Experimenting on kids: UK’s clinical trial on puberty blockers draws firestorm of criticism 

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS) is awaiting final approval to move forward with a clinical study on the effects of puberty blockers on children with gender dysphoria – despite fears for the children’s safety. 

Critics cite unknown consequences for the children who will take the controversial drugs, especially in light of last year’s highly acclaimed systematic review, led by British pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass, that found “remarkably weak evidence” of their positive effects. 

About 6,000 children are on the national gender clinic waiting list and may be eligible to take puberty blockers as part of the trial if approved by their parents and doctors, reports The Telegraph. 

A spokesman for the Department of Health said Labour Health Secretary Wes Streeting insisted the trial proceed. Streeting, he said, had “been crystal clear about the need for children’s healthcare to be evidence-led.” 

Puberty blockers ban supported earlier 

An “indefinite” ban on puberty blockers in the UK was enacted in December in the wake of the Cass Review, the final report of which was published last April. 

Streeting supported the ban on puberty blockers, observing that “the independent expert Commission on Human Medicines found that the current prescribing and care pathway for gender dysphoria and incongruence presents an unacceptable safety risk for children and young people.” 

“Dr Cass’ review also raised safety concerns around the lack of evidence for these medical treatments,” Streeting said. “We need to act with caution and care when it comes to this vulnerable group of young people, and follow the expert advice.” 

Now, critics of the clinical trial are expressing concern and even shock that, following Cass’ findings and the subsequent ban on puberty blockers, officials could support allowing children to take the drugs for a study. 

As The Telegraph reported, Conservative Party Leader Kemi Badenoch said it is “hard to believe there could ever be an ethical way of trialling these irreversible drugs for this purpose.” 

The central focus of the Cass Review was the use of puberty blockers and other medical interventions associated with what the transgender medical industry refers to as “gender-affirming care” for children struggling with gender dysphoria. 

‘Unproven benefits, significant risks’ 

“The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress,” Cass wrote, concluding plainly that “no changes in gender dysphoria or body satisfaction were demonstrated” as a result of puberty blockers. 

Additionally, Cass and her review team “found multiple studies” that show puberty blockers not only suppress puberty, but also compromise bone density.  

The UK’s Department of Health and Social Care included Cass’ statement in its press release regarding the ban on puberty blockers: 

“Puberty blockers are powerful drugs with unproven benefits and significant risks, and that is why I recommended that they should only be prescribed following a multi-disciplinary assessment and within a research protocol. I support the government’s decision to continue restrictions on the dispensing of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria outside the NHS where these essential safeguards are not being provided.” 

According to The Times, Cass applauded the new trial, claiming it “aims to fill some of the gaps in our knowledge about the outcomes of different interventions and address some of the uncertainty about the impacts and efficacy of puberty-suppressing hormones.” 

Can it be done ethically? 

However, in an op-ed at The Telegraph last week, psychiatrist Dr. David Bell wrote that, while “the Government, responding to the findings of the Cass Review, has rightly banned the prescription of these drugs,” the announcement of a clinical trial “raises a fundamental question: can a clinical trial of puberty blockers on children experiencing gender distress be done ethically?” 

“The answer, upon scrutiny, is a resounding ‘no,’” asserted Bell, one of the whistleblowers who exposed the treatment of children at the now-closed Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust. 

“I have witnessed firsthand the grave dangers posed by the rush to medicalise childhood gender distress,” Bell continued: 

“What we uncovered was a service driven more by ideology than by robust clinical reasoning. Many distressed children, often same-sex attracted and with autistic comorbidities, were put on a medical pathway to transition by some clinicians who had been captured by ‘trans’ ideology and, as a result, cast aside ordinary sound clinical judgment. A clinical trial risks repeating these ethical failures.”  

The study, as The Times reports, will track the health and mental well-being of children on puberty blockers as they attend new NHS gender clinics. Other children who attend the clinics without taking puberty blockers will also be part of the trial. 

Reportedly, the study will also monitor how puberty blockers affect children’s thinking and brain development. 

Scant follow-up 

The trial’s researchers at King’s College London said the study will be subject to strict ethical and safety standards. Nevertheless, the announcement of only a two-year follow-up period for children participating in the study drew another firestorm. 

“A two-year follow-up will tell us nothing at all about risks or benefits of puberty blockers,” Dr. Louise Irvine, co-chairwoman of the clinical advisory network on sex and gender, said, according to The Times. “I am shocked they are putting children through the known risks of puberty blockers for no gain in knowledge and I consider it totally unethical.” 

Colin Wright, editor-in-chief of Reality’s Last Stand, also blasted the two-year follow-up period. 

“This is a woefully insufficient amount of time to assess the long-term risks of these body- and mind-altering drugs,” he posted to X. “It’s as though they’re trying not to find anything.” 

“The Cass Review was clear about the lack of long-term studies on PBs,” Wright continued. “NHS banned PBs, allowing their use only in clinical trials. So why are we running a trial that gives kids PBs but is designed in a way that won’t provide the crucial long-term data we need?” 

Physician Travis Morrell commented as well that monitoring the children in the trial for only two years “is a joke and won’t meaningfully add to our knowledge about safety or help.”