UK health service says inbreeding has 'potential benefits,' ban would stigmatize Pakistani community



Marrying a first cousin is presently legal in Britain. Conservative Member of Parliament Richard Holden has, however, introduced legislation that would ban the practice, which has been linked to genetic disorders, higher infant mortality, and mental retardation.

"This is not about faith or race," Holden noted earlier this year. "It's about integration, fundamental liberty, and health."

The proposed ban has caused a great deal of hand-wringing among liberals and Pakistani activists, who figure it is "prejudiced" against the Pakistani community, where cousin marriage is widespread.

The National Health Service's Genomics Education Programme recently caused an uproar by adopting this framing and spinning incest as a possible social benefit.

In a Sept. 22 blog guidance that was recently deleted, the Genomics Education Programme noted that "marriage between first cousins, known as consanguineous marriage, has been practiced for centuries across many cultures — often seen as a way of preserving family wealth, strengthening social ties, and maintaining cultural traditions."

The health authority acknowledged that because first cousins share around 12.5% of their genes, the linked likelihoods that they will both carry the same genetic variants and together have children born with a genetic disorder are greatly increased.

'The NHS won't say a word against cousin marriage.'

Congenital anomalies are a leading cause of infant death in the United Kingdom. In a 2013 study published in the Lancet, researchers investigated why rates of infant death were highest in children of Pakistani origin.

The researchers found that whereas less than 1% of babies of white British natives were born to first cousins, 38% of babies born of Pakistani residents were inbred. The researchers concluded that incest was associated with a doubling risk for congenital anomaly and that "31% of all anomalies in children of Pakistani origin could be attributed to consanguinity."

A 2022 study published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Women's Health noted that "presently, consanguinity is widely popular and respected in many communities, particularly in Muslims. Pakistan ranks amongst those countries, where the highest prevalence of consanguinity is still in vogue."

RELATED: UK government makes digital ID mandatory to get a job: 'Safer, fairer and more secure'

Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

The study noted that over 63% of marriages in Pakistan were between blood relatives as of 2018 and that "the popularity of consanguineous unions is not declining in the country, because of social, cultural, religious, and economic advantages, which outweigh the disadvantages given the population."

Pakistan is rife with genetic disorders largely as a consequence of inbreeding — a problem that appears to have been exported to the United Kingdom.

'Incestuous arranged marriages apparently now represent the leading edge of progressivism.'

Professor Sam Oddie, a consultant neonatologist and researcher at Bradford Teaching Hospitals, told the BBC earlier this year that severe genetic disorders, in many cases fatal, were happening more often in Bradford, England — where over 25% of the population is Pakistani — than elsewhere.

Despite the health risks for the children of first cousins, the NHS' Genomics Education Programme suggested in its deleted blog guidance both that the increased risk "is a small one" — an increase from a likelihood of 2%-3% to a likelihood of 4%-6% — and that first-cousin marriage has "various potential benefits, including stronger extended family support systems and economic advantages."

In addition to painting a silver lining on incestuous marriages, the health agency concern-mongered about "stigmatizing certain communities and cultural traditions."

Conservative Member of Parliament Claire Coutinho responded to the guidance, "The NHS tells you (a lot) not to smoke or drink during pregnancy. But the NHS won't say a word against cousin marriage."

Dr. Richard H. Ebright of Rutgers University wrote, "Incestuous arranged marriages apparently now represent the leading edge of progressivism. Almost as progressive as transvestite marriages."

A spokesman for NHS England told the Telegraph in a statement, "The article published on the website of the Genomics Education Programme is a summary of existing scientific research and the public policy debate. It is not expressing an NHS view."

"Some critics say a ban would infringe upon people's freedom — but what freedom are we protecting? The reality for so many is a life predetermined by bloodline and birth order. We are not protecting a freedom; we are perpetuating oppression," Holden said during a June debate in parliament. "Let us not forget that most cousin marriages are not one-offs. In some cases, they are multi-generational. With each generation, the chance to choose diminishes further. The net tightens and lives are lost in the gaps."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

FACT CHECK: Did The Guardian Publish An Article Stating that the NHS Should ‘Treat White People Last’?

