A world-renowned expert who discovered that puberty blockers can damage children’s IQ says woke academics initially dismissed her research as ‘biased’.
Neuropsychologist Professor Sallie Baxendale from University College London published an overview of the potential impact of the powerful drugs on teenagers who take them.
Her alarming research revealed cases in which young girls apparently lost between 7 and 15 IQ points while taking the drugs, which halt physical changes during puberty.
But despite the disturbing findings, Professor Baxendale initially struggled to find a publisher for her review.
Three separate journals rejected her article calling for “urgent” research into the impact of the drugs on children’s brain functions.
Sallie Baxendale, professor of clinical neuropsychology at University College London, called for ‘urgent’ research into the impact of the drugs on children’s brain functions
Puberty blockers, medically known as gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues, halt the physical changes of puberty in teens who are questioning their gender. Pictured here is an example of these medications called Triptorelin
This graph from Professor Baxendale’s article shows the results of one of the studies on puberty blockers and neurological development that she analyzed. It shows IQ scores on a number of parameters, such as memory and verbal comprehension, in a single case study, a girl who started taking puberty blockers at age 11. She lost 15 points in one category in three years
Her experiences are detailed OnHerdProfessor Baxendale revealed that anonymous reviewers cast suspicion on her motives and reasons for investigating the subject in the first place.
Some criticized the fact that she only found negative studies despite being unable to point out positive studies to the expert, while others said this risked stigmatizing transgender people.
But others shockingly accused her of ‘bias’ by questioning whether puberty blockers were safe, and another said her use of terms like ‘male’ and ‘female’ showed her ‘pre-existing skepticism’ on the subject .
Puberty blockers, medically known as gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues, halt the physical changes of puberty in teens who are questioning their gender.
For example, they stop the development of breasts in girls and facial hair in boys.
This gives people suffering from gender dysphoria time to ‘consider their options’ and ‘explore their developing gender identity’ through therapy before beginning more permanent forms of treatment, the NHS said.
The NHS says the physical effects of the drugs, previously distributed by the health service’s Gender Identity Development Service in Tavistock, are reversible and that someone who stops taking them will simply resume puberty as normal.
However, the health care industry recognizes that the psychological effects of the drugs on the sensitive adolescent brain are unclear.
This is partly why the NHS stopped routinely prescribing the drugs in June, with sites now only offering puberty blockers through clinical trials due to the ‘significant uncertainties’ surrounding their use.
However, the drugs are still available and are prescribed privately ‘off-label’ by some clinicians at non-NHS based gender clinics.
Scholarly reviews such as Professor Baxendale’s are not uncommon and are a mainstay of the academic literature.
They aim to collect, compare and contrast the findings of individual studies on a particular topic from different scientific journals and countries.
Experts then analyze whether there is a general consensus between the different studies, and whether there are specific areas that specifically require further research.
But given the massive use of puberty blockers among gender-questioning young people, what Professor Baxendale discovered in her review of the drugs and their impact on neurodevelopment raised alarm.
Of the sixteen good quality studies she found, the vast majority (11) involved animals with eight of these different experiments in a single flock of sheep.
The remaining five in humans were limited in both methods and scope, with one consisting of only a single case study.
Professor Baxendale said the limited nature of this area of research was in itself worrying, but also stressed that little had been done to suggest that puberty blockers had a negative impact on brain development.
She said this raised several critical questions that needed to be answered.
Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust have been accused of rushing children to puberty blocking drugs by former patients who feel they were not challenged enough
In the now published article in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Paediatrica, she said: ‘What impact does a delay in cognitive development have on an individual’s educational trajectory and subsequent life chances, given the crucial educational window in which these treatments are typically prescribed? ?’
“If cognitive development ‘catches up’ after stopping puberty suppression, how long does this take and is recovery complete?’
And in her conclusion, she says that transgender and gender diverse patients have been “ill served by the lack of research in this area” and that this “urgent” correction was needed given the growth of gender-questioning young people seeking help.
Professor Baxendale added that the ‘highly polarized socio-political atmosphere’ surrounding the subject could deter academics from conducting research in this area.
Evidence reviews such as Professor Baxendale’s are subject to anonymous review by fellow academics before publication.
This basically ensures that the work meets the standards of scientific publication and that any critical errors or flaws are exposed. In theory, the anonymous nature also ensures that academics provide honest feedback without fear of professional repercussions.
But Professor Baxendale said the anonymous reviews she received of her latest work were unlike anything she had previously experienced in her 30 years of publishing.
Writing on the website Unherdshe said, in contrast to the usual academic doubts about her methods, reviewers instead attacked her findings directly.
“None of the reviewers identified studies that I had missed that demonstrated the safe and reversible effects of puberty blockers on cognitive development, or presented any evidence that contradicted my conclusions that the work simply isn’t done yet,” she wrote.
‘However, one of them suggested that the evidence may indeed be there, it just hasn’t been published yet.
“They suggested I scour non-peer-reviewed conference presentations for unpublished studies that could tell a more positive story.”
Others expressed concern that the conclusions could stigmatize transgender people, while another said she should instead focus on the positive aspects of puberty blockers.
Another dismissed the review entirely for the lack of studies on the subject, one of the very points Professor Baxendale was trying to make.
her use of sex-based terms such as “male” and “female” was also challenged and cited as evidence of her “pre-existing skepticism” about puberty blockers.
One reviewer even suggested she was “biased” simply because she wondered whether puberty blockers were safe.
“This reviewer argued that many issues needed to be settled before a clear case for the ‘risks’ of puberty blockers could be made, even if indirectly,” she wrote.
“They seemed to be advocating the default position that medical treatments are safe until proven otherwise.”
Professor Baxendale said this attitude was contrary to the basic principles of medical intervention, which is that doctors cannot simply adopt the default position that a treatment is safe and completely reversible.
She highlighted how this opposition arose despite her paper not calling for a ban on puberty blockers and that the majority of medical treatments are not risk-free and are given based on a risk-benefit assessment for the patient.
NHS England’s decision to restrict puberty blockers was created as part of the health service’s new gender incongruity service for children and young people, which will replace the clinic at Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust.
Tavistock was heavily criticized in an interim review conducted by pediatrician Dr Hilary Cass in 2022, which called the model ‘unsustainable’.
The clinic has also been accused of rushing children onto puberty-blocking drugs by former patients who feel they are not being challenged enough.