Children on puberty blockers saw mental health change - new analysis

There's a good article explaining how Peer Review papers are skewed and biased to support whatever the current ideology is, and how any reviews that would expose the negative aspects are rejected and never published.

Why published research is untrustworthy
[link.springer.com...]

People are being asked to not only accept loping off sexual organs but to also show support. I'd like to show my support by demanding the offending sexual organs of convicted pedophiles and rapists immediately be removed.

originally posted by: nugget1
There's a good article explaining how Peer Review papers are skewed and biased to support whatever the current ideology is, and how any reviews that would expose the negative aspects are rejected and never published.

Why published research is untrustworthy
[link.springer.com...]

People are being asked to not only accept loping off sexual organs but to also show support. I'd like to show my support by demanding the offending sexual organs of convicted pedophiles and rapists immediately be removed.

So which study is skewed and biased, the first one or the re-analysis of the first one?

a reply to: quintessentone

the whole structure as it stands now and stood then.. but logically we're approaching the point where we'll see the issues arising from the first cohort reaching the first big tipping point, early to mid 20s.. the suicides are creeping in and becoming noticeable for some of the earlier services..

when doing my recovery virtually everyone ranged from 20 to 26, some trigger event be iot drink, drugs, criminality, poor choices, addictions, sex led to an inevitable suicide attempts my arms and thighs are like chopping blocks as it was the only way i could control my hypervigilance when spending alone time in a room with a male, one friend would put stanley blades in her shoes (eqiv blades in us box cutters) and she was a psychiatric nurse on police call to the inevitable breaks.

affirmative care is going to be the root of most negative mental health issues, as the diverse issues need diverse care plans.. as i said in my other post i knew proto gays at school who tried feminine hygiene products to make sense of their attraction to boys and the question raised was if they were meant to be girls, affirmative care in those instances will cause as much damage as any other form of conversion therapy.

the only way to make this work is through the talking therapies so kids can find and be happy with themselves and their bodies, the longer this goes on the closer we'll get to that outcome as its the only workable one.

a reply to: nickyw

We can't just look at one element, that being puberty blockers or other treatments, because people's life experiences matter in the whole scheme of things and if society is pushing back on these children/adults causing them distress, that also needs to be considered a factor in their outcome, along with maturation changes and, of course, brain changes, if any, from those treatments. And as both studies claim, they just don't know the whys and hows yet.

I do agree that talk therapy should be applied and used rigorously with young children, but what if that doesn't work, then what? Nothing? What if the talk therapy is on the wrong track from those (non-transgender) that really do not understand what transgender people are going through? Perhaps we need transgender people in those professions who actually know what they are talking about.

originally posted by: continuousThunder

originally posted by: AlienBorg

Do you really need peer reviewed papers or pre-prints to determine this is a harmful drug?

That's uhhhh...... look i hate to break it to you buddy but that's what peer reviewed papers are for. It's called the scientific method and i know it's name is mud around here at the moment but if you looked at it objectively you would find that the vast, VAST majority of scientists and doctors who abide by it are firmly in agreement that gender affirming care is safe, important, and in many cases, necessary.

I would love to see that "peer reviewed paper"
do you have a link?

back in 2020 Finland did a 180 on puberty blockers after studying the effects and reaching the conclusion that something like 4 out of 5 kids would have come to accept their bodies with no medical intervention.

Getting ready for work so no dont have time to dig that paper up, for context finland was one of the first to embrace the drug.

a reply to: Terpene

Always have to mention that little cut. Still resentful? Imagine what these poor children might feel having their natural bodies and development taken away.

Can I have an opinion since I didn't opt for circumcision for my son, and he didn't opt same for his boys. So can't be called a hypocrite here.

The mind games arent coming from my side of the aisle. All this gaslighting demanding co-signatures from the sheeple is meant to break down psychological defenses to being lied to and controlled. Like a zombie drug. Some enjoy pushing this crap.

They said that the dead internet could be as high as 50%. I think so.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

But then again ask about circumcision and suddenly people are awfully tolerant towards parents that mutilate their kids. Weird...

What is weird is your fascination with circumcision - a procedure that causes ZERO discernible damage, and ZERO even short term much less long term damage either physical or mental.

There is simply no comparison whatsoever, yet you continue to try to claim there is.

But let me ask... How was it made illegal if not by politics?

Now you're claiming circumcision was made illegal?

Of course, I'm sure that isn't what you meant, but you need to learn to speak with precision and clarity, because that is exactly what it sounded like.

a reply to: nickyw

i think most people understand the way academia/state/media is massaging the narratives as the mood evolves.

That pretty much says it all; that's why 99% of what is printed/reported by the MSM is BS. Basically it's just propaganda flavor of the month.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: AlienBorg

100% saw their physical health deteriorate.

I was going to say it another way...

If the drugs worked as desired, that itself is evidence of extreme radical damage to a healthy growing young child.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Grenade

Thank you for simply and plainly answering Grenades question and telling us all in plain, simple language that you do indeed think children should be offered puberty blockers as a treatment.

a reply to: Terpene

You can’t even define the word woman so please stop using it.

We discussed how words need definition or they’re just random letters in another thread.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: AlienBorg

But then again ask about circumcision and suddenly people are awfully tolerant towards parents that mutilate their kids. Weird...

What is weird is your fascination with circumcision - a procedure that causes ZERO discernible damage, and ZERO even short term much less long term damage either physical or mental.

There is simply no comparison whatsoever, yet you continue to try to claim there is.

But let me ask... How was it made illegal if not by politics?

Now you're claiming circumcision was made illegal?

Of course, I'm sure that isn't what you meant, but you need to learn to speak with precision and clarity, because that is exactly what it sounded like.

He doesn't have much to say and he always goes to discuss circumcisions making parallels with the 'gender affirming' butchery of external genitalia.

But even though this is a very unfortunate comparison he has failed consistently to answer if he supports 'puberty blockers' given to children.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: nugget1
There's a good article explaining how Peer Review papers are skewed and biased to support whatever the current ideology is, and how any reviews that would expose the negative aspects are rejected and never published.

Why published research is untrustworthy
[link.springer.com...]

People are being asked to not only accept loping off sexual organs but to also show support. I'd like to show my support by demanding the offending sexual organs of convicted pedophiles and rapists immediately be removed.

So which study is skewed and biased, the first one or the re-analysis of the first one?

Read the page I linked; it explains what a sham 'peer review' is and how it's done.

originally posted by: nugget1

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: nugget1
There's a good article explaining how Peer Review papers are skewed and biased to support whatever the current ideology is, and how any reviews that would expose the negative aspects are rejected and never published.

Why published research is untrustworthy
[link.springer.com...]

People are being asked to not only accept loping off sexual organs but to also show support. I'd like to show my support by demanding the offending sexual organs of convicted pedophiles and rapists immediately be removed.

So which study is skewed and biased, the first one or the re-analysis of the first one?

Read the page I linked; it explains what a sham 'peer review' is and how it's done.

I've read many such articles and most of the skewing and bias are in those disciplines, such as sociology and psychology, which don't have out of the box thinking with their clinical studies, if they have clinical studies at all.

Take Freudian psychology as an example and how long it took to recognize it as a questionable theory (without empirical evidence):

Does evidence support Freudian psychology? Freud's theory is good at explaining but not predicting behavior (which is one of the goals of science). For this reason, Freud's theory is unfalsifiable – it can neither be proved true or refuted. For example, the unconscious mind is difficult to test and measure objectively.

www.simplypsychology.org...#:~:text=Does%20evidence%20support%20Freudian%20psychology,to%20test%20and%20measure%20objectively.

As for clinical studies on puberty blockers which are now being researched using larger cohorts of children, we need to wait for the results before condemning the studies as being skewed or biased.

That previous study was a small cohort group and the re-analysis was done on that same group, all in all, they are both saying the same thing, that being, they don't know the whys and hows - so I can only imagine the statistics are skewed from lack of data. Don't you?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

That's cute... What's your opinion on the topic?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Tank you for admitting that you'd rather pump them up with prozac and have them kill themselfs before offering adequate treatment.

originally posted by: AdifferentOpinion
Our #1 anti-trans activist/crusader strikes again! Yay!

Stop politicizing private medical decisions between parents and doctors. If you children aren't trans then why do you feel the need to tell other parents how to raise their children?

One tiny not peer reviewed study with dubious conclusions does not refute decades of study. Although there may be some positive mental health benefits using puberty inhibitors simply by the fact a child may feel [i]something is being done to help and their situation is being addressed, one of their primary functions is to reduce or eliminate mental health from getting worse as a transgender child's fears of unwanted pubertal development is very real and can be quite terrifying.

There seems to be this notion that trans kids are the new cool kids celebrated by their peers for their bravery etc. but the fact is most don't feel safe in school, most report bullying and abuse and with the Republican party in the back pocket of Christian Nationalists and fundamental religious extremists now targeting trans youth to engage their voters because they aren't doing it with their policies, the faux culture war they have stoked by creating a moral panic has put kids and families in severe emotional and economic distress. Families and kids are being uprooted and forced to move to states that haven’t passed intrusive and overreaching laws. Grassroots organizations are now popping up to help families relocate and if people really cared about kids, they wouldn’t be putting them in this situation.

I have studied the trans phenomenon for decades. I have known multiple transgender people including several now in their mid 20s who had suppressed puberty and I can tell you that individually tailored age appropriate care for the treatment of gender dysphoria works and the benefits far outweigh the risks and it has my full support as well as every major medical organization in the country.

Research Finds Significant Reduction in Depression, Suicidality in Youth Receiving Gender-Affirming Care or Puberty Blockers

Puberty blockers linked to lower suicide risk for transgender people

Psychological Functioning in Transgender Adolescents Before and After Gender-Affirmative Care Compared With Cisgender General Population Peers

Pu bertal Suppression for Transgender Youth and Risk of Suicidal Ideation

Meet The “Fringe Extremists” Pushing Flawed Science To Target Trans Kids

Inside The Cottage Industry Of ‘Experts’ Paid To Defend Anti-Trans Laws

Doctors Agree: Gender-Affirming Care is Life-Saving Care

There is no need to reply.
I know it bothers you as you have invested time and effort in this strange ideology but the reality is any type of 'gender affirming care' for minors is by definition harmful and it must be banned. And it has been banned in several states but it should be made illegal in all states no matter how woke they are.

'Gender affirming care' is nothing more than a misnomer for giving dangerous and harmful drugs and hormones to otherwise healthy children as well as body part mutilations in the name of this strange ideology where the aim is to achieve 'transition' which is physically impossible. Transwomen or transmen don't exist from a biological perspective. They're just men and women who pretend to be the opposite gender.

a reply to: Terpene

Pretty clear. Don't fool with kids healthy bodies. Common F'n sense.