Health chiefs have started a “rapid investigation” into “the supply of medication for gender dysphoria” to children at a Hove doctors’ surgery.
The Sussex Integrated Care Board, also known as NHS Sussex, announced the investigation yesterday (Thursday 5 June) after it said that concerns had been raised.
It said that the investigation covered “children and young people under 18 years of age who were offered gender care at the WellBN General Practice”.
It was alleged last year that the surgery was using a legal loophole to prescribe hormones to children. The practice said that it prescribed medication appropriately and followed the relevant clinical guidance.
WellBN, in Western Road, Hove, has a specialist “trans health hub” run by Sam Hall, a leading advocate of gender care who was a hospital consultant before becoming a GP (general practitioner).
NHS Sussex said: “Following concerns raised about some prescribing for children and young people by WellBN in Brighton and Hove, that may fall outside of national clinical policy and guidance, we are working with NHS England and have launched a rapid investigation into this activity to determine the most appropriate care and treatment for these patients.
“To help any young people and their families who are, or may be, affected by this investigation, we have established a dedicated helpline for young people under 18, and their families, who are receiving gender care from WellBN. You do not need to be a resident of Sussex to use this helpline.”
The number is 0300 1316775 and option 3.
NHS Sussex said: “The cohort of patients whose cases are being reviewed are all aged under 18 and for whom WellBN is prescribing or arranging the supply of medication for gender dysphoria.
“It is thought that most of these children and young people, but not all of them, are resident in Sussex.
“There will be a process to review their notes and consider next steps in their treatment in line with national guidance and clinical advice.
“As a result of this process, there will likely be different outcomes for different patients.
“Some children and young people may be recommended for a transfer into specialist NHS commissioned gender services.
“Some will be reviewed and supported by local Children and Young People Mental Health Services, and some will need an endocrinology (hormone) review.
“What happens following that review will differ for each individual and will depend on the outcome of the case note review, the person’s age and medication profile.
“The WellBN practice is no longer initiating prescribing of hormone medications for children and young people under 18 years for gender dysphoria.
“The practice will continue to provide general medical care to its patients while the investigation is carried out and it will continue to provide gender care to adult patients who are aged 18 years and above.”
Rachel Cashman, co-founder of community group PSHE Brighton, said: “For several years parents have been raising concerns about the harm caused by the practices at Brighton WellBn trans health hub.
“We have been told that our worries about the ethics of the treatment of gender distressed children are baseless smears.
“We welcome the investigation and will be providing full information and evidence.”
Good. About time
Do you have first hand experience of gender dysphoria? Have you any idea what you’re talking about? Humans are scared and opposed things they don’t understand. Maybe try not to be so ignorant.
innit
Well said, their KIDS
Shameful this has taken so long – young people are being lied to, it would be just as bad to give anorexics Oxempic. Trans identified young people need hollistic high quality mental health support. Not drugs or affirming.
How is this Sam Hall person still practicing? Its abuse
Please let us know your qualifications and /or lived experience that has informed your conclusion? I strongly suspect its simply transphobia
Accusations of “transphobia” are a tired deflection and frankly offensive. Wanting robust evidence, medical ethics, and safeguarding for children is not hatred — it’s basic decency. The Cass Review made clear that these treatments have poor evidence and real risks. Everyone involved in this conversation should be prioritising the safety, health, and long-term well-being of children. So the real question is: why aren’t you?
What is offensive and, frankly, dangerous is not basing your research or opinions on the views of the young people themselves, many of whom are now in a safer and happier place exactly because of the medical care they have received.
What’s truly dangerous is promoting irreversible medical interventions for children based on feelings rather than evidence. The Cass Review was exhaustive and independent — and it found that the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones is extremely poor, with known risks and no proven long-term mental health benefit.
Anecdotes don’t override science. Every serious, peer-reviewed study shows these treatments can cause harm — from bone density loss to infertility and stunted development. To continue pushing them despite this is not compassionate — it’s reckless. Why are you so invested in defending practices that demonstrably hurt vulnerable children?
Bore off. I don’t want to listen to kids or mad cultists like you. I’ll listen to the scientific evidence, thanks.
