Health
UK report debunks claim that halting puberty blockers increases suicide in gender-confused youth
From LifeSiteNews
For more than a decade, the transgender movement has used a potent lie to blackmail desperate parents and feckless politicians into accepting their agenda: that if gender-confused children are not provided with sex changes – “gender-affirming care” – they will be at a high risk for suicide. Parent after parent heard the simple, deceitful question, posed to them by trans activist medical professionals: “Would you rather have a dead daughter, or a live son?”
Yet another review highlights that this claim is completely baseless. As the BBC reported on July 20: “There is no evidence of a large rise in suicides in young patients attending a gender identity clinic in London, an independent review has found.”
The report, titled “Review of suicides and gender dysphoria at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust: independent report,” was published by the U.K. government on July 19. Professor Louis Appleby was tasked by Health Secretary Wes Streeting to examine the evidence after LGBT activists claimed that suicide rates were spiking due to restrictions on puberty blockers, which were first implemented in 2020. The review concluded:
- The data do not support the claim that there has been a large rise in suicide in young gender dysphoria patients at the Tavistock.
- The way that this issue has been discussed on social media has been insensitive, distressing and dangerous, and goes against guidance on safe reporting of suicide.
- The claims that have been placed in the public domain do not meet basic standards for statistical evidence.
- There is a need to move away from the perception that puberty-blocking drugs are the main marker of non-judgemental acceptance in this area of health care.
- We need to ensure high quality data in which everyone has confidence, as the basis of improved safety for this at risk group of young people.
This review is devastating to virtually every single claim trans activists have been making – and Appleby even notes, in point two of his summary, that trans activists themselves are posing a real danger to gender-confused children with their irresponsible lies about suicidality. Suicide, as we have long known, is a social contagion – and trans activists are explicitly encouraging gender-confused children to claim suicidal ideation in order to acquire puberty blockers.
As the BBC reported: “The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said it was vital that public discussion around the issue was handled responsibly.” It is difficult to read that statement as anything but a direct rebuke of trans activists. Appleby, a professor of psychiatry and experienced suicide researcher from the University of Manchester, warned that trans activist rhetoric could actually lead to adolescents copycatting that behavior. “One risk is that young people and their families will be terrified by predictions of suicide as inevitable without puberty blockers – some of the responses on social media show this,” he said. As the BBC noted:
In response to [trans activist] claims, the new health secretary launched an independent review led by Prof Appleby which analysed data from NHS England on suicides of patients at the Tavistock clinic, based on an audit at the trust.
Covering the period between 2018-19 and 2023-24, he found there were 12 suicides – five in the three years leading up to 2020-21 and seven in the three years afterwards.
‘This is essentially no difference,’ Prof Appleby says in his report, ‘taking account of expected fluctuations in small numbers, and would not reach statistical significance.’
He adds: ‘In the under 18s specifically, there were 3 suicides before and 3 after 2020-21.’
The Good Law Project, run by executive director Jo Maugham, is currently challenging the puberty blocker ban – and predictably, Maugham expressed his disagreement with the review, saying that he had “profound difficulties” with it. It likely will make little difference. In the U.K., the transgender narrative is in tatters – and leaders still parroting these debunked lines should take note.
From the Brownstone Institute
The excessive medical response to the Covid pandemic made one thing abundantly clear: Medical consumers really ought to do their own research into the health issues that impact them. Furthermore, it is no longer enough simply to seek out a “second opinion” or even a “third opinion” from doctors. They may well all be misinformed or biased. Furthermore, this problem appears to predate the Covid phenomenon.
A striking example of that can be found in the recent history of prostate cancer testing and treatment, which, for personal reasons, has become a subject of interest to me. In many ways, it strongly resembles the Covid calamity, where misuse of the PCR test resulted in harming the supposedly Covid-infected with destructive treatments.
Two excellent books on the subject illuminate the issues involved in prostate cancer. One is Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers by Dr. Mark Scholz and Ralph Blum. Dr. Scholtz is executive director of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute in California. The other is The Great Prostate Hoax by Richard Ablin and Ronald Piana. Richard Ablin is a pathologist who invented the PSA test but has become a vociferous critic of its widespread use as a diagnostic tool for prostate cancer.
Mandatory yearly PSA testing at many institutions opened up a gold mine for urologists, who were able to perform lucrative biopsies and prostatectomies on patients who had PSA test numbers above a certain level. However, Ablin has insisted that “routine PSA screening does far more harm to men than good.” Moreover, he maintains that the medical people involved in prostate screening and treatment represent “a self-perpetuating industry that has maimed millions of American men.”
