There’s a simple explanation here

The trial began in 2011. A year after starting the drugs, the young people were apparently more likely to report thoughts of wanting to harm themselves. The worry is that perhaps the treatment they received was causing them to have these thoughts of self-harm and suicide.

One of the criticisms of the study, put forward on Newsnight, is the design. The study involved giving the drugs to a group of adolescents and monitoring the effects. However, there was no control group, that is, adolescents who did not receive the drugs. This makes it hard to be sure whether the rates of self-harming thoughts are related to the drugs, would have happened anyway, or perhaps were lower than they would have been without treatment.

It is an important issue because there are high rates of self-harm and thoughts of suicide among children and teens with gender dysphoria.

In other words, they’re nuts.

34 thoughts on “There’s a simple explanation here”

  1. “Are you talking about the children or the doctors? Perhaps both.”

    I think in these cases the nuts stakes goes like this: Way out in front the parent(s), second the (so called) doctors and lastly by some distance the poor kids themselves.

  2. There’s a simple explanation here… The Body Snatchers captured Corbyn

    HoC – Boris Johnson’s explosive attack at Corbyn

    Pie on High Speed Rail – HS2

    Fingers crossed BoJo ignores sunk costs and cancels this national self harming vanity project that last week became £85bn, up from £56bn

    Why the increase? “Oh, err we’ve just realised HS rail costs more as it must be stronger.”

  3. dearieme said:
    “What sort of moron does a medical experiment without a control group?”


    And what Mr Lud said.

  4. The puberty blocking drugs are not supposed to be irreversible, though personally I find it hard to believe you can fiddle around with something as complex as the changes due to puberty and not have issues, but that is what the doctors say. Take them for a short while and stop and puberty kicks back in apparently.
    I’d disagree with Jim’s assessment of the order, while I’ve met the ‘mad’ parents who are pushing full steam ahead there’s usually a equally ‘mad’ doctor alongside them, a lot of parents are confused and dealing with their own emotional issues while trying to help and support their child, sometimes in the face of ‘mad’ doctors.
    Having a child go through this can be like dealing with a form of bereavement, especially for mothers of girls transitioning to boys and isn’t easy on the parents, the sane ones at least

  5. I find it hard to believe you can fiddle around with something as complex as the changes due to puberty and not have issues, but that is what the doctors say.

    Doctors are wrong and you’re right.

    It’s almost impossible to get a straight answer from Google on this subject because of how polarised it is, but puberty blockers may cause a number of deleterious side effects including sterility.

    Possibly more worryingly, there seems to be little or no long term studies with statistically significant sample sizes. Why? Mainly because trannyism for kids is a very recent fad. It was almost completely unheard of as recently as 1999 – something that in itself should give medical professionals pause.

    So for all we know, this could be another Thalidomide situation.

    Doctors, within living memory, thought it was OK to prescribe Thalidomide to pregnant women. They approved of trans-orbital lobotomies, sometimes with apparently ghoulish glee. They administered electro-shock therapy to gay men. They were sure ulcers were caused by stress. They’re still happy to dismember healthy babies in their mothers’ wombs and call it “health care”.

    Do we think, in Clown Year 2019, doctors are wiser than they were in 1969? They are not. Certainly not in the NHS, which is increasingly burdened with diversity.

    But just as “Climate Change” isn’t really a scientific issue at all, but a political, economic and eschatological social construct, “transgender” isn’t a real medical issue. Not in the sense it’s depicted. It’s a moral and philosophical problem.

    Here’s what we know: puberty is not a disease. Being a little girl or boy is not an illness. Hating your own body certainly is an illness – a mental illness – which no amount of synthetic hormones and sterilisation surgery can treat. Boys cannot “become” girls. Girls – however tomboyish – can’t be boys.

    History will damn these doctors for blithely destroying the lives of innocent children whose only mistake was being born into a sick society which, having discarded God, is now attempting to rebel against biology – reality – itself.

  6. Dearieme, sometimes you can’t use a control for ethical reasons, and I follow the argument against it here (not sure if I agree, but more on the grounds that the treatment itself is ethically questionable).

    Another reason is that you could not adequately blind this kind of trial as the lack of efficacy of the placebo will be obvious, and the kids will drop out of the trial and then take the drugs anyway. That will mess with follow up data, meaning it’s probably not possible to tease out the contribution of the drug as opposed to the underlying nuttiness to self-harming.

  7. The SJW stampeding everyone into supporting this lunacy has been a classic of its type and is going to cause a colossal scandal. Its going to take quite an effort to blame this one on Trump, conservatives, men or gun control.

  8. It’s known that self harm and suicide are high in trans kids so can’t they just look at the rate of the group vs that known rate. The fact they thought it increased the rate is scary.
    This is an expensive treatment would be curious how NICE justifies it in the U.K., here you need a prior approval from the benefits provider before the pharmacist will even order them and they may not cover it or may only cover part in which case you pay up front.

  9. Rob: ” Its going to take quite an effort to blame this one on Trump, conservatives, men or gun control.”

    C’mon Rob, you know it takes no effort at all. It’s all they’ve got!

  10. Primum noli nocere, first do no harm!
    Medical ethics teaching has shifted from basic principles to the gospel of “inclusivity”. Doctors teaching students are instructed to be positive at all times and not point out obvious idiocy either on the part of the students or the medical establishment. Previous scandals of wrongheadedness are buried rather than used as warnings about medical hubris.