Sadly sorry to say it is abuse. Not so far away from FGM under a different guise just with consent affirmed by loads of online promotion almost cult like. First rule of practice “DO NO HARM” this will be the next scandel. Stop using rainbow 🌈 brand to cause kids and under 25s harm if they want to do this over that age fine. But kids brains don’t complete til c age 25… just because we can doesn’t mean we should. Noting kids are being groomed online to encourage this… wait til they’re at least 25. Cass review showed benefits post treatments don’t put weigh the harm. How have we allowed this scandal to happen??!!
Adults can do what ever the hell they like, no f ing way should kids, as for the trasphobia,what qualifications do you have?,it’s against the grain and the vast majority of the people would agree, it’s your way or the highway.
Aidan I’m a qualified psychotherapist. Am Pro lgbtq but against allowing transition before age 25. What’s your qualification? Have you read the Cass review? What are your comments on the independent Cass review? Are you being paid by big pharma?
Oh Delia,you could say something to me and I could go into a office next tou your one and be told something different, and no I don’t have any qualifications but I’ve common sense, as for waiting until a person is 25,that would be cruel, but a kid is a kid.
This world is going so backwards right now. So first people are no longer allowed to be trans and if they are their rights have been stripped away. Then they are allowing many young people to commit suicide due to now no longer being allowed health care. what’s next? Where does this stop? Disabled people no longer being allowed to be disabled? Women not allowed right? Men forced back into the army? People assume child gender affirming care involves brainwashing and genital mutilation when the simple fact is that isn’t true. People are being scare moungered these lies to help the government narrative.
It’s simply not true that young people are being denied all healthcare or that there’s a wave of trans suicides caused by safeguarding. The Cass Review—an independent, evidence-based investigation—found that gender-related healthcare for under-18s was being provided without strong evidence of long-term benefit, and sometimes without properly addressing other mental health or neurodevelopmental needs.
No one is banning people from being trans. What’s changing is that we’re now insisting that any medical treatment, especially for children, must meet the same safety and evidence standards we’d expect in any other area of care.
Claiming that this leads to suicide is both misleading and dangerous. Studies consistently show that suicide in trans-identifying youth is linked to a range of complex factors—like family conflict, bullying, or underlying mental health conditions—not simply access to hormones. Scare-mongering about suicide to silence safeguarding concerns helps no one—least of all vulnerable kids.
This is progress. We also need a proper investigation into the activities of Allsorts.
Shame on BHNews for such a one-sided article. This Dr has saved countless *lives*. This is a shameless witchhunt.
Exactly
There is no credible evidence that this doctor has “saved countless lives.” What is known is that they prescribed powerful, off-label drugs to vulnerable young people without sufficient evidence of long-term benefit, and despite growing clinical concern. The Cass Review was unequivocal: the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones is weak, uncertain, and does not justify their routine use in children. What we do have evidence of is harm — including impaired bone development, fertility loss, and potential neurological effects. This is not life-saving care. It is experimental treatment on children, with lifelong consequences. That is why this investigation matters.
“What is known is that they prescribed powerful, off-label drugs to vulnerable young people”. Please provide your evidence of any care given against guidelines or any harm that has been caused. There have already been investigations which have cleared him of any wrong doing. This latest is simply another stab at denying trans young people of the care that they have requested. Yes, they are vulnerable, being at risk of harm by the current witch hunt aimed at denying them the care that they deserve
The harm is well-documented — in the science, not just the headlines. The Cass Review, commissioned by the NHS and led by a highly respected paediatrician, found that the evidence for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children is “remarkably weak” and carries significant known risks: impaired bone density, infertility, disruption of brain development, and potential psychological harm. These are not abstract concerns — they are measurable, physical consequences.
The drugs being prescribed are off-label for gender distress and, crucially, were often given outside of research protocols or without robust follow-up. That alone breaches medical ethics.
This isn’t about denying care — it’s about protecting children from irreversible harm in the absence of good evidence. If you are defending medical interventions that fail even the most basic scientific scrutiny, the question is not “why are others concerned?” — it’s: why aren’t you? Why are you still pushing practices shown to hurt the very children you claim to care about?
