Those of us reaching out in trust to the NHS should recognise the atrocity that is the King's College London puberty blocker trial, which is formally titled ‘Puberty Suppression and Transitional Healthcare with Adaptive Youth Services’ (PATHWAYS).
Atrocity means ‘repellantly evil act’. This alleged ‘medical’ trial will inject children aged 11 to 16 with six-month duration shots of substances that will stop sexual development caused by puberty. If experimenters decide a ‘bad reaction’ is happening, the injection interval may shorten.
You read that right. First, they will give a long-acting injection, and then if there is an adverse reaction, they may shorten the intervals of injection. Medical staff will use Tanner Staging to repeatedly assess the stage of puberty of the children, for which the children will show their private parts, the parts particularly acted on by puberty, to have them somehow quantified. They will also be asked to assess their own bodies for the same purpose. The psychological wellbeing of the children will be measured by psychological testing, mostly forms, often multiple choice tick boxes — vouchers to incentivise engaging with this will apparently go up to the value of £495 — as well as undergoing a whole raft of physical and biological measurements.
These children, for whom £10 million has already been committed in this direction, will not be given time to talk, will not be listened to, will not be provided the opportunity to make video diaries, to make art, to be in groups with other children and discuss. For the purposes of this trial they can't be given this attention because it might ‘skew’ the results. What if they were helped by being listened to rather than being injected? This kind of potential multi-causality is precisely the reason given for not following up and using data from the Tavistock Clinic. None of those young people were only injected; they also had psychological input. The Tavistock Clinic, meanwhile, although its London gender identity service for children and young people, has split like a hydra with at least six new regional gender clinics in place or planned across the UK.
So, instead of talking, the children will fill in forms, like KIDSCREEN-10, a primary outcome measure for this trial. It's not possible to convey the nature of the KIDSCREEN-10 questionnaire without directly quoting it. It opens:
Hello, How are you? How do you feel? This is what we would like you to tell us. Please read every question carefully. What answer comes to your mind first? Choose the box that fits your answer best and cross it. Remember: This is not a test so there are no wrong answers ... nobody who knows you will look at your questionnaire once you have finished it.
Confused? You should be. This opening could be paraphrased as: Hello. You don't know who we are, but it's important to us that you answer all our questions. No-one who knows you will ever read the answers. Do you feel cared for?
There is no control intended for this trial. Whatever idea you may have that a highly publicised, funded, and fanfared piece of research like this must surely be a ‘randomised controlled study’, the alleged scientific ‘gold standard’ (skipping over the issue of real healing occurring with a placebo, which science discounts), this is not that, despite King's College describing it as such.
There will be a group of children injected. The so-called ‘control’ group will be injected a year later, leaving no untreated group for comparison. The first Research Ethics Committee to consider this trial rejected it because there was no control group. According to retired GP Louise Irvin, Russell Viner, a paediatric expert in adolescent health, and a government advisor then “just went shopping” for an ethics committee which would grant approval, and found one in University College London. In an interview with the Women's Rights Network, Irvin anatomises her experience of cronyism and activism in this case.
You cannot leave the NHS. It is impossible for any of us who have an NHS number to ever lose that. The puberty blocker trial sets the precedent for experimentation on healthy people, and on minors who cannot, by definition, consent. So, vicarious consent is being accepted for long-lasting experimentation. After all that we have lived through at the hands of medics in the last few years, we must wonder how new precedents will be used. Who else might vicarious consent be sufficient for? Prisoners? Psychiatric patients? Members of Action for Palestine? To disrupt an intact and functioning body is against the Hippocratic Oath.
As the title of this piece seeks to underline, if you tolerate this, your children will be first. You are pushing them in front of you, into harm's way, to be injected with substances intended to assist them to conform (become ‘congruent’). They are likely, given that the whole trial seems to be premised on puberty blockers having a benefit, to become lifelong patients and dependent on big pharma.
There has been robust, intelligent, and well-organised resistance to this trial. It failed. That tells us where we are. How should we relate to a health service that threatens our children and us like this? A boycott might be appropriate. In solidarity with anyone unfortunate enough to be deemed ‘gender non-conforming’, we should all boycott NHS health services. Wes Streeting, our first openly gay prime minister in waiting, has spoken in Parliament about the problem of ‘gender incongruence’. There is not much gender-incongruent about Wes Streeting.
Why ‘gender incongruence’? Why not ‘gender dysphoria’? Wasn't that the preferred term? The language is shifting. The state is worried about medicating gender incongruence now. Anyone, child or not, who wishes to remain physically whole — although gender non-conforming — must stay well away from the NHS and this trial, which cements gender ideology at state, and state medicine, level.
Readers here will recognise the dangers of state medicine. Our so-called health service acted to neglect or deliberately harm and kill thousands of people during the hoax ‘pandemic’, subsequently pressuring them into receiving novel injections which have also harmed and killed, and the cancer profile since 2020, for instance, is rapidly changing. There has been no comment from the authorities. Like the Covid show, every aspect of gender identity — physical medicine and its financial markets — is evil and against the stated aims of medicine. In America, legal consequences of ‘pretend’ gender-related medical conditions may cost medics and administrators of the trans services market.
Discretely gendered behaviour most strongly marks pre-industrial societies. Consumers are freer to be any and every gender than physical workers are. Perhaps capitalism needs us more as spenders than workers now. And the emergent polycrisis wants us more as fighters than as thinkers. One of the clearest dangers to those of us who are not actually in an active war zone — a shrinking group — is medical experts, not because they have special powers, but because currently, they have the whole apparatus of the state, supra-national institutions, the law, and the media protecting and embellishing them.
Children cannot consent. Parents, by consenting to this harm on their behalf, are corroding their own parental love, ceasing to fulfil the parental role. This is perhaps another intended consequence of this trial. Wrapped up in its protocols are multiple hints of parental failure. The trial simultaneously seeks to reduce the influence of parents while being entirely reliant on it, since the experimental subjects are too young to consent.
There is a cure for gender fatigue; there is no need whatever to tangle with the labyrinths of gender identity. Just walk away. This is either a matter of philosophy or an inner search. Self-study is the one universal and unavoidable human requirement and sources of wisdom, or at least critical thinking, are within all of us. In the West, neither medicine nor religion nor education is transmitting this any more. Sources of confusion proliferate when we look to society to define us.
If we are not careful, we will be in an emergent Fourth Reich. Josef Mengele started with the weak, the frail, and the outsiders. The NHS and King's College London would like to help you make sure your child is not gender-incongruent. This is taxpayer-funded.
Why would they want to do that in this world of free expression? As one Pride marcher said last year, “It's the 21st century, darling. Anybody can be whatever they want”. So why is the state now concerned about ‘gender incongruence’? Do you see how this has the ability to be exactly the opposite of what it seems to be? It's not just that the state wishes to police expressions of 'gender'; it wishes to shape them.
It's confusing. Are we in a new era where we've broken through the binary norms, or not? Every child and all of us has the right to have their healthy body untouched by medicine. That is the alpha and omega here.
This article has been written by someone who has all her life been considered gender-incongruent — so far, without mandatory state correction.
Cover image: Patti Smith in 1971. But, now, the state names 'gender incongruence' as a medical condition. Is ‘trans’ the opposite of what it seems? Source: WallpaperAccess
