Health
US plastic surgeons’ group challenges ‘consensus’ on ‘gender transitions’ for minors
From LifeSiteNews
The American Society of Plastic Surgeons argued that ‘genital surgical interventions’ have not been proven an effective solution to adolescent gender dysphoria, adding that current ‘research’ backing medical intervention is of ‘low quality/low certainty.’
One of the most effective weapons that proponents of radical gender ideology have wielded in support of their cause has been “consensus.”
When pressed to explain how blocking a young boy’s puberty or removing a teenage girl’s healthy breasts provide any medical or mental benefit, they often cite “experts” or refer to a “consensus” of medical organizations and government agencies.
But there’s a problem with that strategy.
Recent research has shown the glaring flaws in the argument that transition drugs and procedures are appropriate or helpful for minors. European countries that had once embraced “gender affirming care” for minors, including the U.K., have begun to reverse these policies.
While American medical organizations and governments have been slow to respond, recent developments indicate that may be changing.
Earlier this year, City Journal reported that the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) had not signed on to “any organization’s practice recommendations for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria.”
ASPS added that there is “considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions” and that “the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty.”
More recently, the president of that organization, Dr. Steven Williams, told a local media outlet, “I don’t perform gender-affirming care in adolescents, and the reason why is because I don’t think the data supports it.”
“So at my practice, we don’t even entertain that.”
Prominent plastic surgeon Dr. Sheila Nazarian echoed that sentiment. “I think some physicians and some medical associations have been overtaken by a vocal minority and they are politicized,” she said. “This is 100 percent an American political issue. If we look at Europe, very progressive governments have backed off of these procedures in minors because they’re just analyzing the data – as we should with every procedure. Why is it that for this procedure, in this patient population, we just have to shut up?”
In addition, whistleblowers have come forward to reveal the damage being done to children. Evidence now shows that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has exerted pressure on researchers. In fact, leaked files from WPATH show that some doctors understood many of the concerns about pushing such drugs and procedures on minors – but did so anyway.
A landmark review of the available research on the effect of these drugs and procedures by Dr. Hilary Cass “demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.”
The Cass review, commissioned by the U.K. National Health Service, noted that “[t]he strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated, both in scientific publications and social debate.”
In short, the “consensus” that our media, doctors, activists, and politicians rely upon is no consensus at all. It’s based not on proven science but on a commitment to ideology.
These cracks in the façade that advocates of gender ideology use as a shield provide hope to those who have long been advocating for the truth – in the courtroom and in the culture:
- The truth that no amount of cross-sex hormones or permanently damaging surgery can change a person’s sex.
- The truth that doctors have a duty to “do no harm,” and that includes being honest with patients about the facts regarding procedures that are mischaracterized as “gender affirming.”
It’s heartening to see prominent doctors from at least one major medical association speak the truth about the harm being done to so many children.
In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, we are hopeful that the new administration will follow through on promises to protect boys and girls from gender ideology.
And the issue of gender transition efforts for children has reached the U.S. Supreme Court too. On December 4, the court heard arguments in United States of America v. Skrmetti, in which the state of Tennessee is defending its law protecting children from these harmful and unnecessary procedures.
But we know that regardless of what happens in Washington, D.C., we will continue to face challenges in statehouses, government agencies, and school districts across the country.
The fight for truth isn’t over yet – but this is a big step toward achieving a lasting victory.
Reprinted with permission from the Alliance Defending Freedom.
2025 Federal Election
Study links B.C.’s drug policies to more overdoses, but researchers urge caution
By Alexandra Keeler
A study links B.C.’s safer supply and decriminalization to more opioid hospitalizations, but experts note its limitations
A new study says B.C.’s safer supply and decriminalization policies may have failed to reduce overdoses. Furthermore, the very policies designed to help drug users may have actually increased hospitalizations.
“Neither the safer opioid supply policy nor the decriminalization of drug possession appeared to mitigate the opioid crisis, and both were associated with an increase in opioid overdose hospitalizations,” the study says.
