Science U.S. Study on Puberty Blockers Goes Unpublished Because of Politics, Doctor Says - The leader of the long-running study said that the drugs did not improve mental health in children with gender distress and that the finding might be weaponized by opponents of the care.

1729708288031.png

An influential doctor and advocate of adolescent gender treatments said she had not published a long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs because of the charged American political environment.

The doctor, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, began the study in 2015 as part of a broader, multimillion-dollar federal project on transgender youth. She and colleagues recruited 95 children from across the country and gave them puberty blockers, which stave off the permanent physical changes — like breasts or a deepening voice — that could exacerbate their gender distress, known as dysphoria.

The researchers followed the children for two years to see if the treatments improved their mental health. An older Dutch study had found that puberty blockers improved well-being, results that inspired clinics around the world to regularly prescribe the medications as part of what is now called gender-affirming care.

But the American trial did not find a similar trend, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said in a wide-ranging interview. Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began.

“They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years,” said Dr. Olson-Kennedy, who runs the country’s largest youth gender clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.

That conclusion seemed to contradict an earlier description of the group, in which Dr. Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues noted that one quarter of the adolescents were depressed or suicidal before treatment.

In the nine years since the study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and as medical care for this small group of adolescents became a searing issue in American politics, Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s team has not published the data. Asked why, she said the findings might fuel the kind of political attacks that have led to bans of the youth gender treatments in more than 20 states, one of which will soon be considered by the Supreme Court.

“I do not want our work to be weaponized,” she said. “It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time.”

She said that she intends to publish the data, but that the team had also been delayed because the N.I.H. had cut some of the project’s funding. She attributed that cut, too, to politics, which the N.I.H. denied. (The broader project has received $9.7 million in government support to date.)

Dr. Olson-Kennedy is one of the country’s most vocal advocates of adolescent gender treatments and has served as an expert witness in many legal challenges to the state bans. She said she was concerned the study’s results could be used in court to argue that “we shouldn’t use blockers because it doesn’t impact them,” referring to transgender adolescents.

Other researchers, however, were alarmed by the idea of delaying results that would have immediate implications for families around the world.

“I understand the fear about it being weaponized, but it’s really important to get the science out there,” said Amy Tishelman, a clinical and research psychologist at Boston College who was one of the study’s original researchers.

Dr. Tishelman also noted that, even if the drugs did not lead to psychological improvements, they may have prevented some of the children from getting worse. “No change isn’t necessarily a negative finding — there could be a preventative aspect to it,” she said. “We just don’t know without more investigation.”

In the 1990s and 2000s, doctors in the Netherlands began studying a small group of children who had experienced intense gender dysphoria since early childhood. For most of these children, the negative feelings dissipated by puberty. For others, puberty made them feel worse.

For those who struggled, the researchers began prescribing puberty blockers, which had long been used to treat children whose puberty began unusually early. The Dutch scientists reasoned that by preventing the permanent changes of puberty, transgender adolescents would fare better psychologically and fit in more comfortably in society as adults.

In 2011, the researchers reported on the first 70 children who were treated with the so-called Dutch Protocol. The children were thoroughly assessed to make sure that they had persistent dysphoria and supportive parents and that they did not have serious psychiatric conditions that might interfere with treatment.

These patients showed some psychological improvements after puberty blockers: fewer depressive symptoms, as well as significant declines in behavioral and emotional problems. All the patients chose to continue their gender transitions by taking testosterone or estrogen.

The findings were highly influential even before they were published, and clinics around the world opened to treat transgender adolescents with puberty blockers and hormones.

England’s youth gender clinic in 2011 tried to replicate the Dutch results with a study of 44 children. But at a conference five years later, the British researchers reported that puberty blockers had not changed volunteers’ well-being, including rates of self-harm. Those results were not made public until 2020, years after puberty blockers had become the standard treatment for children with gender dysphoria in England.

In 2020, Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s group described the initial psychological profile of the children enrolled in the U.S. study of puberty blockers, whose average age was 11. Before receiving the drugs, around one quarter of the group reported depression symptoms and significant anxiety, and one quarter reported ever having thoughts of suicide. Eight percent reported a past suicide attempt.

In a progress report submitted to the N.I.H. at that time, Dr. Olson-Kennedy outlined her hypothesis of how the children would fare after two years on puberty blockers: that they would show “decreased symptoms of depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, self-injury, and suicidality, and increased body esteem and quality of life over time.”

