The doctor refused to publish a study on trans children that found puberty blockers did not improve mental health

A prominent doctor and trans rights advocate admitted she deliberately withheld publication of a $10 million taxpayer-funded study on the effect of puberty blockers on American children – after finding no evidence that they improve patients’ mental health.

Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy told the New York Times that she believes the study would be “weaponized” by critics of transgender care for children, and that the research could one day be used in court to argue that “we don’t have blockers should use. ”

Critics — including one of Olson-Kennedy’s fellow researchers on the study — said the decision violates research standards and deprives the public of “really important” science in an area where Americans remain firmly divided.

For the National Institutes of Health-funded study, researchers chose 95 children — with an average age of 11 — and gave them puberty-blocking drugs starting in 2015. The treatments are intended to delay the onset of physical changes, such as breast development. or the deepening of the voice.

After following the young people for two years, the treatments did not improve the state of their mental health, which Olson-Kennedy attributed to the children being “in really good shape” both when they started and when they finished the two-year treatment.

However, the Times points out that its rosy assessment contradicts the researchers’ earlier data, which found that about a quarter of study participants “were depressed or suicidal” before receiving the treatment.

The result also does not support the findings of a 2011 Dutch study, the main scientific study cited by proponents of giving puberty blockers to children. That study of 70 children found that children treated with puberty blockers reported better mental health and fewer behavioral and emotional problems.

Olson-Kennedy, the outlet points out, is one of the nation’s leading advocates for providing gender-affirming care to adolescents, regularly providing expert testimony in legal battles against state bans on such procedures, which have taken root in more than two dozen states shot.

When asked by the Times why the results have not been made public after nine years, she said: “I don’t want our work to be weaponized,” adding: “It has to be exactly on point, clear and be concise. And that takes time.”

She then flat-out admitted that she was concerned that the lack of mental health improvements shown in the research could one day be used in court to argue that “we shouldn’t be using blockers.”

A Washington Post-KFF Trans in America poll found that 68% of American adults oppose providing puberty blockers to trans-identifying youth ages 10 to 14, and 58% oppose hormone treatments for those ages from 15 to 17 years.

Clinical and research psychologist Amy Tishelman of Boston College, one of the study’s original investigators, pointed out the obvious contradiction in withholding scientific evidence on the grounds that it does not match an expected conclusion.

“I understand the fear of it being used as a weapon, but it is very important to get the science out,” she told the outlet.

“Any change is not necessarily a negative finding – there may be a preventive aspect to it,” she said hopefully.

“We simply don’t know without further research.”

Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist and transgender youth expert, told The Post she was “shocked” and “alarmed” by the decision to withhold publication of such vital research.

“We are desperate for information about these medical treatments for gender-questioning youth. Dr. Olson-Kennedy has the largest grant ever awarded in the US on this topic and has data that would be useful to know,” she said.

“It is not her prerogative to decide whether or not to publish based on the results.”

She also did not believe Olson-Kennedy’s reasoning for withholding the investigation’s findings based on fear of backlash.

“It’s against the scientific method. You do research and then you announce what the results are,” she said.

“You don’t change them, you don’t distort them, and you don’t reveal them or reveal them based on the reactions of others. As scientists, you report what you have learned.”

In a 2020 progress report submitted to the NIH, Olson-Kennedy hypothesized that study participants would “show reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, self-harm, and suicidality, and over time an increase in feeling of self-esteem and quality of life.”

Olson-Kennedy seemed to try to muddy things up in her interview with the Times when she explained how her hypothesis didn’t pan out, claiming that the participants had “average good mental health.”

She made this claim “several times,” despite previously saying that 25% of the young patients in the study were already suffering from various symptoms of mental illness before treatments began.

When the newspaper pressed for an explanation for the apparently contradictory findings, Olson-Kennedy attributed it to “data averages” and said she was “still analyzing the entire data set.”

In April, England’s National Health Service banned puberty blockers for children after a four-year study conducted by independent researcher Dr. Hilary Cass, who wrote in her report that “for most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to deal with this.” their gender-related issues.”

Last year Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala, a leading Finnish expert in pediatric gender medicine, said in a newspaper interview that “four out of five” children who question gender will eventually grow out of it and accept their bodies, even without medical intervention.

Olson-Kennedy did not respond to The Post’s request for comment.