20% if drug prescribing is off label and this number is much higher in children because drugs didn’t used to have to be tested in children. Puberty blockers , however we’re for obvious reasons. They are prescribed for CHILDREN with precocious puberty and they can stay on them for years with that indication. How are they now “dangerous” for trans young people??? You monitor bone density and adjust as required. Dysphoria causes incredible mental harm, just look at the stats around that. The CASS report was anything but independent and the reason research papers in this area are not if the highest quality is because of lack of funding. I am a clinical scientist and it’s a witch hunt to further this backwards global movement where trans lives apparently don’t exist
@RACH –
This comment dangerously misrepresents both the science and the findings of the Cass Review, which was an independent, NHS-commissioned report led by Dr Hilary Cass, a highly respected paediatrician. To dismiss it as biased simply because its conclusions are inconvenient is both irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.
Yes, puberty blockers are used in children — for precocious puberty, a very different medical condition, with a clear biological basis and a short treatment window to align development with peers. They are not designed, licensed, or evidence-based for treating gender-related distress — and prolonged use during normal puberty carries significant risks, including stunted bone growth, infertility, and potential impacts on brain development. These are not speculative risks — they are documented in the very studies reviewed by Cass.
The idea that off-label prescribing is routine and therefore safe in all contexts is a lazy generalisation. Off-label use must still be justifiable, proportionate, and based on sound evidence — and in this case, the evidence simply isn’t there. That’s the problem.
Blaming poor evidence quality on “lack of funding” ignores the real issue: affirmative models of care raced ahead of the science. Children were exposed to life-altering treatments without the protections that would be required in any other area of medicine. Calling scrutiny of this “a witch hunt” is a way of shutting down legitimate concern.
This is not about denying anyone’s existence. It is about ensuring that care, especially for children, is safe, ethical, and grounded in evidence — not ideology. You may be a clinical scientist, but this kind of reasoning undermines public trust in science and puts vulnerable children at real risk. That is what’s truly dangerous.
About time, but what about the young people who were ‘mis-sold’/‘prescribed’ harmful treatment for gender dysphoria before they were 18, and are older than 18 now. They don’t look to be part of this review and they should be.
Please explain the specific harm you are referring to? There is a 92% chance that these young people would have thought about or attempted suicide without gender affirming care. Please do your research before making assumptions about young people being “mis-sold” ” harmful” treatment
The assertion that 92% of young people would contemplate or attempt suicide without gender-affirming care is not supported by robust evidence. The Cass Review, an independent and comprehensive evaluation of NHS gender services, found that the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones is “wholly inadequate,” with significant concerns about their long-term safety and effectiveness .
Moreover, a government-commissioned review led by Professor Louis Appleby found no evidence to support claims that restrictions on puberty blockers have led to a surge in youth suicides . Such claims are not only unfounded but potentially harmful, as they may cause unnecessary distress among vulnerable individuals. 
It’s crucial that medical interventions, especially those involving minors, are based on high-quality evidence and prioritize the long-term well-being of patients. The current evidence does not justify the routine use of these treatments in young people.
Not an assertion but a national study
You do not have a robust study of any kind backing up those numbers. It does not exist.
Evidence of, and actual harm includes medicalisation of a problem most people learn to accept- ie accepting your body (and sex) whether you like it or not is part of growing up, medical conversion of gay and lesbian youth, sterility, atrophy, osteoporosis, cognitive impairment, long term depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation including when these young people realise the irreversible changes and harm that’s been done in the name of ‘trans’ affirming care and treatment- I could go on. There is no evidence of increased suicide ideation in gender dysphoric youth, over and above their peers- but suicide risk has been weaponised by trans ideologues to bully and pressurise parents and health care professionals to enable harmful, unevidenced ‘treatment’ these youngsters have been groomed to expect/demand. I say this because I care very much about our gender dysphoric youth and they absolutely have been sold a lie off the back of misinformation like the ‘evidence’ you are quoting.
the whole ‘most people learn to accept’ etc thing really just sounds like the same thing said to gays and lesbians in the past, doesn’t it? just repress and it will go way we all had a gay phase etc.
the fact that you’re using the far-right dogwhistle somewhat suggests where your ideological allegiances lie rather than care for trans youth
This comparison to past treatment of gay and lesbian people is both historically illiterate and deeply misleading. Being gay is about who you are attracted to — it requires no drugs, no surgery, no lifelong medicalisation. Gender dysphoria, particularly in children, is often transient, frequently co-occurs with autism, trauma, or mental health conditions, and crucially, most children who experience it grow out of it if not socially or medically transitioned. That’s not repression — that’s natural developmental resolution, as shown in decades of longitudinal studies.
