When the NIHR Pathways project was announced, there was much disquiet. The £10.7m project included the proposed puberty blocker trial – an experiment on children that we know to be deeply unethical.
It is the job of the Health Research Agency to authorise such a trial via one of its ethics committees. When first called upon to do so in 2010 its instincts were to reject it. And yet within a year, the trial was underway. How did this happen? Where is the data from that trial?
Michael Searles, Health Correspondent at The Daily Telegraph has these questions and more. We are grateful to him that he has taken a keen interest in this matter and that he asked Our Duty to comment. Our full statement to him on the matter is reproduced, below:
“Parents already have grave concerns about the games health authorities are playing with their children’s wellbeing—and not without good cause. The majority of children given puberty blockers have suffered harm, and many deeply regret it.
The mistakes of the past must not be repeated. In 2010, the HRA rejected a trial of puberty blockers due to safety concerns, only to reverse its decision in 2011 and expand the trial’s scope in 2014. That experiment should have produced clear data on the harms of this treatment pathway. The fact that activists have sought to suppress that data is telling.
Now there are plans for a new trial—one that risks creating yet another cohort of damaged adolescents. We know far more today than we did 15 years ago. The HRA must act to protect the vulnerable, not rubber-stamp another unethical experiment.
We need the full follow-up data from the first trial. I am certain it will confirm what is already obvious: these treatments are reckless, harmful, and offer no benefit. Our Duty, like others including Dr David Bell, has made clear why a new trial cannot be conducted ethically. It is an unnecessary repeat of a past failure—and a grave injustice to its inevitable victims.
We know that whenever a loophole is created activists will find ways to enlarge and exploit it. We must learn from past failings, especially when the health and wellbeing of our children are at stake.”
Keith Jordan, spokesman for Our Duty
This statement was quoted in part in The Telegraph
The Telegraph also published an opinion piece which aligns with our position.
The original study resulted in a paper eventually being published in 2021. This is the paper that showed that 43 out of 44 patients went on to cross-sex hormones, a demonstrably catastrophic outcome. Far from giving patients time to think, puberty blockers seemed to cement their pathway to sex-trait modification. The now discredited Tavistock GIDS tried to put a positive spin on it. The study was short-term, with a two-year window similar to that proposed in the new study. It should be obvious to any observer that the long-term data from the original research is required so that what to study next is fully understood. What were the outcomes for these 44 individuals?