A post on X claims that British daily news outlet The Guardian published an article claiming that white people should be at the “back of the queue” for National Health Services (NHS) treatments. What the hell is this? More race baiting… this is NOT the way to unify Britons. The NHS should be colour blind. […]

'Unacceptable safety risk': Puberty blockers permanently banned in UK



The United Kingdom announced this week that it is pulling the pin on an experiment that may have had adverse effects on children's bone density, cognitive performance, emotional stability, and future fertility.

National Health Service England announced in March that minors would no longer be prescribed puberty blockers at so-called gender-identity clinics, stating, "We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of [puberty-suppressing hormones] to make the treatment routinely available at this time."

Months later, then-British Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Victoria Atkin used emergency powers "to ban puberty blockers for new treatments of gender dysphoria from private clinics and for all purposes from overseas prescribers into Great Britain." The ban on private sales goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

On Wednesday, the British Department of Health and Social Care announced that existing emergency measures banning the sale and supply of puberty blockers "will be made indefinite, following official advice from medical experts," in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

"The Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) has provided independent expert advice that there is currently an unacceptable safety risk in the continued prescription of puberty blockers to children. It recommends indefinite restrictions while work is done to ensure the safety of children and young people," the department said in a release.

'Puberty blockers are powerful drugs with unproven benefits and significant risks.'

Blaze News previously reported that the drugs in question, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists, also known as GnRHa, have long been used to chemically castrate sex offenders.

According to the medical advocacy group Do No Harm's Stop the Harm database, between 2019 and 2023, at least 13,994 American minors underwent sex-change treatments and over 8,500 received hormones and puberty blockers. The Free Press noted in August that the leading provider of sex-change hormones for young adults in the United States is Planned Parenthood.

Puberty blockers, rebranded for kids with gender confusion, have been characterized as safe and effective by LGBT activists and pharmaceutical reps. This narrative did not, however, survive the release of the Cass Review earlier this year, at least on the other side of the Atlantic.

Dr. Hilary Cass, an acclaimed British medical doctor who previously served as president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, was commissioned by NHS England to investigate the U.K. sex-change regime and its youth-facing services. The penetrating investigation revealed that where so-called gender science is concerned, "there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices."

Extra to pointing out that so-called gender-science is largely based on research of "poor quality," demonstrating "poor study design, inadequate follow-up periods and a lack of objectivity in reporting of results," the Cass Review demolished the case for using puberty blockers, stressing the uses "are unproven and benefits/harms are unknown."

The review found not only that puberty blockers compromise bone density but have no apparent impact on so-called gender dysphoria.

Dr. Cass said of the indefinite ban, "I support the government's decision to continue restrictions on the dispensing of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria outside the NHS where these essential safeguards are not being provided."

"Puberty blockers are powerful drugs with unproven benefits and significant risks, and that is why I recommended that they should only be prescribed following a multi-disciplinary assessment and within a research protocol," added Dr. Cass.

'Children's healthcare must always be evidence-led.'

James Palmer, the NHS medical director for specialized services, stated, "Evidence reviews by NICE and NHS England, supported by Dr Cass, clearly showed there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty suppressing hormones for the treatment of gender dysphoria or incongruence, which is why the NHS decided that they would no longer be routinely offered to children and young people."

Rather than loading confused kids up with transmogrifying drugs and removing body parts, the British health system is now focused on offering holistic support and working with patients on mental health.

Wes Streeting, the current health and social care secretary, stated, "Children's healthcare must always be evidence-led. The independent expert Commission on Human Medicines found that the current prescribing and care pathway for gender dysphoria and incongruence presents an unacceptable safety risk for children and young people."

"Dr. Cass' review also raised safety concerns around the lack of evidence for these medical treatments," continued Streeting. "We need to act with caution and care when it comes to this vulnerable group of young people, and follow the expert advice."

While Britain has grown wise to the potential risks of puberty blockers, the money and ideology-driven regime stateside has not similarly been dealt a national blow.

Dr. Cass blasted certain American medical associations in a May New York Times interview, suggesting that the American Academy of Pediatrics, for instance — which has repeatedly lashed out against Republican-led states for protecting children from child sex-change mutilations — has held "on to a position that is now demonstrated to be out of date by multiple systematic reviews."