To equate medical caution with “far-right dog whistles” is a cheap smear. The Cass Review was commissioned by the NHS, led by a senior paediatrician, and backed by exhaustive international evidence. It concluded that the evidence base for transitioning children is poor and that these interventions come with serious, irreversible risks — including infertility, stunted growth, and unknown impacts on brain development.
What you’re doing is trying to shut down legitimate safeguarding concerns by shouting “bigot.” But we are talking about children, being given life-altering drugs on the basis of ideology, not science. That’s not progress — it’s negligence. If your response to these findings is to throw around insults rather than engage with the evidence, then ask yourself honestly: whose interests are you really protecting?
Gender dysphoria is not the same as sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is wholly dependant on biological sex- it is attraction to the same sex based on the two sexes male/gay and female/lesbian. It is not about being mis-led you are in the wrong body or the idea that you need to, or can change your sex/gender. It is about acceptance- growing to accept who are and who you are attracted to. So not the same thing at all- but it is very convenient for the trans lobby to try and make those comparisons when in fact they promote medical conversion for gay and lesbian youth. Also very boring that they claim everyone who exposes and challenges the harm caused by this ideology is transphobic, bigoted, right wing etc.
The dogwhistle ‘groom’ or ‘groomer’*
Trans ideology has all the hallmarks of grooming and cults: targeting vulnerable, often autistic, gay, lesbian and/or gender dysphoric youth, recruiting, deceiving, lying, moulding, selling a lie and promoting unproven and harmful practices with long term irreversible consequences for the young person, isolating, threatening attacking and demonising any fair and legitimate challenge; with the groomed being led to believe they are victimised by people outside ‘the community’ including their own families, but are understood, special, cared for, loved, and protected by the community itself which truly understands them but will brutally attack/reject them if/when they dare to ever challenge/question the ideology (just look at how detransitioners are silenced/treated), foot soldiers and fierce protectors- parroting back the ideologies agenda, misinformation, attacks, defence etc. Initially hidden (helped online) insipid, dangerous and absolutely exploitative of vulnerable young people (and ultimately women and girls). Shame on all those institutions (children’s services/social work, councils, schools, health authorities, criminal justice etc.) and individuals who should know better but have blindly or knowingly enabled this for so long, and unwittingly continue to promote it- particularly in Brighton and Hove.
And the dogwhistle tRaNs IdEoLoGy
About time this dangerous cult is being exposed.
How dare you attack a GP for providing healthcare to young people. Health care is a priority as it should be for any patient of any gender.
Why do you think it’s acceptable for children and young people to be denied a patient led health care pathway? We know this is life saving.
I ask that you walk the path of a trans young person and their supportive families and get the real truth.
I appreciate your concern for the well-being of young people. But these “medicines” don’t work.
It’s important to note that recent investigations, such as the NHS Sussex inquiry into WellBN’s prescribing practices, have raised significant concerns about the safety and appropriateness of hormone treatments for minors. The Cass Review, a comprehensive evaluation of gender identity services, concluded that there is a lack of high-quality evidence supporting the efficacy of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in improving mental health outcomes for children and adolescents. Moreover, these treatments carry potential risks, including impacts on bone density, fertility, and cardiovascular health. Given these findings, it’s crucial to approach such interventions with caution and ensure that any treatment provided is based on robust evidence and prioritizes the long-term health of young individuals.
Please could you refrain from implying that wellbn have prescribed against current guidelines. They haven’t, as evidenced by all previous investigations clearing them of malpractice.
@API –
The question isn’t whether WellBN followed outdated or vague guidelines — it’s whether what they did was right, ethical, and safe. The Cass Review made it painfully clear: there is no robust evidence that these drugs improve mental health outcomes in children, and plenty of evidence they cause serious, irreversible harm — including loss of fertility, impaired bone growth, and possible neurological effects.
So why continue defending the use of these treatments on vulnerable children? Why are you more concerned with protecting institutions than protecting kids?
We now know this approach was based on ideology, not science. Defending it in the face of that evidence isn’t compassionate — it’s enabling harm. If your instinct is to dismiss serious medical risk because “guidelines allowed it,” then I ask plainly: why are you defending a system that hurts children?
What do you mean they ‘don’t work’? in regards to what?
@SAN PELLY When I say these drugs “don’t work,” I mean they do not do what activists claim they do — which is to improve long-term mental health outcomes for gender-distressed children, reduce suicide risk, or meaningfully resolve underlying psychological distress.
