Health
1,000 UK doctors condemn medical association’s push to lift puberty blocker ban for minors
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dd8ee/dd8ee40b14e12b0166c24d241ceeb1bcb068c77c" alt=""
From LifeSiteNews
1,000 senior doctors signed an open letter to the British Medical Association after it lobbied for the NHS to lift a ban on puberty blockers for children following the Cass Review, which found the drugs were harmful.
On August 1, the British Medical Association (BMA) – the United Kingdom’s doctors’ union – called on the government to lift the ban on puberty blockers for minors. Weirdly, the BMA also stated that in their view the implementation of NHS England’s Cass Review should be “paused” despite the fact that, as the BBC noted, the review “took four years to carry out and was widely welcomed by the medical establishment in the U.K.” The BMA called the Cass Review’s recommendations – based on “the largest and most comprehensive review” on the subject seen, looking at 237 papers from 18 countries – “unsubstantiated.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care responded to the BMA, firmly rejecting both the request and the claim, stating, “The Cass Review is a robust report backed by clinicians and firmly grounded in evidence. NHS England will be implementing Dr. Cass’s recommendations so that children and young people get the safe, holistic support they need. We do not support a delay to vital improvements from the NHS to gender services.” Even the leftist Guardian ran an editorial criticizing the BMA’s position, stating, “The BMA’s stance on puberty blockers defies the key principle of medicine: first, do no harm.”
READ: FDA official recommends approval of puberty blockers despite suicide risk for gender-confused youth
As it turns out, there are plenty of physicians who are very unhappy with the BMA’s move – and they are now making their voices heard. This week, 1,000 senior doctors from across the U.K. published an open letter addressed to Professor Philip Banfield, chairman of the BMA.
“We write as doctors to say, ‘not in my name,’” the letter reads. “We are extremely disappointed that the BMA council had passed a motion to conduct a ‘critique’ of the Cass Review and to lobby to oppose its recommendations. The passing of the motion was opaque and secretive. It does not reflect the views of the wider membership, whose opinion you did not seek. We understand that no information will be released on the voting figures and how council members voted. That is a failure of accountability to members and is simply not acceptable.”
The open letter further emphasizes that the Cass Review “is the most comprehensive review into healthcare for children with gender related distress ever conducted” and urged the BMA to “abandon its pointless exercise” of attacking and opposing the recommendations. “By lobbying against the best evidence we have, the BMA is going against the principles of evidence-based medicine and against ethical practice.”
Among the signatories to the letter are 23 former or current clinical leaders at royal colleges, as well as the heads and former heads of some royal colleges.
The British Medical Association is the only main medical organization to oppose the Cass Review; all others have backed it. For example, Professor Sir Stephen Powis, NHS national medical director, stated, “These plans set out in detail how we will establish a fundamentally different and safer model of care for children and young people. The work Dr. Cass has undertaken has been invaluable in helping us shape the new service offer, and we have already begun our transformation of these services by opening two new regional centres this year.” Banfield responded on behalf of the BMA council to say that the points made in the letter would be considered during their ongoing evaluation.
As Josephine Bartosch observed, “it is becoming increasingly clear that the BMA is dangerously out of step with the medical consensus. The Cass Review has sent ripples across the world, and from lawsuits in the U.S. to a change of tack across Europe – medics are increasingly acknowledging that what is a crisis in youth mental health cannot be cured by changing bodies.”
Health
RFK Jr: There’s no medical justification for vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/84e54/84e547ac3934d73be2ff866b74a8b0c7c2d846d9" alt=""
From LifeSiteNews
‘Hepatitis B is sexually transmitted from having sex with multiple partners in gay sex, or from sex workers, or intravenous drug use,’ explained the new HHS head. ‘Why would you give that to a baby?’
In a widely-viewed video shared on social media, the new U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., asserted that the majority of vaccines — including those he sees as unjustifiably being mandated for infants — have been developed primarily to create profits for Big Pharma.
“Most of the vaccines after 1989 were added not for public health reasons but for pharmaceutical profit reasons,” said Kennedy.
“Why are we vaccinating one-day-old babies for Hepatitis B?” he asked.
“Hepatitis B is sexually transmitted from having sex with multiple partners in gay sex, or from sex workers, or intravenous drug use,” he said, reemphasizing, “Why would you give that to a baby?”
