents are ever told that these drugs are completely experimental and have never been used to treat "gender dysphoria"....and now they know, that long term use can sterilize children. Remarkable.

WPATH recommended this stuff...and that's why trans activists shouldn't be devising their own treatments.

Thoughts?

Edit-this study has yet to be peer reviewed.

 

[RileyG]

Doesn’t surprise me. This trans agenda needs to stop. Enough children have been hurt by this ideology. Lord, have mercy

 

[Whyayeman]

Ah, the Daily Mail (on-line version), reliably slanted to fit that paper's anti-woke agenda!

Having life-changing consequences is the purpose of these drugs.. Professor Grossman advocates a properly clinical approach. That is why the professor warns that should not be used routinely.

 

[Laodicean60]

Who would have thought that blocking the natural development of children would have significant lifelong consequences?

It's common sense, when you try to change the course of nature you'll have side effects.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Ah, the Daily Mail (on-line version), reliably slanted to fit that paper's anti-woke agenda!

Having life-changing consequences is the purpose of these drugs.. Professor Grossman advocates a properly clinical approach. That is why the professor warns that should not be used routinely.

Having life ending or health-altering consequences should put on the brakes, especially for children who are still developing.

Adults can do any stupid thing they want, even cut off operable body parts...gee, no side effects there. Adult women have always been told to stay on mere birth control pills for the shortest time possible because of the risk of reproductive cancers. This is a much more potentially dangerous experiment - with growing children.

 

[Whyayeman]

Having life ending or health-altering consequences should put on the brakes, especially for children who are still developing.

Adults can do any stupid thing they want, even cut off operable body parts...gee, no side effects there. Adult women have always been told to stay on mere birth control pills for the shortest time possible because of the risk of reproductive cancers. This is a much more potentially dangerous experiment - with growing children.

I agree that there is a potential for harm by getting it wrong. I think that is why Professor Grossman advocates a professional clinical approach. These are not sweeties to be handed out on the whim of an adolescent.

That is not the same as a ban.

 

[hislegacy]

Ban on children’s puberty blockers to be enforced in private sector in England

CQC will check new guidance in Cass report is applied by private care providers to avoid ‘two-tier’ access to drugs

www.theguardian.com

hopefully the US will be as brave and intelligent as the UK

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I agree that there is a potential for harm by getting it wrong. I think that is why Professor Grossman advocates a professional clinical approach. These are not sweeties to be handed out on the whim of an adolescent.

That is not the same as a ban.

Agreed. But I think we will look at this as we now look at lobotomies for depression, once in the rear view mirror. We absolutely should not be doing surgery and drug experiments on children.

 

[Whyayeman]

Agreed. But I think we will look at this as we now look at lobotomies for depression, once in the rear view mirror. We absolutely should not be doing surgery and drug experiments on children.

There has been a 'pause' in Scotland. We shall see what happens.

In general terms I disagree about your assertion about 'experiments on children'. There are times when procedures which have not gained full approval should be used, such as in cases where no other treatment has worked. I include so-called puberty blockers, whose purpose is to allow patients to make a more informed decision later.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

There has been a 'pause' in Scotland. We shall see what happens.

In general terms I disagree about your assertion about 'experiments on children'. There are times when procedures which have not gained full approval should be used, such as in cases where no other treatment has worked. I include so-called puberty blockers, whose purpose is to allow patients to make a more informed decision later.

They have lasting side effects. They are not "easy to stop" as represented. The detransitioner lawsuits might enlighten you.

 

[Pommer]

They have lasting side effects. They are not "easy to stop" as represented. The detransitioner lawsuits might enlighten you.

Post them then.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Post them then.

Some detailed here: Here Come the Gender-Detransitioner Lawsuits

"Isabelle Ayala was 14 years old when she was committed to a hospital for suicidal thoughts. She met with a doctor, who she says claimed she met the criteria “to consider hormonal transition.” In a lawsuit filed by the law firm of Campbell Miller Payne PLLC, which is specializing in representing detransitioners, Ayala, now 20, says that instead of addressing her mental health needs, she was taken down a path of “gender-affirming medicalization.” She is suing her doctors and the American Academy of Pediatrics.


She’s not the only one. Luka Hein, who is represented by the Center for American Liberty, is suing health care providers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. There currently appear to be nearly 10 lawsuits. But more are coming because many patients believe they were encouraged to take the gender-affirming medicalization route without being fully informed of all the life-long implications and negative consequences."

More cases detailed here:

The law firm’s website page listing active cases shows the four cases it is currently representing:

• Mosely v. Emerson, et al. (filed July 17, 2023, in North Carolina);
• Aldaco v. Perry, et al. (filed July 21, 2023, in Texas);
• Ulery v. Rafferty, et al. (filed October 20, 2023, in Rhode Island);
• Ayala v. American Academy of Pediatrics (filed October 23 in Rhode Island).

