>
Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington refused to correct misleading report that claimed puberty blockers reduced depression in transgender teens because it had received such good press from mainstream media
- The university and hospital claimed the puberty blockers reduced depression in transgender and non-binary youths by 60% over a one year period
- The university blasted the study to media outlets as proof of the positive effects
- When journalist Jesse Singal raised questions about it in a Substack piece, both the university and the hospital chose to ignore the ‘concerning’ claims
- Communications managers said they wouldn’t respond or highlight his research because the study had received an ‘overwhelming amount of positive coverage’
- Instead, they said they would ‘just let it be’
- The authors of the study have not yet responded to the criticism of their findings
<!–
<!–
<!–<!–
<!–
<!–
<!–
The University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital published a misleading study that claimed puberty blockers given to transgender teens dramatically improved their mental health, then refused to issue a public correction because it had received such glowing press.
The study was published in February this year. It studied 104 transgender or non-binary people aged between just 13 and 20 over a one year period to determine what effect gender affirming drugs had on their mental health.
In April, both the university and the hospital blasted the study out to media outlets as proof that the drugs ‘dramatically’ helped and reduced depression.
The university had claimed depression plummeted by 60 percent when taking the drugs. The results of the study were however not quite as clear cut as the media materials suggested.
At the start of the trial, seven of the participants had taken gender affirming drugs. By the end of the year, 57 had taken them.
The University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital published this report in February claiming they had proven that puberty blockers reduced depression in transgender youths between 13 and 20 by 60 percent
The study claims by the end of the year mark, 83 percent of the kids who weren’t on the drugs were depressed and suicidal, whereas only 56 percent of the kids on the drugs reported similar feelings.
However the pool of kids questioned shrank from a total of 99 in the beginning to 63 by the end.
What’s more, the percentage of depressed kids who were on the drugs only changed from 57 percent at the start of the trial to 56 percent at the end – a reduction of only one percent.
Journalist Jesse Singal picked the study apart in a lengthy Substack article which soon caught the attention of the communications teams at both the university and the hospital.
But rather than address Singal’s questions, both institutions chose to ignore them because the study had already received so much positive press.
Emails subsequently obtained by Jason Rantz of KTTH Radio show how communications managers from both the college and the hospital chose not to ‘proactively’ address the criticism.
This table from the study does not prove that depression was reduced among the kids taking the drugs. From the beginning of the study, depression among them went from 57 percent to 56 percent and suicidal thoughts from 43 percent to 37 percent
Journalist Jesse Singal identified the misleading claim and wrote this Substack article in April
The communications teams from the university and the children’s hospital chose not to amend any of the press releases about the study because it had received ‘extremely positive’ media coverage
Laura East, a communications manager for the University of Washington, wrote in an email: ‘The article resulting from inquiry was recently posted on the author’s Substack and includes some pretty concerning claims.
‘UW Epidemiology/UW SPH/UW News will not be including this article in our media tracking/or otherwise driving traffic to this piece.
Communications managers Laura East wrote that she didn’t believe there was a need for a ‘proactive response’
‘As there is an overwhelming amount of positive coverage of the study’s findings, I don’t believe there’s a need for a proactive response beyond continuing to monitor, but welcome your ideas for any other actions or messaging with the study team.’
Barbara Clements, another communications manager, wrote in a separate email: ‘I read through this exceeding (sic) long article, which claimed the research was flawed or at worst made up, but given the extremely positive pick up by mainstream media, I would agree and just let this be’.
The hospital was also aware of the concerns but ignored them.
Madison Joseph, a communications manager for the hospital, said: ‘If the Seattle Children’s team gets any inquiries on social and/or through our press inbox, we will continue to not engage’.
Neither the university nor the hospital has commented on the emails.
The study was published in February and remains online. Its authors have not yet commented on the claims raised by the journalists.
Seattle Children’s Hospital was also aware of the criticism of the study but chose not to draw any attention to it or inform journalists about the claims