According to Kennedy, Pharmaceutical giant Merck was directed by both the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) to develop the Hepatitis B vaccine for “those vulnerable populations.”
He explained that when those populations showed little interest in the vaccine, “Merck went back to the agencies and said ‘You told us to develop this vaccine, but nobody’s buying it.”
“The CDC said, ‘Don’t worry’” recounted Kennedy, “we’ll just recommend it for children and we’ll force everybody to buy it.”
“So, that’s how it got on the [childhood vaccine] schedule,” he said, declaring, “There’s no medical justification.”
RFK JR: “Merck went back to the agencies and said you told us to develop this [Hepatitis B] vaccine. Nobody's buying it. And CDC said don't worry, we'll just recommend it for children. We'll force everybody to buy it. That's how it got on the schedule.” pic.twitter.com/JTmATn8UbP
— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) February 21, 2025
Kennedy has previously explained just how lucrative government-mandated children’s vaccines have been for the pharmaceutical industry:
There’s no downstream liability, there’s no front-end safety testing – that saves them a quarter billion dollars – and there’s no marketing and advertising costs, because the federal government is ordering 78 million school kids to take that vaccine every year.
What better product could you have? And so there was a gold rush to add all these new vaccines to the schedule that we don’t need. Most of these vaccines are unnecessary. Many of them are for diseases that are not even casually contagious.
It was a gold rush, because if you get onto that schedule, it’s a billion dollars a year for your company.
And in many cases, NIH is earning the royalties.
According to Kennedy, more obscene than the huge profits being horded by Big Pharma are the vast number of negative side-effects from all those untested vaccines.
“Neurological diseases” have “exploded,” he said.
“ADHD, sleep disorders, language delays, ASD, autism, Tourette’s syndrome, ticks, narcolepsy. These are all things that I never heard of,” said Kennedy. “Autism went from one in 10,000 in my generation according to CDC data to one in every 34 kids today.”
Kennedy is known for vehemently opposing vaccines without proper knowledge for those taking them, a stance he adopted after the mothers of vaccine-injured children implored him to look into the research linking thimerosal to neurological injuries, including autism. He went on to found Children’s Health Defense, an organization with the stated mission of “ending childhood health epidemics by eliminating toxic exposure,” largely through vaccines.
Addictions
BC overhauls safer supply program in response to widespread pharmacy scam
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5098d/5098d4a83929face1bba6f33bfbcaec88e59a0d1" alt=""
A B.C. pharmacy scam investigation has led the provincial government to return to a witnessed consumption model for safer supply
More than 60 pharmacies across B.C. are alleged to have participated in a kickback scheme linked to safer supply drugs, according to a provincial report released Feb. 19.
On Feb. 5, the BC Conservatives leaked a report that showed the findings of an internal investigation by the B.C. Ministry of Health. That investigation showed dozens of pharmacies were filling prescriptions patients did not require in order to overbill the government. These safer supply drugs were then diverted onto the black market.
After the report was leaked, the province committed to ending take-home safer supply models, which allow users to take hydromorphone pills home in bottles. Instead, it will require drug users to consume prescribed opioids in a witnessed program, under the oversight of a medical professional.
Gregory Sword, whose 14-year-old daughter Kamilah died in August 2022 after taking a hydromorphone pill that had been diverted from B.C.’s safer supply program, expressed outrage over the report’s findings.
“This is so frustrating to hear that [pharmacies] were making money off this program and causing more drugs [to flood] the street,” Sword told Canadian Affairs on Feb. 20.
The investigation found that pharmacies exploited B.C.’s Frequency of Dispensing policy to maximize billings. To take advantage of dispensing fees, pharmacies incentivized clients to fill prescriptions they did not require by offering them cash or rewards. Some of those clients then sold the drugs on the black market. Pharmacies earned up to $11,000 per patient a year.
“I’m positive that [the B.C. government has] known this for a long time and only made this decision when the public became aware and the scrutiny was high,” said Elenore Sturko, Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, who released the leaked report in a statement on Feb. 5.
“As much as I am really disappointed in how long it’s taken for this decision to be made, I am also happy that this has happened,” she said.
