Doctor withheld results of puberty-blocker study for political reasons: report
A medical doctor and leading proponent of transgender procedures for minors recently admitted that she deliberately withheld the results of a taxpayer-funded study because it showed there were no positive mental health effects for gender dysphoric children who used puberty blockers.
Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, who heads the largest youth gender clinic in the United States at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, told The New York Times she feared releasing the results of the study would lead them to be “weaponized” by opponents of such procedures.
The doctor also told the outlet she feared the study, which is part of a project that has received nearly $10 million in taxpayer funding from the National Institutes of Health, “could be used in court to argue that ‘we shouldn’t use blockers,'” according to the outlet.
“I do not want our work to be weaponized,” she also said. “It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time.”
The study, which began in 2015, followed 95 children with an average age of 11, who started taking puberty-blocking drugs, which prevent the development of natural bodily changes such as breast growth in females or voice changes in males.
After the study showed the puberty blockers offered no improvement to their mental health after two years, Olson-Kennedy claimed that was because the study’s participants were already “in really good shape.”
The New York Times noted that about a fourth of the patients in the study “were depressed or suicidal” before their treatment.
As The Christian Post reported in 2019, the federally-funded research grant that bore Olson-Kennedy’s name altered the protocol and lowered the age for cross-sex hormones from 13 to 8.
Amy Tishelman, who serves as a clinical and research psychologist at Boston College and was involved in the original study, was critical of its results being withheld, according to the Times.
“I understand the fear about it being weaponized, but it’s really important to get the science out there,” she said.
“No change isn’t necessarily a negative finding — there could be a preventative aspect to it,” she also noted. “We just don’t know without more investigation.”