This was the central finding of the Cass Review, which concluded that there is no high-quality evidence showing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones lead to lasting improvements in mental well-being. Claims that these drugs are “life-saving” or prevent suicide are not backed by rigorous studies — in fact, the best available evidence shows no reliable mental health benefit, and serious risks such as bone damage, infertility, and potential cognitive effects.
These are powerful medical interventions being offered to vulnerable young people based on ideology, not science. That is what I mean when I say: they don’t work.
beyond the cass review there are literally hundreds of thousands of people on cross-sex hormones who’s wellbeing has vastly improved – the cass review’s standard of ‘high-quality’ is dubious at best. it’s common sense to simply look at the VAST majority of trans people who live happy civil lives, who don’t regret their care, and love what it has done for the physical and mental health.
there’s an enormous amount of data out there to suggest this both academic and anecdotal. i really don’t understand why the cass report is such a sacred cow it invalidates literally over a hundred years of study into trans health and sexology. trans people are people, not ideology x
@SAN PELLY:
This is exactly the kind of emotive, misleading rhetoric that the Cass Review was designed to cut through. No one is denying that some adults report feeling better after transition — but that is not what the Cass Review was about. It examined the medical treatment of children — vulnerable, developing individuals, often with complex mental health needs — and it found that the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth is shockingly poor, with real, irreversible risks.
Cherry-picked anecdotes and “common sense” do not trump clinical trials, long-term cohort studies, and systematic reviews — which is what the Cass team rigorously analysed. If you think the standard of “high-quality evidence” is “dubious,” then you are arguing that children should be medically transitioned on weak, inconsistent, or ideologically-driven data. That is not medicine. That is experimentation.
Claiming that the Cass Review “invalidates a hundred years of study” is false and frankly absurd. Much of the early literature in this space was methodologically flawed, ideologically motivated, and often based on extremely small, unrepresentative samples, especially from adult clinics. It has taken until now for the NHS to step back and ask the hard questions — and the answers are deeply uncomfortable: this model of care was rushed, under-evidenced, and potentially harmful.
And yes, trans people are people — but that doesn’t mean any intervention they request is automatically safe, effective, or appropriate, especially for children. Conflating adult transition with paediatric care is intellectually dishonest and puts young lives at risk. If you truly care about trans people — especially trans-identifying youth — then you should demand better standards, better research, and better protections, not double down on failed models of care.
You’re right about one thing: this isn’t about “ideology X.” It’s about ensuring medicine is based on evidence, not activism, and that children are not collateral damage in the name of politics.
There is always two sides. Nothing wrong with an investigation, if it wrongs a right. Specially when it involves under 18,s. One person cannot be judge and jury. Personally, I cannot believe there was not parental sign off.
Probably there was parental sign off.
The founder of Mermaids took her son to be castrated at age 16. His father didn’t want a gay son, but becoming a trans woman resolved the problem.
These young people are children…
Some of the comments here diverge on that point it seems as key.
“At what age can a person make a decision to undergo hormone therapy? Affirmation surgery? Simple lifestyle changes?”
25+ minimum.
The fact these young people are still being asked to consent to unevidenced, harmful treatments by so called health care professionals aside (talk about passing the buck back onto vulnerable young people!!), if they are not given all the information required to consent, and/or can’t understand all the implications of the intervention they are consenting too, it isn’t informed consent and is therefore invalid. It also depends on what is being consented to. A 12
year old can consent to removing a ruptured appendix- painful, urgent, low risk, sorted once removed. Taking hormones or undergoing surgery that will never actually change your sex- or change the fact you are male but want to be female or vice versa, but will mean you are forever physically changed and will have long term (negative) health consequences? There is plenty of evidence from a brain development/maturity perspective at least 25 years old is more appropriate. Did you understand or care about sterility, or understand the implication of brittle bones or poor surgical outcomes at age 18, and even if you did would that have swayed your decision if you’d been consistently fed misinformation by pretty much every source, including that anyone challenging/stopping you is only doing so because they are bigoted, right wing, and/or transphobic?
How about there is also an investigation into children’s mental health care system? Or shall I say lack of? Sending a child home within 24hrs of 2 attempts of suicide because “im sorry there isn’t enough funding for everyone child”
Completely agree—children’s mental health services are in crisis and desperately need investment. But that’s exactly why we must be cautious with medical pathways for gender distress.