That hypothesis does not seem to have borne out. “They have good mental health on average,” Dr. Olson-Kennedy said in the interview with The New York Times. “They’re not in any concerning ranges, either at the beginning or after two years.” She reiterated this idea several times.

When asked in follow-up emails to clarify how the children could have good initial mental health when her preliminary findings had showed one quarter of them struggling, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said that, in the interview, she was referring to data averages and that she was still analyzing the full data set.

Dr. Hilary Cass, a pediatrician who this year published an extensive review of youth gender services in England, said that the delays from the American and British research groups had led the public to believe that puberty blockers improved mental health, even though scant evidence backed up that conclusion.

“It’s really important we get results out there so we understand whether it’s helpful or not, and for whom,” Dr. Cass said.

Her report found weak evidence for puberty blockers and noted some risks, including lags in bone growth and fertility loss in some patients. It prompted the National Health Service in England to stop prescribing the drugs outside of a new clinical trial, following similar pullbacks in several other European countries.

An N.I.H. spokesman said that while the agency generally encourages the publication of data supported by its grants, researchers decide how and when to do so.

Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s collaborators have also not yet published data they collected on how puberty blockers affected the adolescents’ bone development.

But many other papers have been published from the wider N.I.H. project, including a 2023 study of older transgender and nonbinary adolescents who took estrogen or testosterone to aide their gender transition. After two years on hormones, the volunteers showed improvements in life and body satisfaction, and patients taking testosterone showed declines in depression and anxiety. (Two of the 315 patients died by suicide, a rate much higher than the general population.)

Dr. Olson-Kennedy noted that doctors’ clinical experience was often undervalued in discussions of research. She has prescribed puberty blockers and hormonal treatments to transgender children and adolescents for 17 years, she said, and has observed how profoundly beneficial they can be.

Although the N.I.H. studies are large, she said, “these are minuscule compared to the amount of people that we’ve taken care of.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/science/puberty-blockers-olson-kennedy.html (Archive)
 
You're goddam' right.
Can't change sex, shouldn't be allowed to even try.
Transgender promotion/normalizing is on par with Flat Earth
No no, I mean people like Cass who would throw out literally dozens (like 60) of studies because they come to a conclusion different to what she wants but includes the three that she agrees with. Very dangerous to have people like her have an actual impact on the world. Changing someones sex while not possible (yet) seems to be quite safe and the surveys and studies prove it.
 
Changing someones sex while not possible (yet) seems to be quite safe and the surveys and studies prove it.
You know, I'm starting to warm up to your suggestions.
I think we should accelerate the experimentations see where they lead. We need to wrangle "voluntaries" and then, for science and the greatness of modern medicine, we need to get to work on them.
 
Ah so a lesbian who pretends to be straight marries a lesbian pretending to be a homosexual man thus avoiding the appearance of being a lesbian. Yes. Very scientific and rational.
The Aydin is pretending to be a straight man.
She knows why it's disturbing. She herself is clearly disturbed by it.
This bitch has been promoting childhood troonery for almost 20 years. You can't convince me she isn't a true believer.
 
You know, I'm starting to warm up to your suggestions.
I think we should accelerate the experimentations see where they lead. We need to wrangle "voluntaries" and then, for science and the greatness of modern medicine, we need to get to work on them.
That's what has been happening. I'm glad a lowly backwards Romanian man like yourself understand the importance of making life as comfortable for everyone.
 
No no, I mean people like Cass who would throw out literally dozens (like 60) of studies because they come to a conclusion different to what she wants but includes the three that she agrees with. Very dangerous to have people like her have an actual impact on the world. Changing someones sex while not possible (yet) seems to be quite safe and the surveys and studies prove it.
I assume you're talking about the Cass report? Has someone done a re-analysis of the report, even if it's just written up on a blog post/Substack somewhere? If there was a version that cut out all surveys, I might be able to believe it over Cass. Otherwise, I doubt anyone can do better.
 
No no, I mean people like Cass who would throw out literally dozens (like 60) of studies because they come to a conclusion different to what she wants but includes the three that she agrees with. Very dangerous to have people like her have an actual impact on the world. Changing someones sex while not possible (yet) seems to be quite safe and the surveys and studies prove it.
No, you should read the fine print a bit more carefully. Those studies were rejected because they're unscientific gibberish. Only a hair more scientific than fortune telling cold reading.
 
No no, I mean people like Cass who would throw out literally dozens (like 60) of studies because they come to a conclusion different to what she wants but includes the three that she agrees with. Very dangerous to have people like her have an actual impact on the world. Changing someones sex while not possible (yet) seems to be quite safe and the surveys and studies prove it.
This is you. :ramona: This is what you look like.
 
