Controversial Study on Puberty Blockers Withheld: Experts Divided on Implications

A prominent doctor and transgender rights advocate has admitted to deliberately withholding the publication of a million taxpayer-funded study on the effects of puberty blockers on American children. The study, which found no evidence that the treatments improve patients' mental health, has sparked a heated debate among experts in the field.

Uncovering the Suppressed Findings: A Pivotal Moment in the Transgender Healthcare Debate

Withholding Scientific Evidence: A Controversial Decision

Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, the lead researcher on the nine-year study, has revealed that she has not published the results because she fears they could be "weaponized" by opponents of transgender healthcare for children. This decision has been met with criticism from fellow researchers, who argue that it goes against the principles of scientific transparency and deprives the public of crucial information in a highly contentious field.The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, followed 95 children with an average age of 11 who were given puberty-blocking drugs starting in 2015. The treatments are designed to delay the onset of physical changes associated with puberty, such as the development of breasts or the deepening of the voice. However, after two years of follow-up, the study found no significant improvements in the mental health of the participants.

Contradicting Previous Research and Challenging Assumptions

This finding contradicts the results of a 2011 Dutch study, which is often cited by proponents of using puberty blockers in transgender youth. That study found that children treated with the drugs reported better mental health and fewer behavioral and emotional problems.Moreover, the new study's results also appear to contradict Olson-Kennedy's own hypothesis, which was outlined in a 2020 progress report submitted to the NIH. In that report, she had predicted that the study participants would show "decreased symptoms of depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, self-injury, and suicidality, and increased body esteem and quality of life over time."

Concerns over Potential Legal Implications

Olson-Kennedy's admission that she is afraid the study's findings could be "used in court to argue 'we shouldn't use blockers'" suggests that she is concerned about the potential legal implications of the research. This is particularly relevant given that Olson-Kennedy is a leading advocate for providing gender-affirming care to adolescents and regularly provides expert testimony in legal challenges to state bans on such procedures.The decision to withhold the study's findings has been criticized by some of Olson-Kennedy's fellow researchers, including Amy Tishelman, a clinical and research psychologist at Boston College who was one of the original researchers on the study. Tishelman argued that "it's really important to get the science out there," even if the results do not match the expected conclusions.

Diverging Perspectives on Transgender Healthcare for Youth

The debate surrounding the use of puberty blockers for transgender youth is a highly polarized one, with a significant divide in public opinion. A recent Washington Post-KFF survey found that 68% of U.S. adults are against providing puberty blockers to transgender-identifying youth aged 10-14, and 58% oppose hormone treatments for those aged 15-17.This divide is also reflected in the medical community, with some experts, such as Dr. Hilary Cass, the author of a recent report for England's National Health Service, arguing that "for most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress." In contrast, Olson-Kennedy and other advocates have championed the use of gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers, as a crucial intervention for supporting transgender youth.As the debate continues, the suppressed findings of this million study have the potential to significantly impact the ongoing discussions and legal battles surrounding transgender healthcare for children. The decision to withhold the results, whether well-intentioned or not, has only served to further polarize the issue and raise questions about the transparency and integrity of the research process.