The Cass Review found many young people referred for gender care had complex needs—like trauma, anxiety, or autism—that were too often overlooked. And despite what some claim, there is no trans suicide epidemic. The evidence simply doesn’t support that narrative. Suicidality is real and serious—but it’s not caused by lack of hormones. It’s driven by a mix of social, psychological, and emotional factors.
We need proper mental health support for all children, not medical shortcuts based on fear.
WellBN is a wonderful clinic and has helped so many people in difficult situations.
I strongly suspect most of the negative comments here are coming from the same handful of people often using multiple accounts especially as in REALITY brighton is one of the most accepting places in the UK for trans people.
I really despair at the culture of callousness and cruelty demonstrated on vulnerable people – it’s same thing for romani, immigrants, basically anyone who isn’t NORMAL. it’s utterly miserable the attitudes of small minded english people
It’s understandable to want to defend a clinic that appears to have helped people. But this article isn’t about attacking kindness — it raises serious concerns about medical governance and safeguarding at WellBN, particularly regarding the use of powerful, off-label drugs on young people.
The Cass Review found that there is very poor evidence that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones improve long-term mental health in children — and clear evidence of harm, including effects on bone development, fertility, and possibly brain function. The model of care that WellBN followed is exactly what the NHS is now urgently reviewing across the country.
So while no one doubts the intentions of staff, the issue is whether the care was safe, evidence-based, and appropriate for children. That’s what this inquiry is about — not bigotry, but responsibility. Brighton’s inclusive values should mean making sure vulnerable people, especially children, are protected by the best standards of care, not the loosest.
There has been much criticism of Cass’s opinion that the existing evidence is insufficient. To quote a piece from Yale school of Law:
“…the Review
repeatedly misuses data and violates its own evidentiary standards by resting many conclusions
on speculation. Many of its statements and the conduct of the York SRs reveal profound
misunderstandings of the evidence base and the clinical issues at hand. The Review also subverts
widely accepted processes for development of clinical recommendations and repeats spurious,
debunked claims about transgender identity and gender dysphoria. These errors conflict with
well-established norms of clinical research and evidence-based healthcare. Further, these errors
raise serious concern about the scientific integrity of critical elements of the report’s process
and recommendations.” https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf
First, let’s clear up a basic but important error: the quote you’ve posted is not from Yale Law School. It is from a document published by the Yale Integrity Project, a small advocacy group hosted on the Yale Law School website, but not authored by the law school, nor affiliated with it in any formal academic capacity. Conflating the two either shows deliberate misrepresentation or a lack of understanding of how academic institutions work. Please stop waving it around as if it represents some kind of institutional verdict — it doesn’t.
Now, onto the substance: the Cass Review is the most comprehensive, independent review of gender identity services for children ever undertaken in the UK. It was led by Dr Hilary Cass, a former President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and involved extensive consultation with clinicians, researchers, patients, detransitioners, and international experts. To claim the report “violates evidentiary standards” is absurd — its entire purpose was to assess the strength and quality of the available evidence, and it found it severely lacking.
The claim that the Cass Review rests on “speculation” ignores the fact that the vast majority of gender medicine research — including the studies used to justify paediatric transition — fails to meet basic thresholds for high-quality evidence: no control groups, small samples, short follow-up periods, heavy risk of bias, and massive loss to follow-up. If you want to dismiss Cass, you have to explain why those standards are unreasonable. You won’t — because they’re not.
Moreover, the Cass team didn’t just criticise — they recommended a national research programme to build a proper evidence base. That’s the opposite of ideological bias — it’s a responsible response to medical uncertainty. What’s ideological is insisting these treatments are unquestionably beneficial when the best available data says otherwise — and that’s exactly what groups like the Yale Integrity Project are doing.
The Cass Review does not “debunk” trans identities — that’s a strawman. It critiques the rush to irreversible medicalisation without sufficient evidence, especially in children. If that makes you uncomfortable, good — it should. Because the real scandal isn’t that Cass asked hard questions. It’s that so many of you are still refusing to.
The Yale document is dross, radically misrepresenting the evidence base and the statistical methods on which the Cass Review was based. For a quick overview of the problems see https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/the-bma-council-shames-itself
If WellBN are under investigation for supplying gender drugs to children then they are not that wonderful IMO.
