“Puberty Blockers Are Wonderful” – UVa Children’s Hospital

by James C. Sherlock

How do people communicate?

Generally by words and visuals and, in person, with body language. The art and science of marketing and sales is one of the bulwarks of any economy — and any political system.

My article on the hard selling of hormone treatments — puberty blockers and cross-gender use of estrogen and testosterone — by UVa Children’s Hospital Transgender Youth Health Services has drawn a lot of attention.

Two of the most famous lines from the video and its transcript are:

Puberty blockers are wonderful. They provide sort of a break.

Well. What child and parent wouldn’t want a break? Is there ice cream?

That enthusiastic endorsement caused me to check out the FDA warnings on puberty blockers.

Wonderful is not the first word that comes to mind.

Puberty blockers as a class of drugs are called gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists.

I searched the FDA Medication Guides for “histrelin acetate,” Endo Pharmaceuticals FDA-approved GnRH agonist under the brand name SUPPRELIN® LA. FDA’s “highlights of prescribing information” document is here.

Under “Indications and Usage,” the FDA has approved the hormone “for the treatment of children with central precocious puberty (CPP).” Treatment for CPP is thus “on-label,” meaning the FDA has determined the benefits of using the drug for a particular use outweigh the potential risks.

When that same hormone is used for support of gender transition, it is an off-label use because of the lack of sufficient and sufficiently-convincing Phase II and III testing on short- and long term-effects.

It is not illegal to do so, but literally by definition riskier than with an on-label use.

Among the “wonders” to which the video script must refer are the warnings and precautions for on-label uses of puberty blockers. They include:

  • psychiatric events including include emotional lability (instability), such as crying, irritability, impatience, anger, and aggression.
  • convulsions … observed in patients receiving GnRH agonists with or without a history of seizures, epilepsy, cerebrovascular disorders, central nervous system anomalies or tumors, and in patients on concomitant medications that have been associated with convulsions.

And, since February of this year, this warning is included:

Pseudotumor Cerebri (Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension) have been reported in pediatric patients receiving GnRH agonists. Monitor patients for headache, papilledema, and blurred vision.

From Mayo Clinic

:

Pseudotumor Cerebri symptoms mimic those of a brain tumor. The increased intracranial pressure can cause swelling of the optic nerve and result in vision loss. Medications often can reduce this pressure and the headache, but in some cases, surgery is necessary…. Sometimes, symptoms that have resolved can recur months or years later.

Mayo’s report on the diagnosis and treatment of those symptoms with medication and surgery is itself serious stuff.

It doesn’t take medical training to understand any of that. The target audience is parents.

Yet the presentation pronounced, before declaring puberty blockers wonderful:

Myth #3 Puberty blockers and hormones will harm my child and have lasting effects.

Myth.

I don’t doubt the good intentions or the medical skill of the medical personnel involved in transgender “affirmation care” of:

  • those who UVa Children’s calls “affirming medical professionals” to whom that clinic makes referrals so the endocrinologists can proceed (though labeling them “affirming” lacks subtlety);
  • the clinic’s endocrinologists who use these puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones for “affirmative care” for gender dysphoria; or
  • the surgeons to whom the UVa clinic will make referrals for surgical support of such transitions.

But the UVa endocrinologists who administer puberty blockers for off-label use in gender transition support know that the FDA has not seen sufficient evidence of short- or long-term safety to approve them for that use.

They do so with full understanding of the potential for dangerous side effects, and both pre-screen and monitor for them.

Medical ethics require that both the children and their parents are counseled better than they are in the video sales pitch. I assume that happens at the clinic. I hope the hospital will make that clear when it removes the video from its website.

Even supporters of the treatment are likely to call the sales pitch over-enthusiastic, even unprofessional.

People opposed to the use of these powerful hormones for that purpose in children will find the sales pitch also to be deceptive. Dismissive of the dangers and of the parents to whom it is directed.  Include me in that group.

