Health
Canadian media might not be able to ignore new studies on harmful gender transitions for minors
From LifeSiteNews
When the UK National Health Service’s bombshell Cass Review condemning gender “transition” for minors was published, virtually the entire Canadian press engaged in a voluntary blackout.
Unless you were reading an alternative news source, an international news source, or the National Post, it was as if Cass Review — and its findings — had simply never existed. Many media outlets did not run a single story; the state-funded CBC ran precisely one, and it was a laughable hatchet job claiming that the massive study was “biased.” They did not interview a single person associated with the research.
The Canadian press has functioned for years as a propaganda arm for the transgender movement, even as the gender ideology house of cards topples in in the U.S. and the UK, where there have been genuinely robust debates informed by scientific evidence rather than ideology. Thus, I wonder how they will deal with new studies by Canadian researchers that reach many of the same conclusions.
As Sharon Kirkey of the National Post reported. “The evidence surrounding the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children and teens identifying as transgender is of such low certainty it’s impossible to conclude whether the drugs help or harm, Canadian researchers are reporting.” The research was funded by the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM) and McMaster University, considered to one of Canada’s top institutions of higher hearing, and published this week in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood.
“There’s not enough reliable information,” said Chan Kulatunga-Moruzi, one of the authors of the two new reviews. “We really don’t have enough evidence to say that these procedures are beneficial. Few studies have looked at physical harm, so we have really no evidence of harm as well. There’s not a lot that we can say with certainty, based on the evidence.” (Here, I would note that there are now thousands of testimonies of detransitioners testifying to the harm that sex-change “treatments” have caused them, but this is a remarkable admission nonetheless.)
The researchers conclude that doctors should approach these “treatments” with extreme care, clearly communicating with parents and children and — notably — checking “whose values they are prioritizing” if they should decide to prescribe cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers. As Kirkey put it with devastating understatement: “Originally considered fully reversible, concerns are emerging about potential long-term or irreversible effects, the Canadian team wrote … Questions have been raised about the effects of fertility or what impact, if any, they might have on brain development.”
The researchers painstakingly went through the available evidence on both cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers (Kirkey irritatingly refers to them as “gender-affirming hormones”) for those up to 26 years old. To analyze the evidence, they “graded” it “using a scoring system co-developed by Dr. Gordon Guyatt, a celebrated McMaster University scientist who coined the phrase evidence-based medicine.” As Kirkey reported:
After screening 6,736 titles and abstracts involving puberty blockers, only 10 studies were included in their review. While children who received puberty blockers compared to those who don’t score higher on “global function” — quality of life, and general physical and psychological wellbeing — the evidence was of “very low certainty.” Very low, meaning researchers have “very little confidence in the effect estimate” and that the true effect “is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.”
It gets worse. The research also debunked the perpetually asserted claim utilized by trans activists and their political allies to enforce their agenda: that these drugs are necessary to prevent depression and suicidal ideation. According to the researchers: “We are very uncertain about the causal effect of the (drugs) on depression. Most studies provided very low certainty of evidence about the outcomes of interest; thus, we cannot exclude the possibility of benefit or harm.” Again, despite the careful understatement, this is devastating: Thousands of children have been subjected to these treatments on the premise that they prevent harm and are harmless.
Indeed, the second review, which analyzed 24 studies, reached the similar conclusion of “very low confirmatory evidence of substantive change” not just in depression or health overall but even in gender dysphoria itself. As Kirkey noted: “Many studies suffered from missing data, small sample sizes, or lacked a comparison group.” The researchers concluded: “Since the current best evidence, including our systematic review and meta-analysis, is predominantly very low quality, clinicians must clearly communicate this evidence to patients and caregivers. Treatment decisions should consider the lack of moderate- and high-quality evidence, uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers and patient’s values and preferences.”
Imagine for a moment that you are a teen or young person who started these treatments after having been told, with utter, aggressive confidence, by counselors, psychiatrists, and doctors that they were both harmless and necessary — that they could even save your life. Imagine being a parent who subjected your child to these treatments, convinced by “experts” that this was the best thing you could do to love your son or daughter. I have written these words too many times to count: This is a medical scandal of unprecedented proportions in this century, and those that perpetrated it must be held accountable.
Health
Leslyn Lewis urges Canadians to fight WHO pandemic treaty before it’s legally binding
From LifeSiteNews
Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis is urging Canadians to demand a parliamentary debate on the WHO Pandemic Agreement, highlighting risks to national sovereignty.
Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) Leslyn Lewis called on Canadians to petition against the World Health Organization’s (WHO) pandemic treaty before it becomes legally binding.
In an October 23 post on X, Lewis encouraged Canadians to demand that politicians debate the WHO Pandemic Agreement before it becomes law after warnings that the treaty could undermine national freedom and lead to global surveillance.
“I have raised red flags about its implications on Canada’s health sovereignty and the federal government’s willingness to enter a legally binding treaty of this weight without any input from Parliament,” she declared.
In May, Canada, under Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney, adopted the treaty despite warnings that the agreement gives the globalist entity increased power in the event of another “pandemic.”
However, Lewis revealed that since the agreement has yet to be officially signed, Canada is not bound to it and can still make amendments.
“We are now in a critical window of opportunity to ask tough questions and debate the treaty before it is signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and binds our nation,” she explained.
Lewis encouraged Canadians to sign a petition calling for a debate of the agreement as well as contacting their local MPs to request a parliamentary review of the treaty.
Lewis revealed that Canadians’ persistent opposition to the treaty has already resulted in some of the more dangerous clauses, including restricting free speech, freedom of movement, and government surveillance, being removed from the final agreement.
“Thanks to the engagement of countless Canadians and concerned citizens around the world, the most extreme provisions in the WHO Pandemic Treaty were removed — these measures would have undermined national healthcare sovereignty and given international bureaucrats sweeping powers,” Lewis declared.
“The removal of provisions on vaccine mandates, misinformation and disinformation, censorship requirements, travel restrictions, global surveillance, and mandatory health measures happened because people paid attention and spoke up,” she continued.
Among the most criticized parts of the agreement is the affirmation that “the World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”
While the agreement claims to uphold “the principle of the sovereignty of States in addressing public health matters,” it also calls for a globally unified response in the event of a pandemic, stating plainly that “(t)he Parties shall promote a One Health approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”
Business
Bill Gates walks away from the climate cult
Billionaire Bill Gates — long one of the loudest voices warning of climate catastrophe — now says the world has bigger problems to worry about. In a 17-page memo released Tuesday, the Microsoft co-founder called for a “strategic pivot” away from the obsessive focus on reducing global temperatures, urging leaders instead to prioritize fighting poverty and eradicating disease in the developing world. “Climate change is a serious problem, but it’s not the end of humanity,” Gates wrote.
Gates, 70, argued that global leaders have lost perspective by treating climate change as an existential crisis while millions continue to suffer from preventable diseases like malaria. “If I had to choose between eradicating malaria and preventing a tenth of a degree of warming, I’d let the temperature go up 0.1 degree,” he told reporters ahead of next month’s U.N. climate conference in Brazil. “People don’t understand the suffering that exists today.”
For decades, Gates has positioned himself as a leading advocate for global climate initiatives, investing billions in green energy projects and warning of the dangers of rising emissions. Yet his latest comments mark a striking reversal — and a rare admission that the world’s climate panic may have gone too far. “If you think climate is not important, you won’t agree with the memo,” Gates told journalists. “If you think climate is the only cause and apocalyptic, you won’t agree with the memo. It’s a pragmatic view from someone trying to maximize the money and innovation that helps poor countries.”
The billionaire’s change in tone is sure to raise eyebrows ahead of the U.N. conference, where climate activists plan to push for new emissions targets and wealth transfers from developed nations. Critics have long accused Gates and other elites of hypocrisy for lecturing the public about fossil fuels while traveling the globe on private jets. Now, Gates himself appears to be distancing from the doomsday rhetoric he once helped spread, effectively admitting that humanity faces more immediate moral imperatives than the weather.
(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Stunning Climate Change pivot from Bill Gates. Poverty and disease should be top concern.
-
Business1 day agoYou Won’t Believe What Canada’s Embassy in Brazil Has Been Up To
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoSenate Grills Meta and Google Over Biden Administration’s Role in COVID-Era Content Censorship
-
Business1 day agoMystery cloaks Doug Ford’s funding of media through Ontario advertising subsidy
-
Crime12 hours agoPublic Execution of Anti-Cartel Mayor in Michoacán Prompts U.S. Offer to Intervene Against Cartels
-
Environment20 hours agoThe era of Climate Change Alarmism is over
-
Automotive1 day agoCarney’s Budget Risks Another Costly EV Bet
-
International11 hours agoNigeria better stop killing Christians — or America’s coming “guns-a-blazing”
-
Aristotle Foundation12 hours agoB.C. government laid groundwork for turning private property into Aboriginal land