There are more, but I don't have time today to track them all down.

 

[Whyayeman]

Some detailed here: Here Come the Gender-Detransitioner Lawsuits

"Isabelle Ayala was 14 years old when she was committed to a hospital for suicidal thoughts. She met with a doctor, who she says claimed she met the criteria “to consider hormonal transition.” In a lawsuit filed by the law firm of Campbell Miller Payne PLLC, which is specializing in representing detransitioners, Ayala, now 20, says that instead of addressing her mental health needs, she was taken down a path of “gender-affirming medicalization.” She is suing her doctors and the American Academy of Pediatrics.


She’s not the only one. Luka Hein, who is represented by the Center for American Liberty, is suing health care providers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. There currently appear to be nearly 10 lawsuits. But more are coming because many patients believe they were encouraged to take the gender-affirming medicalization route without being fully informed of all the life-long implications and negative consequences."

More cases detailed here:

The law firm’s website page listing active cases shows the four cases it is currently representing:

• Mosely v. Emerson, et al. (filed July 17, 2023, in North Carolina);
• Aldaco v. Perry, et al. (filed July 21, 2023, in Texas);
• Ulery v. Rafferty, et al. (filed October 20, 2023, in Rhode Island);
• Ayala v. American Academy of Pediatrics (filed October 23 in Rhode Island).

There are more, but I don't have time today to track them all down.

These cases are all very recent. Have any reached a conclusion? Until they do they are merely allegations and not evidence in support of your claim.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Having life-changing consequences is the purpose of these drugs.. Professor Grossman advocates a properly clinical approach. That is why the professor warns that should not be used routinely.

Certain ones are intended "life changing alterations" the other ones are not.

One of the big ones they're looking into is impacts on bone density.
There are others

Puberty blockers for transgender and gender-diverse youth

Understand how puberty blockers work to suppress puberty. Learn about their benefits, side effects and long-term effects.

www.mayoclinic.org

If it turns out the person wants to continue with affirming treatment, then the life-long drugs taken at that point can have a pretty substantial risk profile with regards to how they impact certain internal organs like the liver and cardiovascular health. (including elevated cholesterol and increased risk of blood clots)

And that's something that needs to be considered as well, as part of this whole risk calculation.

While the defense usually given is "for the quality of life improvement, it's worth allowing people to make those risk calculations for themselves", people need to consider that within the context of what we know about people in the 15-24 age range.

Despite the 18-24 subset technically being adults, when it comes to that 15-24 age range, regardless of whether or not not it's a person with gender dysphoria or just your average young person, risk considerations and "thinking about the long term" isn't typically the strong suit of people in that age range (especially with regards to considering health risks). Virtually no 15-20 year old is thinking about "increased risk of liver damage and blood clots when I'm 40". I've never heard a high school sophomore utter he words "I shouldn't eat that, I've got my cholesterol to think about".

If you ask me now, as an adult in their 40's, "do you want to smoke cigarettes", my answer would be a definitive "no". However, the 16 year old me thought it was an okay idea, and continued to smoke until I was in my mid-20's despite it having a label on the box saying "this can give you cancer" because it gave me some sort of "social connection" I was looking for and the threat of "these health risks could pop up when you're in your 50's" was so far down the road that it wasn't even a blip on my radar.

 

[RileyG]

Ah, the Daily Mail (on-line version), reliably slanted to fit that paper's anti-woke agenda!

Having life-changing consequences is the purpose of these drugs.. Professor Grossman advocates a properly clinical approach. That is why the professor warns that should not be used routinely.

Children don't know what they are. They may regret it later on. They don't need to be treated like guinea pigs.

 

[RileyG]

Agreed. But I think we will look at this as we now look at lobotomies for depression, once in the rear view mirror. We absolutely should not be doing surgery and drug experiments on children.

Amen! We are going to look at trans surgery/hormone "therapy" the same way we looked at lobotomies. Makes me sick.

 

[Whyayeman]

Amen! We are going to look at trans surgery/hormone "therapy" the same way we looked at lobotomies. Makes me sick.

No we won't.

 

[Whyayeman]

Children don't know what they are. They may regret it later on. They don't need to be treated like guinea pigs.

They are not being offered to children who are too young to understand. Here at least they are only offered to those young people whom the law accepts as responsible - over sixteens. In the UK a person can marry at sixteen, the age of consent.

 

[RileyG]

No we won't.

How do you know? We do not know what the future holds.

 

[RileyG]

They are not being offered to children who are too young to understand. Here at least they are only offered to those young people whom the law accepts as responsible - over sixteens. In the UK a person can marry at sixteen, the age of consent.

Fine then. Still think 16 is far too young. The brain isn't mature until 25.