I hope the hospital finds it embarrassing. As a University alumnus, I am embarrassed for them.

But whatever the hospital does about it, the Board of Visitors, the University President and the rest of us have to face the fact that the leadership of the clinic commissioned that video and centered it on its parents web page. And the hospital allowed it. Such a thing cannot be assumed to be a result of leadership inattention.

I wrote months ago directly to the University President and the head of the hospital about my concerns with this program. “Wonderful” represents a systematic choice until denied as such.

Pretty hard to put that in an acceptable light.

We also await to see what terms the Virginia state government departments with oversight of UVa Children’s come up with to describe the medical activities of that clinic as well as its advertising.

Those include the Department of Health, the Department of Health Professions, and the Department of Medical Assistance Services (Medicaid), among others.

The argument about the characterization of the use of puberty blockers for gender transition in children is where we are. Do we call them necessary/appropriate or otherwise. “Wonderful” or “of unknown safety.”  Ethical or not. Affirming medical care or child abuse.

Right or wrong.

But “wonderful” should not make the cut at UVa Children’s in this matter. It is a hospital. Whatever else “wonderful” may express, it does not signal professionalism on the topic of the use of hormones in child gender transition.

And we have not even discussed the dangers of the use in cross-gender hormones in children.

Perhaps we will.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

44 responses to ““Puberty Blockers Are Wonderful” – UVa Children’s Hospital”

  1. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Child mutilation and most of these children will end up with shortened and painful lives.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      In a world of Trump, not a bad thing.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        So deep.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    You have taken to reading the side effect disclaimers for pharmaceuticals in your never ending quest to vilify trans children, their parents, and their doctors…? (smh)… all drugs should be off the market if that is your standard… ban aspirin!!

      1. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Merkin Muffley, POTUS in Dr. Strangelove, advised the Rooskie President that Jack Ripper (video clip) had gone “a little funny in the head” unleashing an atomic bomb attack. Puberty blockers as nuclear threats?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Kubrick had Sellers play 3 major roles in the movie. He also played two minor roles in makeup and when Kubrick asked him to do a sixth, it was rumored he responded with something akin to “Send everyone home I’ll do it myself.” He probably could have.

          1. James McCarthy Avatar
            James McCarthy

            Close to the omniscience of the author here with respect to advertising. Perhaps education as well.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      You got me, Eric. Change the subject. Ban aspirin.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        No subject has been changed. This is now you deflecting.

        1. walter smith Avatar
          walter smith

          No, it’s you Troll. Ban driving! Ban selfies (kids have died trying to get the spectacular picture). And I think the parents need to be investigated and the doctors lose their licenses. That’s not vilifying trans kids – they have a mental issue that is not “solved” by mutilation…

          1. So are side effects reason to ban the drug or not? Six incidents of cranial swelling do not necessitate a ban.

            Kinda like how estrogen supplements causing increased risk of clots don’t necessitate a ban. Oh, sorry Sherlock, didn’t mean to steal your thunder for the follow-up article…

          2. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            The level of what Leftists call argumentative persuasion is abysmal. All of the great deflection techniques – logical fallacies, change the subject, whataboutism, etc.
            All choices have consequences. All choices have risks. Sex change should be a hard no in a sane moral society. Period. Is that too hard to understand? Just like violating the Nuremberg Code should be a hard no.
            The human body is an amazing machine built to repair itself. Pretty amazing from a clump of cells, huh?
            Something like 3.5 billion cells all coded male or female. That is not an accident. To think that you can “fix” that is lunacy. Period. Sorry. And it is Man playing God thinking it can be done, but I doubt altruistic purposes – I suspect seeking fame and fortune.
            If altruism still controlled the medical and legal professions, there would be mass protests of medical tyranny, the Covid mandate and then There would be more medical freedom, better outcomes and real choice and informed consent on the Covid “vax” which, by the way, doesn’t work and has caused far more harm than help. But they kept quiet and kept their jobs…
            And don’t think I am singling out the docs and nurses. The lawyers remain silent in an obvious two tier, p9liticized justice system. Hell, they revel in it, engaging in law fare, filing Bar complaints for protesting the (s)election of 2020, while they know their fellow travelers control the State Bars and will never censure them. Then they make the big firms drop cases and the so-called big boys back down for filthy lucre. It is disgusting.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            “The level of what Leftists call argumentative persuasion is abysmal. All of the great deflection techniques – logical fallacies, change the subject, whataboutism, etc.”