The study has sparked debate, with some pointing to it as proof that B.C.’s drug policies failed. Others have questioned the study’s methodology and conclusions.
“The question we want to know the answer to [but cannot] is how many opioid hospitalizations would have occurred had the policy not have been implemented,” said Michael Wallace, a biostatistician and associate professor at the University of Waterloo.
“We can never come up with truly definitive conclusions in cases such as this, no matter what data we have, short of being able to magically duplicate B.C.”
Jumping to conclusions
B.C.’s controversial safer supply policies provide drug users with prescription opioids as an alternative to toxic street drugs. Its decriminalization policy permitted drug users to possess otherwise illegal substances for personal use.
The peer-reviewed study was led by health economist Hai Nguyen and conducted by researchers from Memorial University in Newfoundland, the University of Manitoba and Weill Cornell Medicine, a medical school in New York City. It was published in the medical journal JAMA Health Forum on March 21.
The researchers used a statistical method to create a “synthetic” comparison group, since there is no ideal control group. The researchers then compared B.C. to other provinces to assess the impact of certain drug policies.
Examining data from 2016 to 2023, the study links B.C.’s safer supply policies to a 33 per cent rise in opioid hospitalizations.
The study says the province’s decriminalization policies further drove up hospitalizations by 58 per cent.
“Neither the safer supply policy nor the subsequent decriminalization of drug possession appeared to alleviate the opioid crisis,” the study concludes. “Instead, both were associated with an increase in opioid overdose hospitalizations.”
The B.C. government rolled back decriminalization in April 2024 in response to widespread concerns over public drug use. This February, the province also officially acknowledged that diversion of safer supply drugs does occur.
The study did not conclusively determine whether the increase in hospital visits was due to diverted safer supply opioids, the toxic illicit supply, or other factors.
“There was insufficient evidence to conclusively attribute an increase in opioid overdose deaths to these policy changes,” the study says.
Nguyen’s team had published an earlier, 2024 study in JAMA Internal Medicine that also linked safer supply to increased hospitalizations. However, it failed to control for key confounders such as employment rates and naloxone access. Their 2025 study better accounts for these variables using the synthetic comparison group method.
The study’s authors did not respond to Canadian Affairs’ requests for comment.
Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis – or donate to our investigative journalism fund.
Correlation vs. causation
Chris Perlman, a health data and addiction expert at the University of Waterloo, says more studies are needed.
He believes the findings are weak, as they show correlation but not causation.
“The study provides a small signal that the rates of hospitalization have changed, but I wouldn’t conclude that it can be solely attributed to the safer supply and decrim[inalization] policy decisions,” said Perlman.
He also noted the rise in hospitalizations doesn’t necessarily mean more overdoses. Rather, more people may be reaching hospitals in time for treatment.
“Given that the [overdose] rate may have gone down, I wonder if we’re simply seeing an effect where more persons survive an overdose and actually receive treatment in hospital where they would have died in the pre-policy time period,” he said.
The Nguyen study acknowledges this possibility.
“The observed increase in opioid hospitalizations, without a corresponding increase in opioid deaths, may reflect greater willingness to seek medical assistance because decriminalization could reduce the stigma associated with drug use,” it says.
“However, it is also possible that reduced stigma and removal of criminal penalties facilitated the diversion of safer opioids, contributing to increased hospitalizations.”
Karen Urbanoski, an associate professor in the Public Health and Social Policy department at the University of Victoria, is more critical.
“The [study’s] findings do not warrant the conclusion that these policies are causally associated with increased hospitalization or overdose,” said Urbanoski, who also holds the Canada Research Chair in Substance Use, Addictions and Health Services.
Her team published a study in November 2023 that measured safer supply’s impact on mortality and acute care visits. It found safer supply opioids did reduce overdose deaths.
Critics, however, raised concerns that her study misrepresented its underlying data and showed no statistically significant reduction in deaths after accounting for confounding factors.
The Nguyen study differs from Urbanoski’s. While Urbanoski’s team focused on individual-level outcomes, the Nguyen study analyzed broader, population-level effects, including diversion.
Wallace, the biostatistician, agrees more individual-level data could strengthen analysis, but does not believe it undermines the study’s conclusions. Wallace thinks the researchers did their best with the available data they had.
“We do not have a ‘copy’ of B.C. where the policies weren’t implemented to compare with,” said Wallace.
B.C.’s overdose rate of 775 per 100,000 is well above the national average of 533.
Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, has been a vocal critic of B.C.’s decriminalization and safer supply policies.
“If the government doesn’t want to believe this study, well then I invite them to do a similar study,” she told reporters on March 27.
“Show us the evidence that they have failed to show us since 2020,” she added, referring to the year B.C. implemented safer supply.
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.
The Vigilant Fox
Once you see what else these drugs are doing, you’ll never look at depression “treatment” the same way again.
The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.
Did you know that SSRI antidepressants INCREASE suicidal thoughts by 255%?
A clinical trial on healthy volunteers found that 2 out of 20 became suicidal after taking Zoloft.
One was literally on her way to kill herself when a timely phone call saved her life.
But it’s not just suicidal thoughts that make antidepressants dangerous.
And once you see what else these drugs are doing, you’ll never look at depression “treatment” the same way again.
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—or SSRIs—are one of the most harmful medicines prescribed today.
And that’s saying a lot because the market is FULL of harmful medicines.
What’s so bad about these antidepressants?
First of all, their use is widespread and frequently unjustifiable.
They promise to be a magical solution to depression and anxiety, but it’s quite the opposite.
In fact, they can cause side effects far worse than what they claim to treat.
SSRIs don’t just dull your emotions, and they don’t alter your brain chemistry for the better.
They literally reprogram your brain.
Between 40% and 60% of users report emotional numbness. Not just negative emotions—all emotions.
Joy, pain, motivation—all of it completely flatlined.
Some describe it as “life without color” or a “zombie-like” existence.
Sure, maybe you don’t feel depressed anymore. But you don’t feel anything at all.
That sounds… terrible.
Depression can be serious, but should we accept emotionless zombies as the alternative?
If you want to dig even deeper into the dark side of antidepressants and why they’re so harmful, check out @Midwesterndoc’s comprehensive report on the subject. And be sure to share this with anyone you know who may be considering starting an SSRI.
And it’s not just becoming an emotionless zombie you have to worry about. The emotional shutdown can lead to something that is much worse than depression and anxiety.
I don’t mean just a little anger here and there.
SSRIs are causing people to commit suicide—and yes, even horrific mass shootings.
And guess what? The FDA knew about it.
Prozac triggers hallucinations, mania, and violence, and the FDA has known all along.
Even animals become aggressive on SSRIs.
But instead of going back to the drawing board, the FDA approved it anyway.
After nine years on the market, 39,000 people reported major psychiatric events. And those are only the people who reported it…
Really makes you question FDA approval, doesn’t it?
Did you know most of the mass shooters we hear about in the news were often on SSRIs?
It’s true.
And the media even reported on it. But then, they stopped.
That’s weird.
So why are we “not allowed” to talk about SSRIs and violence anymore?
It’s pretty simple.
It would blow the lid off one of the most dangerous pharmaceutical cover-ups in modern history.
It would expose the truth that Big Pharma knowingly released drugs that could make people snap and kill other people.
And they just kept selling them anyway.
But the psychotic violence caused by SSRIs is only the tip of the iceberg.
Obviously, not everyone taking these drugs becomes a mass shooter. But that doesn’t mean the other side effects are any less terrible for those who experience them.
SSRIs truly warp your mind, body, and emotions. And sometimes it is irreversible.
The numbers are truly chilling:
→ A 255% increase in suicidal thoughts
→ 30% of SSRI users develop Bipolar disorder
→ 59% suffer long-term sexual dysfunction
With many saying their libido never came back even after stopping the drug.
The science is clear. The harm caused by SSRIs greatly outweighs any benefits they provide.
Talk about depressing…
A 2020 study involving 20 healthy volunteers with zero history of depression or other mental illnesses had shocking results.
They were each given Zoloft.
TWO of them BECAME suicidal.
One of them was even on her way to kill herself when a divinely timed phone call interrupted her plans.
These two study participants were still affected several months later. They were actually questioning the stability of their personalities.
This doesn’t sound like a magic solution. This sounds like torture.
Speaking of stopping SSRIs—good luck!
They are highly addictive.
And it’s not just physical addiction. It’s neurological.
And because of what they do to the brain, it can take years to step down the dose and wean off of them. Years!
Withdrawal symptoms include things like:
– Brain zaps
– Panic attacks
– Suicidal spirals
– Derealization
And these symptoms can last weeks, months, or even years.
It’s not uncommon to fail and continue taking them because the withdrawal is just that bad.
A 2022 review found that 56% of users who tried to stop SSRIs experience withdrawal symptoms, and 46% describe it as severe.
Psychiatrists mislabel it as a “relapse” and prescribe even more drugs.
The system is set up to trap you. There’s no exit.
And the most vulnerable groups?
Pregnant women and children.
Despite strong evidence linking SSRIs to birth defects, premature birth, and newborn death, the FDA still endorses their use during pregnancy.
One study showed a six times higher risk of pulmonary hypertension in newborns.
Another study showed that SSRI babies lost height and weight in just 19 weeks.
This isn’t good.
SSRIs are being pushed on everyone. Especially vulnerable people like foster kids, parolees, prisoners, and elderly nursing home residents.
And in many of these cases, there is no real ability for them to say no.
That’s not mental health care. That’s drugging people.
The industry tells us SSRIs are “fixing a serotonin imbalance.”
But that’s a lie.
There’s no solid evidence that depression is caused by low serotonin.
So what’s the real mechanism at play here?
SSRIs alter brain wiring. And obviously not always in good ways.
SSRI users describe feeling like their “personality changed” after starting the drug.
The reports are endless and absolutely chilling.
Some were left numb for years. Others became aggressive, impulsive, or dissociated from reality.
Many say they don’t recognize who they became after taking SSRIs.
Excuse me… what?!
And of course, patients and their families are rarely warned about these effects.
Most say they were never told about the risks. There was no informed consent.
How can you not inform depressed people that their medication might make them suicidal? How is it even possible that we can be asking that question?
They experienced these things and talked to their doctors.
They were gaslit every step of the way.
If you or someone you love is taking SSRIs or is considering taking them, I urge you to read the full report from A Midwestern Doctor
How many more people have to suffer before this ends?
How many more people who reach out to their doctor because something is off and they’re looking for help are going to be hurt, sometimes permanently?
It’s time to expose the cover-up and end Big Pharma’s abuse and gaslighting once and for all.
RFK Jr. is right—this could finally be the turning point.
For 40 years, this tragedy was hidden behind slick ads and corrupted science.
But now it’s in the light and MAHA is ready to fight.
If you know anyone considering starting an SSRI, be sure to forward them this information. Because if you wait until after, it might be too late.
Thanks for reading!
This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact.
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
Indigenous-led Projects Hold Key To Canada’s Energy Future
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoConservatives promise to ban firing of Canadian federal workers based on COVID jab status
-
Business1 day agoIs Government Inflation Reporting Accurate?
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoCarney’s Hidden Climate Finance Agenda
-
Environment2 days agoExperiments to dim sunlight will soon be approved by UK government: report
-
International2 days agoPope Francis Got Canadian History Wrong
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days agoIs free speech over in the UK? Government censorship reaches frightening new levels
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoWhen it comes to pipelines, Carney’s words flow both ways
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Study links B.C.’s drug policies to more overdoses, but researchers urge caution