A prominent doctor and advocate for transgender rights has come under fire after admitting she deliberately withheld the results of a $10 million taxpayer-funded study examining the effects of puberty blockers on American children. Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy revealed to the New York Times that the study found no evidence that these treatments improve mental health among young patients.
Dr. Olson-Kennedy, who leads The Center for Transyouth Health and Development in Los Angeles, expressed concerns that the findings could be “weaponized” by opponents of transgender care, particularly as states across the country move to restrict such medical interventions for minors. The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, followed 95 children who began receiving puberty blockers in 2015. After two years, the results indicated that the treatments did not enhance the mental health of participants, contradicting earlier data that reported a significant portion of the group had experienced depression or suicidal thoughts prior to treatment.
Critics, including fellow researchers, have decried Olson-Kennedy’s decision as a violation of scientific ethics, arguing that withholding research deprives the public of crucial information at a time when the debate over transgender medical treatments is particularly heated. Boston College clinical psychologist Amy Tishelman noted, “I understand the fear about it being weaponized, but it’s really important to get the science out there.”
Public sentiment appears to be leaning against the use of puberty blockers for young people. A recent survey indicated that 68% of U.S. adults oppose providing these treatments to children aged 10 to 14. Additionally, international research has echoed concerns about the effectiveness of such interventions. A review by England’s National Health Service concluded that there is “no good evidence” supporting the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria, leading to a halt in their prescription for minors in the UK.
Olson-Kennedy’s rationale for withholding the study’s results, citing fears of backlash and potential legal ramifications, has raised questions about transparency in the field of pediatric gender medicine. Critics argue that scientific findings should be reported irrespective of their implications, emphasizing the importance of honest data in guiding public policy and medical practices.
As the debate continues, experts stress the need for further investigation into the effects of puberty blockers, highlighting the complexities and varying outcomes for youth grappling with gender identity issues. The call for transparency and accountability in research has never been more urgent as the nation navigates these contentious waters.
By: Montana Newsroom staff