Cass suggested it "wouldn't be too much of a problem if people were saying, 'This is clinical consensus and we're not sure.' But what some organizations are doing is doubling down on saying the evidence is good. I think that's where you're misleading the public."

Of the 28 states where Republicans control the legislature, 24 red states have successfully passed bans to protect children from puberty blockers, hormone therapies, or sex-change mutilations, reported the New York Times. Robert Hinkle, a Clinton-nominated federal judge, suggested that such Republicans had actually acted on "old-fashioned discriminatory animus."

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week about a puberty blocker ban in Tennessee. Should the high court uphold the ban when issuing its decision in United States v. Skrmetti sometime next year, similar bans will be reinforced across the country.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Britain bans private prescriptions of puberty blockers to kids, citing 'serious danger to health'



Britain has managed in recent months to break the stranglehold of gender ideology. This liberation has been expedited by the April release of Dr. Hilary Cass' final report entitled, "The Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People."

The report, the result of a multiyear investigation now referred to as the Cass Review, was commissioned by National Health Service England in 2020. To the chagrin of LGBT activists and other radicals, the Cass Review effectively demolished gender ideologues' arguments in favor of genital mutilation, puberty blockers, and other so-called "gender-affirming care."

The Cass Review noted, for instance, that the "systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence."

It also indicated that while puberty blockers "exert their intended effect in suppressing puberty," they compromise bone density and have no apparent impact on "gender dysphoria or body satisfaction."

Among the report's various recommendations was a call for a moratorium on prescriptions of puberty blockers to kids.

The British government heeded Cass' suggestion this week, banning puberty blockers in private clinics.

'Today I have taken bold action to protect children.'

British Secretary of State for Health and Social Care Victoria Atkins tweeted, "Today I have taken bold action to protect children following the Cass Review, using emergency powers to ban puberty blockers for new treatments of gender dysphoria from private clinics and for all purposes from overseas prescribers into Great Britain."

The drugs in question, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists, also known as GnRHa, have long been used to chemically castrate sex offenders.

Blaze News previously reported that these sex offender drugs were rebranded in recent years as puberty blockers and offered to confused children despite evidence showing that such treatments deplete victims' bone density, create sexless adults, hamper cognitive development, and produce mood disorders.

National Health Service England banned them in public clinics in March, recognizing them as neither safe nor effective.

The health minister's Wednesday order, "The Medicines (Gonadotrophin-Releasing Hormone Analogues) (Emergency Prohibition) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2024," will now spare children from the sex offender drugs outside the government system as well, prohibiting the sale or supply of GnRH analogues.

The order, which goes into effect on June 3, states that the ban is necessary "to avoid serious danger to health."

"Our children deserve health care that is compassionate, caring, and careful, and that is what a Conservative Government would deliver," said Atkins, who indicated the ban will also close prescription loopholes.

Gender ideologues and other radicals sporting pronouns in their profiles lashed out at Atkins as they had at Cass, recycling the now-debunked claims about "gender-affirming care" saving lives.

Chris Noone, a researcher at the University of Galway and a board member on the National LGBT Federation, for instance, said the government's decision to protect children from sex offender drugs was "cruel, heartless & rash. The Cass Review should not dictate policy considering its serious flaws & you have now suddenly taken away a vital support for many children without considering the very likely & very significant harm you will cause them."

The ban was celebrated by others, including former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who wrote, "This is very welcome. I've met parents in Fareham whose children were put on puberty blockers, regretting it years later. Children must not be placed on puberty blockers as a way of treating gender dysphoria. Child safeguarding must always come first, not gender ideology."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Radicals are targeting the esteemed doctor whose UK-commissioned report blew up the transgender narrative



Dr. Hilary Cass is an award-winning British medical doctor who previously served as president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health. Esteemed in her field, politically innocuous, and a recipient of the Order of the British Empire, National Health Services England evidently figured Cass was the ideal candidate to lead an independent investigation into the U.K.'s sex-change regime and its youth-facing services.