            Again, no subject was changed… these are all your techniques, Walt… plenty of examples in this very post…

          4. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Snore again
            We don’t have to argue over whether a drug to do something dangerous, immoral and harmful is safe or not if we go back to the procedure is dangerous, immoral and harmful, and let me add, contrary to SCIENCE!

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            If straw men were real…. Walt would clearly slay them all….

          6. Where in his article did he call for a ban on the drugs? I’m serious. I don’t see it.
            Will you please point it out?

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Nothing like Walter swooping in to save the day to confirm one’s opinion of the Conservative position. You are projecting again, Walt… please don’t sue me!!

          8. walter smith Avatar
            walter smith

            Snore

    2. I just read the article twice . I did not see any of the following:

      1) Vilification of ‘trans’ children
      2) Vilification of the parents of ‘trans’ children
      3) Vilification of the doctors who treat ‘trans’ children
      4) A call to ban any drug

      Has Mr. Sherlock drastically revised his article in the last +/-14 hours, or did you perhaps intend to post this comment on a different thread?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Those damned blinders… alas…

        1. So why don’t you remove them? They seem to be hindering your ability to interpret the written word.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I meant yours… in case there was any question as to Sherlock’s intent, he clarifies directly in his comments below:

            “As you have read, there is no question in my mind that such medical practices are currently legal.

            I question their [pediatricians and pediatric oncologists at this clinic] ethics and morality.”

            He is pretty clear about what he thinks and what his point is… surprised you don’t see it…

          2. I see that he opposes widespread off-label use of prescription drugs on children.

            I also happen to oppose that. Our children should not be treated like lab animals.

            I suspect you would also oppose off-label use of drugs on children if they were being used for a purpose besides promoting the latest cause célèbre of the left.

            It seems to me that perhaps because it is the latest cause célèbre of the left, you feel you must support anything and everything that advances it, even if such things might cause permanent harm to children. You refuse to even consider the possibility that doctors may be jumping the gun on the use of these drugs, or that they might even be heading down the wrong path.

            From my standpoint, it is you who have blinders on.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Again, having what one thinks is justification for conducting a condemnation campaign against others does not, imo, actually excuse the actions.

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        Possible As commenters each pursue expressions of their individual views, the gravamen of Sherlock’s two articles is a complaint about material from a website video. His criticism concerns possibly misleading info.

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    If there were an Alzheimer’s blocker…

    Women are prescribed hormone drugs to regulate body functions all of the time.

    If Navy pilots had eaten the mashed potatoes with the sodium nitrate, Tailhook would have been merely a conference and not a scandal.

  4. Turbocohen Avatar

    Is the Crocodile Dundee method to determine who you’re talking accepted by the kook left these days?

  5. My wife and I are targets for lots of ads aimed at the elderly these days — particularly ads for drugs. Watch, they say, you too can be one of those graying couples out there playing tennis and romping with grandchildren on freshly-mowed lawns dappled with sunlight, or manuvering paddleboards across a New England lake.

    If we can’t fast-forward through the entire ad we at least mute the sound — which, if you are a glutton for punishment, consists of a high-speed recitation of side-effects and cautions sufficient to scare Indiana Jones away from King Solomon’s treasure.

    I think, JS, we have a situation here where you simply don’t like the social purpose for which a puberty blocker is used, so you’re making the most of the medical risks and off-label use to punish the venue that offers the drug. But nearly every drug has risks. Should these drugs be forbidden to the young adults and their parents who choose them over the (to them, heartbreaking) alternative? If not, what formalities of risk disclosure and acceptance would you deem sufficient?

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      The recommendation from the author might be to toss the TV into the recycle bin. Or, as my mom often said in the 1950s we will wait to buy color TV when it’s perfected.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Truly under appreciated,…
        “anal leakage and death”
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy6o7BKfNZI

        1. The best* side effect I ever heard listed during a drug commercial was “an urgent need for bowel movements and an inability to control them”, followed by “explosive diarrhea”.

          *most humorous to my twisted, juvenile, mind

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Dulcolax. Tiny pink pill. How could that possibly…. OUT OF THE WAY! COMING THROUGH! Never mind.

      2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Anything that starts with “The recommendation from the author might be” is exactly what it seems.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      You are a good man.

      I agree, nearly every drug has risks.

      But in this particular application, no one, especially including the pediatricians and pediatric oncologists at this clinic, has any idea what the long term risks are of puberty blockers as a predicate to cross-gender hormones and potentially surgery.

      No one. Anywhere.

      That makes these large scale experiments on children.

      I am not comfortable with that. I find it a sign of a moral apocalypse – literally the end of civilization as roughly defined by common law.

      There are no more moral standards in situations like this. They have been reduced to transactional standards defined by high tension legalities. Not right or wrong. Legal or illegal.

      In opposing what is done in a gap in the law, I am reduced to requesting a change in the law. Appeals to moral authority largely go unanswered.

      As transactions, I expect that UVa Children’s has legal support that insists on the proper forms being signed. I am sure you share that expectation.

      As you have read, there is no question in my mind that such medical practices are currently legal.

      I question their ethics and morality.

      1. Except we do? Because they are used on precocious puberty, and typically for about as long as you would puberty blockers. Like, that’s literally the purpose of it in precocious puberty and you don’t bat an eye.

        Also you don’t doubt their good intentions, but question their ethics and morality? Which is it?

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Three observations.

          First, puberty blockers for precocious puberty are not followed up by cross gender hormones.

          Second, a patient presenting with precocious puberty is not presenting with the same symptoms and diagnosis as one who is gender dysphoric. Precocious puberty is a physical diagnosis. Gender dysphoria is a mental one. You will note that the onlabel use has warnings of psychiatric events. We don’t have evidence of the effects of the additional psychiatric stress on a gender dysphoric kid.

          And third, the puberty blockers have been tested for long term effects on patients presenting with precocious puberty. It is not me batting an eye, but rather the FDA. I am just reporting their findings – and lack of same.

          1. The warning about cranial swelling involves two kids (out of six) taking it for precocious puberty, yet you aren’t panicked about that.

            And how do you propose one test for the “psychiatric stress” of a drug? Would you be okay with a trial test on children?

          2. The sample size is far too small for any firm conclusions, but two out of six is 33%. That is not insignificant.

          3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Read my response again.

            The drug is known to cause severe mood swings.

            When given to a kid with precocious puberty, that is one thing. The FDA has approved it for that use

            When given to a kid who has already been diagnosed with pre-existing psychiatric problems, which is what a diagnosis of gender dysphoria indicates, it is an entirely different situation.

            Scientists have not isolated and captured the cumulative short or long term effects of gender dysphoria treated with GnRH agonists with sufficient data to assess those effects.

            That makes the use of those hormones on gender dysphoric children human experiments.

    3. DJRippert Avatar

      “Should these drugs be forbidden to the young adults and their parents who choose them …”

      Young adults would be at least 18 and perhaps at least 21 years old.

    4. Kids can’t sexually consent.

      Kids can’t lawfully consent to sex, and for the exact same reason can’t lawfully consent to sexual modification by medical or surgical means.

      The people who believe they can are called “pedophiles”.

      Once you understand that, there are no more arguments to be made – only felony prosecutions with potential life sentences.

Leave a Reply