I strongly suspect that you’re clutching at straws believing people who make negative comments have multiple accounts, do you have any actual evidence. It could be, those who make positive comments also have multiple accounts so that evens that one out.
You speak of callousness and cruelty but here we’re not talking about adults, but young people who are still in their tender years and hardly know what direction they are going. They may feel differently in a few years, but it will be too late if they are having treatment.
You are aware of course, that this country welcomes people from all over the world and have done for decades, we have Europeans, Asians, Africans and people from all corners of the globe, these people, live and work here quite happily and contribute to the country.
So your comment referencing English people shows who is actually small minded and has the attitude, YOU.
Why is it, that those who don’t agree with comments and are floundering for a reply, use racism etc as key point in a lame attempt to deflect and discount the comments and points made.
No child is being harmed. U16, parents have to provide consent. Over 16, as with anything in the NHS consent is provided by the young person. The tests for understanding consequences are rigorous. As part of the previous NHS pathway initiated through the Tavistock, general and psychological health is also tracked (bone density, understanding, body composition, vitamins, minerals , etc). It’s administered through endocrinology and monitored. Not everyone gets prescribed blockers. It should be patient led. Someone experiencing gender dysporia may need blockers, some may then not go on to hormones, but they may need that breathing space. The controls are in place. No one is being lied to. No one is being harmed. Quite the opposite in fact. if it stops 1 person from considering it and doing it then that’s enough. but part of the reason for people thinking about suicide is because of the fear that arises from some of the same kind of rhetoric as above. Again. No young person is being harmed by WellBN, in fact the absolute opposite is true. young people are being harmed by the outside rhetoric.
You can’t get informed consent when these young people are being lied to throughout- that it’s possible to change ‘sex’ in the first place, that puberty blockers give ‘breathing space’, that medical treatment is the best/only way to resolve gender dysphoria and provide long term solutions, that avoiding/delaying un/disproven treatment puts them at increased risk of suicide, that anyone who doesn’t affirm their preferred ‘gender’ wishes them harm or denies their existence etc. etc. your example of the need to monitor bone density illustrates one type of physical harm caused by this treatment- monitoring does not remove the harm caused. The Tavistock clinic was closed down for well publicised reasons, including ideological capture rather than effective healthcare, certainly not a model of care to continue to promote.
Sounds like you’d benefit from seeing a consultation process from start to finish, might help answer some of those questions you have.
All drugs have side effects. Monitoring shows an awareness of those risks, and an appropriate mitigation to that risk.
But I didn’t ask any ‘questions’ for you to Bensplain a response to Benjamin!! i am well aware of what has been going on in these consultations, on social media, by trans activists and in our institutions- who have allowed this to happen under their watch. I’ve simply made the point no one can give informed consent when they are deceived and lied to- I think that was pretty clear. The other relevant point, which you have ignored, is that these youth would not need to be monitored for bone density etc. if they had not had these ‘treatments’ in the first place. The monitoring does not prevent harm from these drugs. It just picks up changes sooner than with no monitoring, changes that may then require even more treatment- with even more side effects. It seems we both accept all drugs have side effects, so surely you then must also agree it’s even more important that they are not prescribed/taken unjustifiably, especially when the long term consequences are so significant and harmful.
This paints a reassuring picture—but it simply doesn’t match the findings of the independent Cass Review, commissioned by the NHS itself. The idea that “no child is being harmed” is precisely what the NHS no longer accepts. Cass found that the systems you describe—the checks, the psychological assessments, the tracking—often weren’t working as intended. Young people were being pushed down a medical path before other causes of distress were properly explored.
As for suicide, let’s be honest: there is no epidemic of trans youth taking their lives due to lack of blockers. That’s been shown repeatedly. What we do know is that many of these young people are struggling with complex mental health, social, and neurodevelopmental challenges—and those need proper care, not just affirmation or fast-tracked medicalisation.
Good intentions don’t equal good outcomes. And the idea that raising legitimate safeguarding concerns causes suicide is manipulative and shuts down essential scrutiny. If care is truly safe and evidence-based, it should withstand open, honest discussion.
Either way, as this investigation into WellBN progresses, it will likely shed further light on these complex and evolving issues. The comments here reflect the broader debates within the medical community about the best practices for supporting young individuals experiencing gender-related distress.