Cass obliged them and started work on the review in 2020. Her landmark report — the product of roughly four years of penetrating investigation and analysis — came out earlier this month, transitioning public opinion and effectively putting a nail in the coffin of LGBT activists' narrative about so-called gender-affirming care.

The 388-page report not only indicated that the sex-change regime is built on weak and unreliable science but that if left unchecked, it has the potential to continue irreversibly damage minors, many of whom are, to begin with, likely incapable of properly consenting to sex-change medical interventions.

For daring to present the facts as they are contra what some may have hoped them to be, Cass has become a popular target for threats and smears by desperate gender ideologues and other leftist radicals.

The 66-year-old pediatrician recently told the Times (U.K.) that the most recent wave of backlash "started the day before the report came out when an influencer put up a picture of a list of papers that were apparently rejected for not being randomised control trials."

Among the fact-averse activists who seized upon the suggestion that the Cass report had failed to factor in various transgender narrative-affirming studies was Labor parliamentarian Dawn Butler. Butler told her fellow lawmakers in the House of Commons, "There are around 100 studies that have not been included in this Cass report and we need to know why."

Cass called Butler's assertion "completely wrong" and said it was "unforgivable" to undermine the report with such blatant falsehoods. The pediatrician told the Times that contrary to Butler's suggestion, researchers had gone through all of the activist-preferred studies, but pulled results from only 60 as the remainder were of inferior quality.

Butler eventually had to eat crow, apologizing in the British parliament, indicating she made the mistake of quoting a Stonewall briefing.

Last week I inadvertently misled the House by quoting a figure from a Stonewall briefing.\n\nI'm grateful for conversation with Dr Cass and am happy to correct the record because that's what politicians should do.\n\nI have more to say watch this space !
— (@)

Stonewall, of the U.K.'s most influential LGBT activist groups, has a knack for circulating false claims, having responded last month to NHS England's decision to end the prescription puberty blockers for children with the suggestion that luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists, long used to chemically castrate sex offenders and known to deplete bone density, were "reversible."

Stonewall has also parroted the claim that "children as young as 2 recognise their trans identity."

"If you deliberately try to undermine a report that has looked at the evidence of children's healthcare, then that's unforgivable. You are putting children at risk by doing that," added Cass.

Cass has apparently also been flooded with abusive emails, such that security services have reportedly had to intervene with advice.

"There are some pretty vile emails coming in at the moment. Most of which my team is protecting me from, so I'm not getting to see them," she told the Times. Some of them contained "words I wouldn't put in a newspaper."

"What dismays me is just how childish the debate can become," continued the pediatrician. "If I don't agree with somebody then I'm called transphobic or a Terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist]."

Apparently, the security services Cass has been dealing with figure some radicals may seek to do more than threaten the doctor online.

"I'm not going on public transport at the moment," she told the Times, "following security advice, which is inconvenient."

Cass drew the ire of radicals for noting in her report that:

  • the "systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence";
  • puberty blockers "exert their intended effect in suppressing puberty," but compromise bone density and have no apparent impact on "gender dysphoria or body satisfaction";
  • there is a dearth of consistent evidence about the "effect of puberty suppression on psychological or psychosocial wellbeing, cognitive development, cardio-metabolic risk or fertility";
  • there is a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormone interventions in adolescents confused about their sex;
  • there is no evidence to support the popular claim amongst gender ideologues that cross-sex hormones reduce the elevated risk of deaths amongst those suffering from gender dysphoria;
  • clinicians are incapable of determining with certainty which prospective child victims might simply grow out of their confusion;
  • for "most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress"; and
  • the so-called science regarding "gender-affirming care" is "an area of remarkably weak evidence" built on "shaky foundations."

Whereas Stonewall and leftists find the facts hard to digest, others have willingly admitted fault.

A group of 16 senior clinical psychologists penned a letter in the Guardian on April 21, noting, "Whether intentionally or not, and many were doing their best in an impossible situation, it was clinical psychologists who promoted an ideology that was almost impossible to challenge; who, as the Cass report found, largely failed to carry out proper assessments of troubled young people, and thus put many on an 'irreversible medical pathway' that in most cases was inappropriate; and who failed in their most basic duty to keep proper records."