  11. What Steve said. If it were possible to buy futures in screwed up kids suing their parents, doctors and the government, I’d be buying.

  12. This is an expensive treatment would be curious how NICE justifies it in the U.K.

    Politics. Like all bureaucratic and political organisations they react to incentives, in this case the incentive is agreeing to spend a tiny fraction of their budget in return for not having lunatics intimidate them 24/7, with the full backing of the media.

  13. Mr Lud, climate “scientists” don’t do experiments. Many don’t even do observations. Years ago I read a paper on how early data used to estimate ocean temperatures were based on sailors throwing a bucket into the water and hauling it back out with a rope. Then they’d stick a thermometer into the water.

    Fine, that’s how they did it. Did the authors try hauling buckets of briny aboard a boat, just to get a feel for what was involved? If so they didn’t mention it. Lack of intellectual curiosity, I’d say.

  14. @BiG: “sometimes you can’t use a control for ethical reasons, and I follow the argument against it here”

    I follow it too and assess it as bollocks, as such arguments sooften are. The argument begs the question – it assumes that the treatment is a jolly good thing and that therefore nobody should be denied it. But the purpose of a study is to establish whether it is a jolly good thing and you can’t tell unless you have a control group.

    I stand by my implication that they were being morons. Doubtless touchy-feely turned up to max, with oodles of emoting and vast amounts of virtue-signalling about ethics. But moronic. Hard-headed people are needed for that sort of work, not a bunch of squishy sofa-perchers.

  15. I don’t disagree with the moronity. It’s difficult to assess whether the study was any good when I can’t find any data about it at all, not even what treatments were investigated, except that it was supposedly a “small sample”.

    It’s entirely possible it was badly designed and badly executed, but for the reasons above it is not really possible to control a trial of this kind of product. Trial participants always have the right to withdraw and those in the placebo group will do so once it becomes obvious they are in the placebo group. This phenomenon has ruined more clinical trials than I care to remember. You can only practically run an unblindable study if the subjects believe that there is no advantage to one treatment over the other, or where you are adding an unlicensed product to essential treatment such as chemotherapy, because said unlicensed product is not something you will get outside the trial context, and being “unlucky”, and landing in the control arm makes very little difference to your life beyond a few minutes filling in forms.

    As soon as the product is on the market (as here), the patient’s calculus changes drastically. Sponsors then typically pull stunts like randomising 2:1 to persuade people to join a new trial. And eventually a product can become so established that it is no longer ethically possible to run a placebo-controlled trial at all. That is now the case with these puberty blockers – they have the desired (I agree this is not necessarily the same as desirable) effect, so if you desire the effect, nothing will motivate you to join a trial with a risk of not getting the treatment, or to stay in it once it was clear you are not getting it, and no ethics commission in the land would approve it.

    So there are, actually, a large number of reasons why you cannot always perform controlled (let alone placebo-controlled) studies, and some of those reasons apply to this study.

    I’ll leave the discussion about how useful cherry-picked safety signals from small studies are for later.

    I’m not defending the trial or the treatment, just the position that there are many times when you cannot properly (or at all) control studies.

  16. Fair enough, BiG: my preference would then be that if you can’t do a control study don’t big up your results.

  17. It looks like they are doing the opposite, though. Study disappeared without trace, or at least the papers can’t be bothered to link to it.

  18. Surely these things didn’t get their licence without a control group study.

    Anyway If there are puberty blockers are there puberty advancers? Just thinking there’s probably a market for that once the PB people have kicked down door marked ‘let nature take its course’. I mean its not really fun to be the last in your year group to develop adult features.

  19. Ted S, Catskill Mtns, NY, USA

    Giving life-altering drugs to children is abuse. No ifs, no buts.

    What about chemotherapy for kids with cancer?

  20. Hallowed, they are licensed in other indications. Use to delay puberty is off-label, for the ones I could find. Same as “feminising” therapies like aldactone. That’s licensed and fairly widely used as an antihypertensive, and its effects on androgen receptor are a labelled side effect. Trans patients use it off-label, because they want the labelled side effects.

    You are not likely to see many, if any, studies for this indication, for commercial reasons (products long out of patent, tiny market).

  21. BiG ah i see. So will likely remain perfect environment for woo merchants and dr feelgoods. I agree with the others this will be extremely messy down the line.

  22. “Let’s give some of this stuff to kids and see what happens.”

    “That’s unethical; you can’t do it!”

    “What if we call it a study?”

    “Oh, yes, well, that would be fine. Go ahead!”

  23. @ Gamecock
    That is too flattering.
    “This will destroy or damage the natural development of the kids of these neurotic parents”
    “How are we going to get permission from the bureaucrats?”
    “Call it a study – but don’t have a control group so they cannot see how much damage it wil cause to otherwise healthy kids”

  24. @TMB July 26, 2019 at 9:03 am

    Well it was about changing & self-harm by gender fluid supporters…


    A daily “Open Thread” (or an Unthreaded as at BH) might be a useful addition for posting OT news – saves need for word gymnastics

  25. This is an entirely fake epidemic. Mentally ill adults encouraging children to display the behaviours of mental illness in return for social and political rewards. If instead these kids were placed in a padded cell and it was made known that they were crazy and delusional, the occurrence rate for this idiocy would be near enough to 0.0%.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *