In a development that has sparked fierce debate, a leading advocate for gender-affirming care, Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, has been accused of withholding crucial findings from a study on puberty blockers. According to The New York Times, the study showed that these drugs fail to improve the mental health of transgender youth—a revelation that doesn’t align with the prevailing narrative supporting their use.
Unsurprisingly, the study’s findings were not published for years. The research, led by Dr. Olson-Kennedy at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, was expected to demonstrate the benefits of puberty blockers in reducing distress among transgender adolescents. Instead, the results contradicted that assumption.
“The leader of the long-running study said that the [puberty-blocking] drugs did not improve mental health in children with gender distress and that the finding might be weaponized by opponents of the care,” The New York Times reported.
Contradictory Claims Emerge
Initially, Dr. Olson-Kennedy claimed that the children involved in the study were already “doing well” when it began. However, this assertion conflicts with earlier descriptions of the participants, as The New York Times points out:
“That conclusion seemed to contradict an earlier description of the group, in which Dr. Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues noted that one quarter of the adolescents were depressed or suicidal before treatment.”
Such inconsistencies in the data raise serious questions about the integrity of the study. It seems that when the findings didn’t match the desired outcome, the narrative shifted.
“Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, [Olson-Kennedy] said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began.”
But this new explanation stands in direct opposition to previous statements, leaving many to wonder: was this science being manipulated to fit a preferred agenda?
Suppressing Science to Avoid Scrutiny
One of the most concerning elements of this story is the delay in publishing the study’s results. As The New York Times highlights, the research was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) but was not released for nine years.
“In the nine years since the study was funded by the National Institutes of Health… Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s team has not published the data. Asked why, she said the findings might fuel the kind of political attacks that have led to bans of the youth gender treatments in more than 20 states, one of which will soon be considered by the Supreme Court.”
For many, this revelation feels eerily reminiscent of other cases where “following the science” was only encouraged if the science supported a particular viewpoint.
Shifting the Blame
Dr. Olson-Kennedy claimed that a lack of funding from the NIH contributed to the delay in releasing the data. However, The New York Times clarifies that this explanation doesn’t hold much weight.
“She said that she intends to publish the data, but that the team had also been delayed because the N.I.H. had cut some of the project’s funding. She attributed that cut, too, to politics, which the N.I.H. denied. (The broader project has received $9.7 million in government support to date.)”
With nearly $10 million in funding, it’s difficult to understand why the results were withheld. Critics argue that it wasn’t financial constraints holding up the publication, but rather a reluctance to share findings that could challenge the mainstream acceptance of puberty blockers.
International Parallels: England’s Hidden Study
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time such findings have been hidden. The U.S. is not alone in attempting to downplay negative results related to puberty blockers. As The New York Times revealed, a similar situation unfolded in England.
“England’s youth gender clinic in 2011 tried to replicate the Dutch results with a study of 44 children. But at a conference five years later, the British researchers reported that puberty blockers had not changed volunteers’ well-being, including rates of self-harm.”
Even though the British study failed to replicate the positive outcomes of the earlier Dutch research, the results were buried for years. It wasn’t until 2020 that these findings saw the light of day.
A Call for Transparency
Despite these revelations, it seems the momentum to continue prescribing puberty blockers remains.
Dr. Hillary Cass told The New York Times: “It’s really important we get results out there so we understand whether it’s helpful or not, and for whom.”
While the evidence against the use of puberty blockers continues to mount, those in favor of gender-affirming care appear reluctant to adjust their course. It’s a debate that shows no signs of slowing down, as more information surfaces about the questionable efficacy of these treatments.
The Bigger Picture
What makes this situation particularly concerning is the sheer scale of the issue. It’s not just one country or one study that’s at stake—it’s the well-being of children across the globe. These drugs have been heralded as the solution to gender dysphoria, but now, two separate studies have shown that they might not provide the mental health benefits originally promised.
As more details come to light, the question remains: why was this information hidden? What other studies might be out there that haven’t yet been disclosed?
In the end, parents and children deserve to know the full story before life-altering decisions are made.