They concluded, "We are ashamed of the role psychology has played [in gender-affirming care]."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Britain's NHS to re-evaluate all transgender treatments in wake of investigation revealing they're based on pseudoscience



Britain's National Health Service is re-evaluating all so-called "gender-affirming care" treatments in the wake of a damning new report, which underscores the sex-change regime is built on weak and unreliable evidence.

Dr. Hilary Cass, a British medical doctor who previously served as president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, was appointed by NHS England in 2020 to lead an independent investigation into the U.K.'s sex-change regime and its youth-facing services.

Cass recently submitted her final report, entitled "The Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People," and it does not paint a flattering picture of so-called "gender-affirming care."

Cass previously intimated in her 2022 interim report that gender ideologues in smocks had more or less been freewheeling. The interim report specifically noted that the so-called Gender Identity Development Service had "not been subjected to some of the normal quality controls that are typically applied when new or innovative treatments are introduced."

The interim report further suggested that the controversial and now-defunct Tavistock gender clinic was "not a safe or viable long-term" option for young people.

Cass' final 388-page report, released just weeks after England's top health authority confirmed that minors will no longer be prescribed puberty blockers at so-called gender identity clinics, makes the same point but goes much farther, recommending:

  • a moratorium on prescriptions of powerful hormone drugs to minors;
  • an understanding that children who undergo cross-sex medical interventions may later come to deeply regret it;
  • a holistic assessment of prospective patients' needs and screenings for "neurodevelopmental conditions, including autism spectrum disorder, and a mental health assessment";
  • a re-evaluation of the policy on cross-sex hormones and "extreme caution" when considering their use in minors;
  • the mandatory provision of fertility counseling and preservation to children before permitting them to seek a "medical pathway";
  • assurances that clinical services operated at the "highest standards of evidence";
  • support services for de-transitioners; and
  • other reviews of current policies, services, and approaches.

Beyond making these recommendations, the Cass report also offers a number of penetrating observations about the sex-change regime.

The report notes that the "systematic review showed no clear evidence that social transition in childhood has any positive or negative mental health outcomes, and relatively weak evidence for any effect in adolescence."

While "social transition" apparently had no discernible impact on mental health, the report indicated that those children so groomed were much more likely to undergo sex-change medical interventions at a later stage.

The report also noted that while puberty blockers "exert their intended effect in suppressing puberty," they compromise bone density and have no apparent impact on "gender dysphoria or body satisfaction."

"There was insufficient/inconsistent evidence about the effect of puberty suppression on psychological or psychosocial wellbeing, cognitive development, cardio-metabolic risk or fertility," added the report.

As for cross-sex hormones, the Cass report noted that the University of York's systematic review found "a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormone interventions in adolescents with gender dysphoria/incongruence, and few studies that undertake long-term follow-up."

The university is quoted as emphasizing, "No conclusions can be drawn about the effect on gender dysphoria, body satisfaction, psychosocial health, cognitive development, or fertility."

The Cass report also indicated there was no evidence to support the conclusion that cross-sex hormones reduce the elevated risk of deaths among those suffering from gender dysphoria. This finding corresponds with the conclusion reached in an explosive Finnish study published February in the esteemed journal BMJ Mental Health, which found that sex-change medical interventions "do not have an impact on suicide risk."

Besides underscoring the "weak" and unreliable nature of the evidence in support of "gender-affirming care," the Cass report also indicated that clinicians "are unable to determine with any certainty which children and young people will go on to have an enduring trans identity."

That's a critically important point because many kids sterilized and transmogrified by the sex-change regime could have otherwise gone on to lead healthy lives and naturally start families.

Blaze News previously reported that Finland's leading child psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala told her government that the vast majority of kids will grow out of the delusion that their gender and sex are misaligned.

The mutilation of children who would otherwise outgrow their confusion is all the more egregious because children cannot properly consent to sex-change procedures, as members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health have recently been exposed admitting behind closed doors.

Cass' report notes that for "most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems."

Cass further suggested in her foreword that this is "an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender-related distress."

The Telegraph reported that British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has welcomed the recommendations made in the report, noting the massive spike of gender dysphoria among children, especially girls, in recent years.

