Controversial Doctor Refuses to Publish Data Showing Danger of Controversial Surgeries

A doctor’s refusal to publish a $10 million taxpayer-funded study on puberty blockers for trans kids has ignited a firestorm of controversy, raising questions about scientific integrity and the potential manipulation of research for political agendas.

At a Glance

  • Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy withheld publication of a study showing puberty blockers didn’t improve mental health in trans kids
  • The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, involved 95 children with an average age of 11
  • Critics argue that withholding the study contradicts research standards and deprives the public of important scientific information
  • The Washington Post editorial board calls for more comprehensive research on gender-transition treatments for minors
  • European health authorities have found evidence on puberty blockers lacking, with Britain recently banning their use due to safety concerns

The Suppressed Study: A $10 Million Controversy

In a shocking revelation that has sent ripples through the medical community, Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a leading advocate for so-called “gender-affirming care,” has been accused of suppressing a crucial study on the effects of puberty blockers in “transgender” children. The $10 million taxpayer-funded research, which began in 2015 and involved 95 children with an average age of 11, reportedly found no improvement in participants’ mental health after two years of treatment.

Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s decision to withhold the study’s publication has sparked outrage among critics who argue that such actions undermine scientific integrity and deprive the public of vital information. The controversy raises serious questions about the potential politicization of medical research, especially in the contentious field of gender-affirming care for minors.

The Need for Transparency in Scientific Research

The suppression of this study highlights a growing concern about the lack of comprehensive, unbiased research on gender-transition treatments for minors. Clinical psychologist Erica Anderson criticized the decision to withhold the study, emphasizing the critical importance of transparency in scientific research.

“We’re craving information about these medical treatments for gender-questioning youth,” Anderson said. “Dr. Olson-Kennedy has the largest grant that’s ever been awarded in the US on the subject and is sitting on data that would be helpful to know.”

This sentiment is echoed by the Washington Post editorial board, which recently called for more rigorous research on the topic. The board stressed the importance of publishing both positive and negative medical research results to ensure progress and informed decision-making.

International Perspective and Growing Concerns

While the debate rages on in the United States, it’s crucial to note that European health authorities have already taken decisive action. After reviewing the available evidence on puberty blockers, many found it lacking. In a bold move, Britain recently banned their use due to safety concerns, signaling a growing skepticism about the rush to provide these treatments to minors.

This cautious approach is further supported by experts like Finnish Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala, who noted that most gender-questioning children eventually accept their bodies without medical intervention. Such observations underscore the need for a more measured and evidence-based approach to treating gender dysphoria in minors.

The Supreme Court’s Potential Impact

As the debate unfolds, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could have far-reaching implications for gender-affirming care across the nation. The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, challenges Tennessee’s ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors. The Court’s decision could set a precedent for similar laws nationwide, making the need for comprehensive, unbiased research even more urgent.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR