Read on Twitter
The GIDS / UCLH study has been published at long last, a day after the High Court judgment last week: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.01.20241653v1
The study “identified no changes in psychological function, quality of life or degree of gender dysphoria.” This contrasts with the Dutch study that is the cornerstone for the use of early pubertal suppression in gender clinics worldwide.
The authors suggest two possible explanations. (1) PBs had no impact at all. (2) it is developmentally normal for wellbeing to decline in early adolescence, but here the PBs put that on hold, halting the decline. Of course, they have no idea which it is.
It’s worth recalling the GIDS Director's words, when recruitment had been completed, but the study had another 5 yrs to run:
“Now we’ve done the study and the results thus far have been positive we’ve decided to continue with it...” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631472/NHS-sex-change-drugs-nine-year-olds-Clinic-accused-playing-God-treatment-stops-puberty.html
“Now we’ve done the study and the results thus far have been positive we’ve decided to continue with it...” https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631472/NHS-sex-change-drugs-nine-year-olds-Clinic-accused-playing-God-treatment-stops-puberty.html
At this point GIDS made a key error: they removed the lower age limit of 12 saying it was “obviously fairer” to offer blockers to children “if they started puberty aged 9 or 10.” “Following evaluation” they also lifted them out of the study & introduced blockers into general use.
But when asked (FOI 19-20108) for info on the evaluation, @TaviAndPort said it was “based both on international findings & on careful consideration of our own experience”. When asked (FOI 19-20155) for documentation of the “careful consideration”, there was just word salad.
Then @HRA_Latest were asked to look into the study but said, effectively, nothing was wrong. They did ask @NHSEngland to:
“provide guidance to NHS organisations on appropriate and transparent oversight and governance of innovative practice undertaken outside research.“
“provide guidance to NHS organisations on appropriate and transparent oversight and governance of innovative practice undertaken outside research.“
But a letter to @NHSEngland (copied to @PaulJThinks) asking if they’d be taking up this recommendation produced no answer.
So one year on, there is still no NHS guidance & now the High Court has stepped in to provide the ‘transparent oversight’ that @TaviAndPort and @NHSEngland failed to do themselves. The law has delivered an overdue reality check, as this article describes: https://capx.co/the-keira-bell-case-was-not-a-defeat-for-trans-people-but-a-victory-for-restraint/