"We simply do not know the long-term impacts of medical treatment or social transitioning on them, and we should therefore exercise extreme caution," said Sunak, who indicated the conservative government has already halted the routine use of puberty blockers in children under the age of 16.

The charity group Sex Matters said in a statement Wednesday, "Hilary Cass's report demolishes the entire basis for the current model of treating gender-distressed children. Its publication is a shameful day for NHS England, which for too long gave vulnerable children harmful treatments for which there was no evidence base. It's now clear to all that this was quack medicine from the start."

Helen Joyce of the not-for-profit Sex Matters stated, "This is the end of paediatric gender medicine as we know it."

The Lesbian Project welcomed the report, noting that it "hopes that real change will now be implemented on the ground in health services, in order to fully excise the fanatical activism that has led to the scandalous mistreatment of a vulnerable cohort of children and adolescents."

Gender ideologues are not happy that their narrative has effectively been bulldozed in recent weeks and months.

In advance of the report's release, LGBT activist Cal Horton at Oxford Brookes Business School penned a piece of propaganda for the International Journal of Transgender Health claiming the "Cass Review itself can be understood as an example of cis-supremacy, within a cis-dominant healthcare system lacking accountability to trans communities."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

England's top health authority just came out against puberty blockers for children



Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists, also called GnRHa drugs, have long been used to chemically castrate sex offenders.

In recent years, these sex offender drugs were rebranded as puberty blockers and offered to confused children — despite ample evidence that such treatments create sexless adults, deplete victims' bone density, hamper cognitive development, and produce a myriad of adverse emotional effects.

While these transmogrifying treatments remain legal in American blue states, across the Atlantic, resistance is growing among some early adopters. That's certainly the case in the United Kingdom, where England's top health authority has pumped the brakes on the victimization of children captive to the notion that their sex and gender are somehow misaligned.

National Health Service England confirmed Tuesday that minors will no longer be prescribed puberty blockers at so-called gender identity clinics.

NHS England has been working up to this decision for years, having commissioned an independent expert review of gender identity services for minors in September 2020.

The health service figured it was prudent to pursue such a review in light of the massive spike in referrals for minors to the Gender Identity Development Service run by the scandal-plagued and soon-to-be shuttered Tavistock clinic and the Portman NHS Foundation Trust.

Whereas there were 250 referrals to the NHS' gender clinic in between 2011 and 2012, that number skyrocketed to over 5,000 between 2021 and 2022.

NHS England also noted at the outset of the review that "a significant number" of children seeking puberty blockers were mentally compromised and presenting with "other mental health needs and risky behaviors," prompting careful consideration and additional research.

A policy document dated March 12 states, "Puberty suppressing hormones (PSH) are not available as a routine commissioning treatment option for treatment of children and young people who have gender incongruence / gender dysphoria."

The document notes that "[g]ender atypical behavior is common among young children and may be part of normal development. ... Children who meet the criteria for gender incongruence / gender dysphoria may or may not continue to experience the conflict between their physical gender and the one with which they identify into adolescence and adulthood."

In addition to recognizing that the supposed problem puberty blockers are supposed to resolve is often just a fleeting fad, the NHS noted that puberty blockers don't do what LGBT activists claim they do.

The NHS-commissioned review found that across nine observational studies, "there was no statistically significant difference in gender dysphoria, mental health, body image and psychosocial functioning in children and adolescents treated with GnRHA."

This finding resonates with the explosive Finnish study published last month in the esteemed journal BMJ Mental Health that found sex-change medical interventions "do not have an impact on suicide risk."

Extra to noting that puberty blockers effectively don't help, the NHS noted that they can actually do considerable harm: "GnRHa may reduce the expected increase in lumbar or femoral bone density during puberty."

"We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of PSH to make the treatment routinely available at this time," concluded NHS England.

This announcement came just days after leaked internal documents from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health showed proponents of so-called gender-affirming care privately admit that sex-change medical interventions are often unethical and unscientific.

The Independent reported that the NHS will be rolling out two new services, one in London and the other in Liverpool. Rather than sterilize children, these clinics will provide patients with access to mental health and pediatric health experts, "resulting in a holistic approach to care."