The health ministry said it is investigating the implicated pharmacies. Those that are confirmed to have been involved could have their licenses suspended, be referred to law enforcement or become ineligible to participate in PharmaCare, the provincial program that helps residents cover the costs of prescription drugs.
Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis – or donate to our investigative journalism fund.
Witnessed dosing
The leaked report says that “a significant portion of the opioids being freely prescribed by doctors and pharmacists are not being consumed by their intended recipients.” It also says “prescribed alternatives are trafficked provincially, nationally and internationally.”
Critics of the safer supply program say it enables addiction, while supporters say it reduces overdoses.
Sword, Kamilah’s father, is suing the provincial and federal governments, arguing B.C.’s safer supply program made it possible for youth such as his daughter to access drugs.
Madison, Kamilah’s best friend, also became addicted to opioids dispensed through safer supply programs. Madison was just 15 when she first encountered “dillies” — hydromorphone pills dispensed through safer supply, but widely available on the streets. She developed a tolerance that led her to fentanyl.
“I do know for sure that some pharmacies and doctors were aware of the diversion,” Madison’s mother Beth told Canadian Affairs on Feb. 20.
“When I first realized what my daughter was taking and how she was getting it, I phoned the pharmacy and the doctor on the label of the pill bottle to inform them that the patient was selling their hydromorphone,” Beth said.
Masha Krupp, an Ottawa mother who has a son enrolled in a safer supply program, has said the safer supply program in her city is similarly flawed. Canadian Affairs previously reported on this program, which is run by Recovery Care’s Ottawa-based harm reduction clinics.
“I read about the B.C. pharmacy scheme and wasn’t surprised,” Krupp told Canadian Affairs on Feb. 20. Krupp lost a daughter to methadone toxicity while she was in an addiction treatment program at Recovery Care.
“Three years [after starting safer supply], my son is still using fentanyl, crack cocaine and methadone, despite being with Dr. [Charles] Breau and with Recovery Care for over three years,” Krupp testified before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health on Oct. 22, 2024.
Krupp has been vocal about the dangers of dispensing large quantities of opioids without proper oversight, arguing many patients sell their prescriptions to buy stronger street drugs.
“You can’t give addicts 28 pills and say, ‘Oh here you go,’” she said in her testimony. “They sell for three dollars a pop on the street.”
Krupp has also advocated for witnessed consumption of safer supply medications, arguing supervised dosing would prevent diversion and ensure proper oversight of pharmacies.
“I had talked about witnessed dosing for safe supply when I appeared before the parliamentary health committee last October,” she told Canadian Affairs this week.
“I’m grateful that finally … this decision has been made to return to a witness program,” said Sturko, the B.C. MLA.
In 2020, B.C. implemented a witnessed consumption model to ensure safer supply opioids were consumed as prescribed and to reduce diversion. In 2021, the province switched to take-home models. Its stated aim was to expand access, save lives and ease pressure on health-care facilities during the pandemic.
“You’re really fighting against a group of people … working within the bureaucracy of [the B.C. NDP] government … who have been making efforts to work towards the legalization of drugs and, in doing that, have looked only for opportunities to bolster their arguments for their position, instead of examining their approach in a balanced way,” said Sturko.
“These are foreseeable outcomes when you do not put proper safeguards in place and when you completely ignore all indications of negative impacts.”
Sword also believes some drug policies fail to prioritize the safety of vulnerable individuals.
“Greed is the ultimate evil in society and this just proves it,” he said. “We don’t care about these drugs getting into the wrong hands as long as I get my money.”
This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.
Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.
-
Business2 days ago
Government debt burden increasing across Canada
-
Business2 days ago
New climate plan simply hides the costs to Canadians
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Bipartisan US Coalition Finally Tells Europe, and the FBI, to Shove It
-
Business1 day ago
Federal Heritage Minister recommends nearly doubling CBC funding and reducing accountability
-
Alberta1 day ago
Open letter to Ottawa from Alberta strongly urging National Economic Corridor
-
Addictions1 day ago
BC overhauls safer supply program in response to widespread pharmacy scam
-
International23 hours ago
Jihadis behead 70 Christians in DR Congo church
-
Health2 days ago
Trudeau government buys 500k bird flu vaccines to be ‘ready’ for potential ‘health threats’