I assume you're talking about the Cass report? Has someone done a re-analysis of the report, even if it's just written up on a blog post/Substack somewhere? If there was a version that cut out all surveys, I might be able to believe it over Cass. Otherwise, I doubt anyone can do better.
If I recall there are two plus another in development. One from Yale and this one.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Toolbox
No, you should read the fine print a bit more carefully. Those studies were rejected because they're unscientific gibberish. Only a hair more scientific than fortune telling cold reading.
Sorry I was wrong, 40 were deemed low-quality, another 60 were deemed medium-quality, all 100 were not used. That was the opinion of the University of York.
I see you don't seem to understand what the N stands for in YWNBAW.

It stands for you, Nigger.
I thought YWNBAW stood for Young West Nubian Basketball Association W.
 
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Prokhor Zakharov
Can't change sex, shouldn't be allowed to even try.
Bu-bu-but there were always transes throughout history!

Seriously, though, if there were, they sure weren't throwing tantrums about it. It's a funny coincidence that all of a sudden we get sturm and drang over it because titty skittles are now a thing.

Frankly, though, we don't look at the idea that generally, demanding everyone accept you is unquestionably unhealthy, and yet these maniacal morons keep insisting "we must have acceptance!" You may as well try and sue someone for not being madly in love with you, for all the sense it makes.
 
Any bias against reality is very dangerous.
Agreed why should we give into the delusions of men in dresses. I think it's high time we said no to that.
No no, I mean people like Cass who would throw out literally dozens (like 60) of studies because they come to a conclusion different to what she wants but includes the three that she agrees with. Very dangerous to have people like her have an actual impact on the world. Changing someones sex while not possible (yet) seems to be quite safe and the surveys and studies prove it.
There is more evidence to suggest letting people change their gender is a bad idea.
 
If I recall there are two plus another in development. One from Yale and this one.

The Yale release is an academic rebuttal of a review that indicated concerning trends (preventing a child from developing into a fully functioning adult) in this field. This kind of rebuttal is issued to any study that doesn't toe the line, such as the ROGD (Rapid-onset gender dysphoria) study that was released by J. Michael Bailey (someone who has been an enemy of the political trans activist community for decades) and was retracted after the publisher was harassed continuously. Lo and behold, after continuous harassment, the publisher conveniently found a small ethical concern that justified them in retracting the article. Their M.O is usually to create their own standards, violently enforce those standards and then claim that deviation from those standards is 'bad' science and that people should only trust their science. Anyone with a brain knows not to trust any social scientist.

Why is the activism typically so brutal and all-encompassing? It's because men are generally at the forefront of the transgender activism. Angry men. Your claim that sex changes are safe and your presumption that we may soon have the science to do a complete sex change is fraught at best. Sex typed differences begin as soon as language development begins, which is infancy, and these changes help form the way we process and treat the world. Why are there language analysis programs that can accurately predict the sex of the writer even if they've been on estrogen for years? It's because that human being has a male brain and a Y chromosome, which influences certain critical things. Men and women aren't that different, but those differences are very hard to change. Promoting acceptance with biological sex, keeping an open but reasonable mind, and balancing the needs of society with the needs of the individual are important here. There are real downsides to blindly pushing hordes of depressed, lonely people into thinking that their identity is a ball of wet clay in their own hands.
 
This really all began when homosexuality was no longer classified as a mental illness, if not before. Since then, its been a continuous ramp up of more and more outlandish claims, and unethical experiments. Now we mutilate children. I don't think Sodom was this bad when it was destroyed.

Why is the activism typically so brutal and all-encompassing? It's because men are generally at the forefront of the transgender activism. Angry men
She says after an article about a woman refusing to admit her research shows the opposite of her ideological underpinnings, and then refuses to allow it to be used to fight the LGBT agenda.

Sex typed differences begin as soon as language development begins, which is infancy, and these changes help form the way we process and treat the world. Why are there language analysis programs that can accurately predict the sex of the writer even if they've been on estrogen for years? It's because that human being has a male brain and a Y chromosome, which influences certain critical things.
Those programs fail all the time. Lmao.
 
Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began.
No shit. Look at all the self-harm scars on the "phalli" of girls who underwent surgery!

I'm more about castrating as many progressives as possible to prevent their multiplication🥰
You know "progressives" don't reproduce the way normal people do, right?
 
