Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news. Subscribe now.
LONDON, U.K., January 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Evidence has been released from a recent U.K. court case which ruled that puberty blockers are “experimental” treatments and that children are generally too young to consent to such drugs. Doctors termed puberty blocking treatment a “live experiment” and warned that there was no research to defend using the treatment.
In early December, the English High Court of Justice ruled that puberty blockers are “experimental” treatments and that for the most part they cannot be given to children attempting to “transition” to become a member of the opposite sex without the clinician having recourse to the courts.
The case had been brought by Miss Keira “Quincy” Bell and Mrs. A, the mother of an autistic child, both of whom sued the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, “which runs the UK’s only gender identity development service for children.”
Bell had begun taking “puberty blockers when she was 16, was injected with testosterone at 17 and had a mastectomy aged 20.” Now 23 and living according to her biological sex again, Bell said “she was treated like a ‘guinea pig’ at the clinic, and … doctors failed to carry out a proper psychiatric assessment and should have challenged her more over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager.”
The evidence heard in court had previously been confidential, but lawyers have successfully argued there is a “significant public interest in disclosing the material.” As Christian Post reporter Brandon Showalter wrote, “the ugly, unvarnished truth is slowly but surely coming to light.”
Professor Christopher Gillberg, a renowned expert in child and adolescent psychiatry, testified in court that puberty blocking treatment was a “live experiment” on vulnerable children. “In my years as a physician, I cannot remember an issue of greater significance for the practice of medicine,” he said. “We have left established evidence-based clinical practice and are using powerful life-altering medication for a vulnerable group of adolescents and children based upon a belief.”
Gillberg mentioned how “[t]housands of adolescents are being offered ‘treatment’ with puberty blockers, sex-contrary hormones … surgical procedures,” despite “the non-existent research evidence that these treatments are of any long-term benefit to the young people in question.”
His words were echoed by clinical psychiatrist Professor Stephen Levine, who “repeatedly questioned whether teenagers were capable of understanding the enormity of the ‘irreversible’ process of changing sex,” noting that the injections involved were not scientifically established as a “safe and effective intervention in the short or long term.”
Levine added that “there was no other field of medicine where such radical interventions are offered to children with such a poor evidence base,” warning of “life-long consequences.” Revealing that there had been no “controlled clinical trials” to test puberty blockers, Levine commented that there was a “toxic and febrile context” in which puberty blocking treatment was given, where “critical and cautious voices are shouted down as transphobic, hateful.”
“Such a climate has created an intimidating and hostile environment where silence and acquiescence are the inevitable consequence,” Levine stated. “It is left to those of us at the end of our careers, who have nothing to lose, to voice our concerns.”
The Sunday Times reported that Professor Sophie Scott, director of UCL’s Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, testified that “puberty blockers have profound effects on the developing body, and as part of the changes seen in adolescence involve hormonal effects on brain function, the impact of these drugs on the brain maturation are likely to be deleterious.”
Gillberg and others presented evidence to the court revealing a number of serious effects connected to puberty blocking treatment: “Puberty-halting drugs can harm a patient’s brain and bone development; Clinics are urging gender-changing teen girls to choose sperm donors to fertilise eggs before freezing them; Medics are failing to warn about the infertility risks posed by puberty blockers; Children who regret treatment find themselves ‘locked’ into new bodies; Internet sites persuade autistic children they are transgender when they simply have ‘identity issues.’”
The court evidence showed that children with autism are “particularly vulnerable” to being manipulated, with a “disproportionate number” of children alleging to have transgender identities “who were in care, adopted, autistic, anorexic or had psychiatric or mental illnesses.”
This petition asks the South Dakota Governor, Kristi Noem, to support the Vulnerable Child Protection Act, which seeks to protect gender-confused children from medical treatment which would wrongly treat puberty as a disease and cause permanent physical and mental problems.
Studies show that 85% of gender confused children eventually become comfortable with the sex of their bodies.
Puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones have not been proven safe. For example, the FDA has NOT approved Lupron and GnRH analogues for use in blocking puberty.
Risks associated with these pharmaceuticals include: low bone density, high blood pressure, weight gain, abnormal glucose tolerance, breast cancer, liver disease, thrombosis, and cardiovascular disease.
Additional risks and potential harms include:
For Males: Stunting of penile and testicular growth, sexual dysfunction, prevention of spermatogenesis, and disruption of normal brain and bone development.
For Females: A menopause-like state, blockade of normal breast development, decreased blood flow to vagina and vulva, sexual dysfunction, thinning of vaginal epithelium, vaginal atrophy, prevention of menses/ovulation, and disruption of normal brain and bone development.
In other words, these medications can sterilize and cause medical harm to vulnerable, confused children.
The Vulnerable Child Protection Act prohibits the following interventions on minor children: Surgeries including castration, vasectomy, hysterectomy, and vaginoplasty and mastectomies.
The Act also prohibits: prescribing, dispensing, or administering medications that block normal puberty; giving testosterone to females; giving estrogen to males; and, removing a healthy or non-diseased body part or tissue.
The Vulnerable Child Protection Act protects minors from medical professionals who would treat puberty as a disease. Support HB 1057.
The Ruth Institute and LifeSite are standing together on this petition, for children and against corrupt medical professionals.
Thank you for SIGNING and SHARING this important petition, today!
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
About HB1057: https://hb1057.com/
About the medical risks associated with medical interventions to attempt to change the sex of the body: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/01/59422/
About some of the unconscionable practices some medical professionals are engaged in:
Christian organization Voice for Justice U.K. released a video warning of the “child abuse” and “inhumanity” of gender “transitioning.” Figures presented show that between 2019 and 2020, 2,728 children in the U.K. were referred to GIDS, the majority being prescribed “puberty blockers.” A huge 97% of children who received such drugs “progress to hormone treatment” as teenagers. These children, Voice for Justice states, are “the collateral damage of Gender Ideology.”
In fact, Voice for Justice affirms the court evidence recently released, as the group notes that children who undergo transition surgery have a “suicide rate 19 times higher than peers, after surgery; impaired brain development, sterility … cancers and premature death.”
The director of GIDS, Dr. Polly Carmichael, claimed in court that puberty blockers gave children time to “to think about their gender identity,” and that the full import of the treatment was explained. However, both Levine and Professor Sophie Scott, a University College London professor, disputed Carmichael’s evidence, with Scott warning of detrimental effects on “brain maturation” and that Tavistock was “exposing young people to significant risk of harm.”