Even during approval hearings for the PSA test, the FDA was well aware of the problems and dangers. For one thing, the test has a 78% false positive rate. An elevated PSA level can be caused by various factors besides cancer, so it is not really a test for prostate cancer. Moreover, a PSA test score can spur frightened men into getting unnecessary biopsies and harmful surgical procedures.
One person who understood the potential dangers of the test well was the chairman of the FDA’s committee, Dr. Harold Markovitz, who decided whether to approve it. He declared, “I’m afraid of this test. If it is approved, it comes out with the imprimatur of the committee…as pointed out, you can’t wash your hands of guilt. . .all this does is threaten a whole lot of men with prostate biopsy…it’s dangerous.”
In the end, the committee did not give unqualified approval to the PSA test but only approved it “with conditions.” However, subsequently, the conditions were ignored.
Nevertheless, the PSA test became celebrated as the route to salvation from prostate cancer. The Postal Service even circulated a stamp promoting yearly PSA tests in 1999. Quite a few people became wealthy and well-known at the Hybritech company, thanks to the Tandem-R PSA test, their most lucrative product.
In those days, the corrupting influence of the pharmaceutical companies on the medical device and drug approval process was already apparent. In an editorial for the Journal of the American Medical Association (quoted in Albin and Piana’s book), Dr. Marcia Angell wrote, “The pharmaceutical industry has gained unprecedented control over the evaluation of its products…there’s mounting evidence that they skew the research they sponsor to make their drugs look better and safer.” She also authored the book The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It.
A cancer diagnosis often causes great anxiety, but in actuality, prostate cancer develops very slowly compared to other cancers and does not often pose an imminent threat to life. A chart featured in Scholz and Blum’s book compares the average length of life of people whose cancer returns after surgery. In the case of colon cancer, they live on average two more years, but prostate cancer patients live another 18.5 years.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, prostate cancer patients do not die from it but rather from something else, whether they are treated for it or not. In a 2023 article about this issue titled “To Treat or Not to Treat,” the author reports the results of a 15-year study of prostate cancer patients in the New England Journal of Medicine. Only 3% of the men in the study died of prostate cancer, and getting radiation or surgery for it did not seem to offer much statistical benefit over “active surveillance.”
Dr. Scholz confirms this, writing that “studies indicate that these treatments [radiation and surgery] reduce mortality in men with Low and Intermediate-Risk disease by only 1% to 2% and by less than 10% in men with High-Risk disease.”
Nowadays prostate surgery is a dangerous treatment choice, but it is still widely recommended by doctors, especially in Japan. Sadly, it also seems to be unnecessary. One study cited in Ablin and Piana’s book concluded that “PSA mass screening resulted in a huge increase in the number of radical prostatectomies. There is little evidence for improved survival outcomes in the recent years…”
However, a number of urologists urge their patients not to wait to get prostate surgery, threatening them with imminent death if they do not. Ralph Blum, a prostate cancer patient, was told by one urologist, “Without surgery you’ll be dead in two years.” Many will recall that similar death threats were also a common feature of Covid mRNA-injection promotion.
Weighing against prostate surgery are various risks, including death and long-term impairment, since it is a very difficult procedure, even with newer robotic technology. According to Dr. Scholz, about 1 in 600 prostate surgeries result in the death of the patient. Much higher percentages suffer from incontinence (15% to 20%) and impotence after surgery. The psychological impact of these side effects is not a minor problem for many men.
In light of the significant risks and little proven benefit of treatment, Dr. Scholz censures “the urology world’s persistent overtreatment mindset.” Clearly, excessive PSA screening led to inflicting unnecessary suffering on many men. More recently, the Covid phenomenon has been an even more dramatic case of medical overkill.
Ablin and Piana’s book makes an observation that also sheds a harsh light on the Covid medical response: “Isn’t cutting edge innovation that brings new medical technology to the market a good thing for health-care consumers? The answer is yes, but only if new technologies entering the market have proven benefit over the ones they replace.”
That last point especially applies to Japan right now, where people are being urged to receive the next-generation mRNA innovation–the self-amplifying mRNA Covid vaccine. Thankfully, a number seem to be resisting this time.
Alberta
Sun setting on AHS as first of four provincial health agencies, Primary Care Alberta set to launch
Primary Care Alberta, the new provincial health agency overseeing and coordinating the delivery of primary health care services, will become operational later this fall.
Alberta’s government is taking action to refocus the health care system so that every Albertan has access to a primary health care provider and timely, high-quality primary health care, no matter where they live.
Alberta’s new primary care provincial health agency, Primary Care Alberta, will create a modern, more responsive and unified health care system that prioritizes patients, empowers front-line health care professionals and helps reduce pressures on the entire health system.
The immediate priority of Primary Care Alberta is to ensure every Albertan has access to high-quality primary care services in all areas of the province, so all Albertans and their families are supported in their day-to-day health needs through every stage of life. The new primary care agency will focus on supporting integrated teams of family physicians, nurse practitioners and pharmacists to provide patients with the best care possible.
“Standing up Primary Care Alberta is an important milestone in refocusing the health care system to put patients first and give our front-line experts the support they need to ensure Albertans are receiving the care they deserve.”
Kim Simmonds, the current assistant deputy minister of strategic planning and performance at Alberta Health, will be appointed as chief executive officer of Primary Care Alberta. Simmonds brings a wealth of public and private sector experience to the role and has extensive experience working with stakeholders across the health care system. She has experience working with clinicians and understands the need for data and evidence-based decision-making when it comes to delivering primary care services to Albertans, no matter where they live.
“If primary care is to be the foundation on which the entire health system stands, every Albertan must have an ongoing connection and trusting relationship with a family doctor or health care team. They must belong to a health home where they are known and where they don’t have to tell their health story over and over again. There is much work to do in Alberta to achieve these goals, and I’m eager to get going to help make it happen.”
Modernizing Alberta’s Primary Care System (MAPS)
In 2022, the Modernizing Alberta’s Primary Care System (MAPS) initiative was launched to recommend ways to strengthen Alberta’s primary health care system. Alberta’s government undertook extensive engagement with its primary care providers and stakeholders to develop a guide to strengthen primary health care in Alberta. The MAPS final report recommended creating a single governance structure that supports an integrated team of health care professionals with data sharing within and across sectors.
Improving the coordination and delivery of primary care was also something Alberta’s government heard during provincewide engagement sessions held earlier this year as part of efforts to engage with Albertans and health care professionals on how to refocus the health care system. This made-in-Alberta solution is the first of its kind to be established in a provincial health care system. The agency is a dedicated organization to support governance, oversight, delivery, operation and coordination, a significant step being taken to improve the quality of health care delivery in the province.
Quick facts
- The Provincial Health Agencies Act enables the transition from one regional health authority, Alberta Health Services (AHS), to an integrated system of four sector-based provincial health agencies: primary care, acute care, continuing care, and mental health and addiction.
- The agencies will be responsible for delivering integrated health services, ensuring Albertans receive timely access to care regardless of where they live.
- Some of Primary Care Alberta’s longer-term priorities include:
- Engaging physicians and providing leadership opportunities to lead their peers through the change process.
- Incentivizing care models that improve health outcomes and patient experience.
- Providing tools to primary care providers, such as enhancing the current Find a Doctor website and e-Referral, that benefit both providers and patients.
- Setting standards for primary care so Albertans have consistent services.
- Funding primary care networks that bring practitioners together to implement provincial initiatives and address regional needs.
- Developing chronic disease care models to reduce the burden of chronic disease on patients and the health care system.
- More than 30,000 Albertans have had the opportunity to share their thoughts and ideas directly on the refocusing through in-person engagement sessions, online feedback forms and telephone townhalls.
- In addition to public engagement sessions, dedicated engagements were held with Indigenous communities, the francophone community and other key health partners.
Related information
Inside the Shocking Parliamentary Ethics Hearing That Reveals the Depth of Media Bias in Canada
Can We Finally Talk About United Nations Funding?
Alberta Sports Hall of Fame Celebrating Big Wins and Olympian Meet and Greet
Barron Trump Shut Out by Bank Amid Cancel Culture Accusations
What Inter-Provincial Migration Trends Can Tell Us About Good Governance
First Battle of Alberta this NHL season to bring big boost to Child Advocacy Centre!
Canadians should understand costs of expanding Old Age Security
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta piloting test to supply industry with fuel derived from worn-out tires
-
Addictions1 day agoPierre Poilievre endorses involuntary treatment for children, inmates severely addicted to drugs
-
National1 day agoOver 20 Liberal MPs reportedly sign document calling on Trudeau to step down
-
Internet2 days agoTrudeau-appointed senator apologizes for asking media to edit Conservative opponent’s op-ed
-
Alberta22 hours ago
Sun setting on AHS as first of four provincial health agencies, Primary Care Alberta set to launch
-
Alberta2 days agoClean energy think tank says Alberta has the resources to lead Canada in carbon capture and storage
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoJudges to decide if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can sue Biden administration for colluding with social media companies to censor free speech
-
Economy1 day agoFederal government’s recent fiscal record includes unprecedented levels of spending and debt