Anthony has predictably published a "fact-check"

Many studies have come out about transgender people in recent weeks. One study, for In recent weeks, several studies have emerged focusing on transgender individuals. One study in the prestigious journal Nature Human Behavior, for example, reported up to a 72% increase in suicide attempts in states passing anti-trans legislation, including healthcare bans. Another study, with minimal loss to follow-up, found extremely low detransition rates among transgender youth over 6 to 10 years, along with high levels of satisfaction regarding their care. Yet, you won’t find these stories on The New York Times' website. Instead, as has become routine at the paper, there’s yet another hit piece on transgender care—one that, upon closer inspection, offers a distorted and unfounded portrayal of the current research and one researcher who has helped push that research forward.

The latest piece, which went viral in anti-trans circles on Wednesday, was written by Azeen Ghorayshi, who has a track record of publishing anti-trans articles, including a glowing profile of Jamie Reed, an anti-trans clinician who shared private information about patients at her clinic—some of which was later proven false. This new article makes explosive claims that Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a prominent gender researcher, is withholding potentially negative research on the risks and benefits of puberty blockers for transgender youth.

A further analysis of the article finds the central premise to be highly misleading.


Claim: Joana Olson-Kennedy is withholding research from the Trans Youth Care because of a charged American political environment over transgender people.

Fact: Twenty-eight studies have been published from the Trans Youth Care (TYC) Network study, including from patients on puberty blockers.

“An influential doctor and advocate of adolescent gender treatments said she had not published a long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs because of the charged American political environment.”
Ghorayshi opens with a claim that Olson-Kennedy is withholding research on puberty blockers because of a “charged American political environment.” The research in question comes from the Transgender Youth Care (TYC) Network study, funded by the National Institutes of Health to evaluate the effectiveness of gender-affirming care for transgender youth. In her interview with Olson-Kennedy, Ghorayshi cites a quote from what was described as a “wide-ranging interview” on the researcher’s work. Olson-Kennedy explains that she is being meticulous with one of the registered studies on puberty blockers because she doesn’t want her findings “to be weaponized,” adding that the work “has to be exactly on point, clear and concise.” Ghorayshi then uses this quote to imply that Olson-Kennedy is withholding research for political reasons.

A closer look at the NIH-funded project’s research record shows that the team’s output has been extraordinarily prolific; if Olson-Kennedy is withholding research, her extensive publication history doesn’t reflect it. The project has resulted in 28 peer-reviewed papers, many with Olson-Kennedy as a co-author. These studies include those who are on puberty blockers, such as one on the height growth rate of transgender youth on puberty blockers, another comparing the effectiveness of puberty blocker implants, and a third showing that patients who presented for puberty blockers had better mental health than those who either waited, or were forced to wait, for hormone therapy. This is in addition to numerous influential studies the team has published on the positive effects of hormone therapy and other key characteristics of transgender youth.

Claim: Puberty blockers do not lead to mental health improvements, and this is being hidden.

Fact: Earlier initiation of puberty blockers were found in Olson’s research to be linked to better mental health than youth who waited to start hormone therapy. This finding has been confirmed by later studies. The purpose of puberty blockers is not to “improve” mental health but to prevent deleterious effects of puberty.

But the American trial did not find a similar trend, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said in a wide-ranging interview. Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began.
While Ghorayshi’s piece portrays puberty blockers as ineffectual and suggests that research is being hidden, Olson-Kennedy’s publications tell a different story. For instance, in one of her studies on youth presenting for hormone therapy and puberty blockers, she found that those starting puberty blockers “appear to be functioning better from a psychosocial standpoint than [Gender Affirming Hormone Therapy] cohort youth," highlighting the potential benefits of accessing gender-affirming treatment earlier in life.

While Ghorayshi acknowledges the study, she omits critical context by not comparing those who received puberty blockers with those who didn’t. Instead, she highlights depression and suicidality numbers in isolation. “Dr. Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues noted that one-quarter of the adolescents were depressed or suicidal before treatment,” Ghorayshi writes, seemingly to contradict Olson-Kennedy’s claim that those seeking blockers were generally doing well. What Ghorayshi fails to mention is that among those who didn’t receive blockers, suicidal ideation was much higher—66%, more than twice as high. These figures, notably, come from the same TYC project Ghorayshi accuses Olson-Kennedy of withholding data from.