The Conservative government applauded the decision.

Health Minister and parliamentarian Maria Caulfield said she welcomed "this groundbreaking change as children's safety and well-being are paramount."

Caulfield told the Independent, "Ending the routine prescription of puberty blockers will help ensure that care is based on evidence, expert clinical opinion and is in the best interests of the child."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Government health agency claims drug-induced 'trans-women's milk' just as healthy for babies as breast milk



A British government health agency declared that drug-induced milk from "trans-women" – which would be biological males – is just as healthy for babies as breast milk from a female mother, according to a leaked letter.

The Telegraph reported on Sunday, "In a letter to campaigners, the University of Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust (USHT), said that the milk produced by trans women after taking a combination of drugs is 'comparable to that produced following the birth of a baby.'"

The health officials from U.K.'s National Health Service argued in the letter that "there is clear and overwhelming evidence that human milk is the ideal food for infants," referring to a mother's milk and the drug-induced lactation from biological men who transitioned.

The medical director claimed, "The evidence which is available demonstrates that the milk is comparable to that produced following the birth of a baby."

According to the Daily Mail, "Lactation happens naturally after birth when a hormone called prolactin kicks in and stimulates milk-producing 'alveolar' cells."

"The same combination of drugs can be given to a biological male, who first needs to grow breast tissue capable of lactation," the outlet added. "This requires them to take testosterone suppressants along with oestrogen and progesterone hormone treatment. Once there is enough breast tissue, the brain must be stimulated to produce prolactin, which can be done by giving domperidone or metoclopramide."

The claims about drug-induced 'trans-women's milk' by the NHS organization stirred emotions online.

Blaze Media host Allie Beth Stuckey: "The natural progression of 'fed is best,' which always put the emphasis on the mom instead of the baby. No, fed is bare minimum. What’s best is the most nutritious option available. For most, that will be breastmilk. For some, that truly will be formula. But in absolutely ZERO circumstances is artificially induced, hormone-laced moob juice from a fetishist the best option for babies. In fact, it’s abuse."

Columnist Nana Akua: "There is no way that hormone-filled milk from a trans-woman is as good for a baby as the real thing. Ridiculous! A baby is not a prop."

TV anchor Julia Hartley-Brewer: "Any parent's first instinct should be to put the needs of their newborn baby before their own. Any man who wants to pretend he's a mother who can breastfeed is putting his own desires above the health of his baby. The NHS should not promote this."

Actor Matthew Marsden: "We deserve the asteroid. This stops when you decide it stops."

Reclaim Party leader Laurence Fox: "End times."

Author Peter Whittle: "The war against nature."

Lottie Moore – head of biology matters at the Policy Exchange think tank – proclaimed, "This letter is unbalanced and naïve in its assertion that the secretions produced by a male on hormones can nourish an infant in the way a mother's breast milk can. A child's welfare must always take precedence over identity politics and contested belief systems that are not evidence-based. The NHS should not be indulging in this nonsense. It is compromising women's rights and child safeguarding."

In February 2021, the University of Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust was one of the first health agencies to institute a "gender-inclusive language policy" for neonatal services.

The guidelines changed the "maternity" department to "perinatal services" It advised health care professionals to use "milk from the feeding mother or parent," "human milk," or "chest milk" instead of "breast milk." Instead of "mothers," the agency stated that patients should be referred to as "mothers or birthing parents."

In recent years, some professionals in the medical community have been attempting to alter the verbiage to terms they have deemed to be more "inclusive" toward the transgender community. There has been a push by some neonatal doctors to switch from the traditional term of "breastfeeding" to "chestfeeding" or "lactation."

The University of Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust operates the Royal Sussex County Hospital, Worthing Hospital, Royal Alexandra Children’s Hospital, and others.

Like Blaze News? Circumvent the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

FACT CHECK: Did The NHS Find 700 Nigerian Nurses With Fake Qualifications?

The NHS is not conducting this investigation

On Dangerous Puberty Blockers, It’s Time To Follow Britain’s Lead

More individuals and institutions, including the NHS, are speaking up to protect the interests of innocent children from radical activists.