One reason Olson-Kennedy may be cautious about her data on puberty blockers alone being misused is the small sample size—just 95 youth. The study had a much larger sample of those beginning hormone therapy, and indeed, more studies have been published on that cohort, including one showing improvements in life and body satisfaction, along with reductions in depression and anxiety. Ghorayshi acknowledges this study but follows with the claim that two patients died by suicide, seemingly to undermine the findings. However, the study wasn’t designed to measure such rare events or statistically powered to do so. Publishing a study on puberty blockers alone with a small sample size today might lead to similarly misleading claims from journalists like Ghorayshi, and so it is reasonable that researchers like Olson-Kennedy are cautious to do so.

Ultimately, the purpose of puberty blockers is not to "improve" a trans youth’s mental health. Gender dysphoria arises from a mismatch between a person’s physical development and their internal sense of gender identity. Puberty blockers pause physical changes, ensuring that when a transgender youth is ready to begin hormone therapy, as determined by their medical team, they won’t have undergone unwanted pubertal changes. This role of puberty blockers has become increasingly understood in recent years, with multiple studies—including one from Olson-Kennedy’s dataset—showing that puberty blockers positively impact mental health compared to delaying treatment.

More recent studies have further confirmed these findings. The most significant of these was published in December 2023 in the Journal of Adolescent Health, showing that “TGD youth who received pubertal blockade at Tanner 2 or 3 were found to have less anxiety, depression, stress, total problems, internalizing difficulties, and suicidal ideation than TGD peers who had been through more of a nonaffirming puberty.”


Claim: Puberty blockers cause bone density problems in transgender youth, and this is being hidden by Olson-Kennedy.

Fact: Olson-Kennedy published a study on bone density of transgender youth presenting for puberty blockers and found that transgender youth actually have more bone density issues prior to treatment due to a lack of exercise and vitamin D. Bone density loss is typically minuscule, and can be treated and prevented with vitamin D and calcium supplementation.

“It’s really important we get results out there so we understand whether it’s helpful or not, and for whom,” Dr. Cass said.
Her report found weak evidence for puberty blockers and noted some risks, including lags in bone growth and fertility loss in some patients. It prompted the National Health Service in England to stop prescribing the drugs outside of a new clinical trial, following similar pullbacks in several other European countries.
One of the most common and misleading critiques of puberty blockers focuses on bone density. In her latest article, Ghorayshi echoes these critiques, referencing the Cass Review’s conclusion that puberty blockers may be associated with lags in bone growth for some patients. She also points out that Olson-Kennedy has yet to publish research specifically on how puberty blockers affect bone density, despite her prolific output from the TYC dataset at large.

In fact, Olson-Kennedy has published a study looking at transgender youth before starting puberty blockers, finding that such youth actually experienced bone density problems before any medication at all was taken. This aligns well with a review by researchers at Yale, which states, “The most recent studies show that puberty-blocking drug therapy either has no effect on bone mineral density (BMD), a proxy measure of bone strength, or is associated with a very small decrease. Calcium supplementation has been shown to protect patients from bone loss.”

The Yale review also found that “puberty-blocking medication has negligible or small effects on bone development in adolescents, and any negative effects are temporary and reversible” and “any reduction in BMD is recovered when adolescents cease taking puberty-blocking medication, whether or not they continue to gender-affirming hormone therapy.”

It is for this reason that when bone density loss is a concern, it is prevented and treated through calcium supplementation and exercise. As such, pediatricians routinely advise calcium supplementation for transgender youth receiving gender-affirming care. The informed consent form explicitly addresses this potential risk and its mitigation, stating, “It is important that patients on Lupron Depot® take other measures to protect their bones: keeping active and ensuring good calcium and Vitamin D intake.”

Contrary to insinuations by Ghorayshi, Olson-Kennedy’s research has actually helped understand bone density issues around young transgender youth.

Olson-Kennedy stands as a leading researcher in pediatric gender medicine, with a wide array of studies on the effectiveness of gender-affirming care, the mental health of transgender youth, and differences in treatment protocols. Her expertise gives her a unique perspective on the complexities of studying transgender youth and the risks of poorly analyzed data being weaponized—something Ghorayshi's article exemplifies.

Contrary to the article’s framing, Olson-Kennedy has not held back on publishing important articles from the TYC grant. In fact, she has consistently published research on transgender youth, including studies on puberty blockers, from the grant. What she has done is exercise caution, understanding the limitations of her data and recognizing how, in today’s charged climate, misinterpretation and underpowered studies can be used to harm transgender people. By doing so, she has protected both the integrity of her research and the community it serves.

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-new-york-times-publishes (Archive)
 
Back