Yes parents are absolutely wrong about autism. The GD patients and families are wrong to say the meds were life saving? How so? Explain.
Reed published a study on bicalutamide? When and where? Where did she do a peer reviewed study like the ones WPATH cite that haven't been retracted?
Reed published a study on bicalutamide? When and where? Where did she do a peer reviewed study like the ones WPATH cite that haven't been retracted?
November 21, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Yes parents are absolutely wrong about autism. The GD patients and families are wrong to say the meds were life saving? How so? Explain.
Reed published a study on bicalutamide? When and where? Where did she do a peer reviewed study like the ones WPATH cite that haven't been retracted?
Reed published a study on bicalutamide? When and where? Where did she do a peer reviewed study like the ones WPATH cite that haven't been retracted?
WPATH says that they are a necessary life saving intervention and cited 9 studies/articles. Are you saying WPATH is wrong and so are the MDs that still prescribe them and call them that? Are the families wrong to call them life saving? Do the studies say the opposite? Where did reed publish again?
November 21, 2025 at 4:10 PM
WPATH says that they are a necessary life saving intervention and cited 9 studies/articles. Are you saying WPATH is wrong and so are the MDs that still prescribe them and call them that? Are the families wrong to call them life saving? Do the studies say the opposite? Where did reed publish again?
Not articles. Studies. Peer reviewed. So WPATH is incorrect for saying blockers are life saving and necessary interventions because of one sentence you found? And they should never say blockers are life saving even though 9 studies support them? Where did reed publish her study that you believe?
November 21, 2025 at 12:22 AM
Not articles. Studies. Peer reviewed. So WPATH is incorrect for saying blockers are life saving and necessary interventions because of one sentence you found? And they should never say blockers are life saving even though 9 studies support them? Where did reed publish her study that you believe?
Are you now claiming WPATH the expert body that cites them didn't read them and shouldn't have cited them as confirmation that blockers are absolutely lifesaving for patients. Have they been retracted? How many patients was reeds study on? Where was it published? The one you believe.
November 20, 2025 at 11:42 PM
Are you now claiming WPATH the expert body that cites them didn't read them and shouldn't have cited them as confirmation that blockers are absolutely lifesaving for patients. Have they been retracted? How many patients was reeds study on? Where was it published? The one you believe.
There's 9 cited. Is the expert body at WPATH incorrect to cite these studies and continue to recommend blockers as life saving interventions? Are patients wrong to call them life saving interventions? Families too? How many patients did reed do a study on? Where was hers published?
November 20, 2025 at 10:58 PM
There's 9 cited. Is the expert body at WPATH incorrect to cite these studies and continue to recommend blockers as life saving interventions? Are patients wrong to call them life saving interventions? Families too? How many patients did reed do a study on? Where was hers published?
And the other studies - are those wrong or right? There are 8 others listed. Any been retracted? Or are the experts at WPATH correct to cite them as evidence that blockers are still in fact life saving for GD patients and continue to prescribe them to patients who also say they are life saving.
November 20, 2025 at 10:17 PM
And the other studies - are those wrong or right? There are 8 others listed. Any been retracted? Or are the experts at WPATH correct to cite them as evidence that blockers are still in fact life saving for GD patients and continue to prescribe them to patients who also say they are life saving.
Conclusions: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team... including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones...provides gender dysphoric youth who seek gender reassignment from early puberty on, the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults.
Are the authors wrong?
Are the authors wrong?
November 20, 2025 at 8:02 PM
Conclusions: A clinical protocol of a multidisciplinary team... including puberty suppression, followed by cross-sex hormones...provides gender dysphoric youth who seek gender reassignment from early puberty on, the opportunity to develop into well-functioning young adults.
Are the authors wrong?
Are the authors wrong?
Is it very telling? Or are you still doing the thing where agree with some experts while ignoring the body of experts at WPATH who today recommend lifesaving blockers as an important medical intervention and what the patients call the medications. They are featured in other studies saying just that.
November 20, 2025 at 7:23 PM
Is it very telling? Or are you still doing the thing where agree with some experts while ignoring the body of experts at WPATH who today recommend lifesaving blockers as an important medical intervention and what the patients call the medications. They are featured in other studies saying just that.
You can read their response to the cass review which cites 9 studies to support their expert recommendations on puberty blockers. Just search wpath cass review and that should get you there. They still recommend life saving blockers as intervention today. Patients call them that too. Are they wrong?
November 20, 2025 at 7:10 PM
You can read their response to the cass review which cites 9 studies to support their expert recommendations on puberty blockers. Just search wpath cass review and that should get you there. They still recommend life saving blockers as intervention today. Patients call them that too. Are they wrong?
It is. Its you yet again selectively choosing which science you want to believe while ignoring experts in their fields making other recommendations every single day. Life saving. It's true. It doesn't matter if you disagree here. The studies support their recommendations on the life saving benefits.
November 20, 2025 at 7:04 PM
It is. Its you yet again selectively choosing which science you want to believe while ignoring experts in their fields making other recommendations every single day. Life saving. It's true. It doesn't matter if you disagree here. The studies support their recommendations on the life saving benefits.
"Science you agree with is very important to you you mean. You kind of hammered that one home. Meanwhile these bans are quoting people like signal in their cases. While always ignoring actual families and patients and experts treating them every day."
Still stands.
Still stands.
November 20, 2025 at 6:51 PM
"Science you agree with is very important to you you mean. You kind of hammered that one home. Meanwhile these bans are quoting people like signal in their cases. While always ignoring actual families and patients and experts treating them every day."
Still stands.
Still stands.
But you do have a position on their recommendations. You agree with them. You just said that again. They recommend life saving blockers and call them that because they are. They recommend caution with ONE of many blockers. Because of their expertise. The rest they consider necessary. As do familes.
November 20, 2025 at 6:45 PM
But you do have a position on their recommendations. You agree with them. You just said that again. They recommend life saving blockers and call them that because they are. They recommend caution with ONE of many blockers. Because of their expertise. The rest they consider necessary. As do familes.
So WPATH is correct in their recommendations for life saving blocker medications for patients and the MDs are correct to prescribe them and correct that caution should be used with the one they advised against. Great. I agree! They are life saving! Thank you for recognizing WPATHs expertise here.
November 20, 2025 at 6:38 PM
So WPATH is correct in their recommendations for life saving blocker medications for patients and the MDs are correct to prescribe them and correct that caution should be used with the one they advised against. Great. I agree! They are life saving! Thank you for recognizing WPATHs expertise here.
I asked you. Are you saying that wpath was wrong to warn against that med because a single patient had a good and life saving experience on it?
November 20, 2025 at 3:59 PM
I asked you. Are you saying that wpath was wrong to warn against that med because a single patient had a good and life saving experience on it?
Because it didn't harm the patient? So youre saying they are wrong to not recommend it because the patient found it to be beneficial?
November 20, 2025 at 3:51 PM
Because it didn't harm the patient? So youre saying they are wrong to not recommend it because the patient found it to be beneficial?
It was for the patient reed lied about. Family said they wouldnt hesitate to do it again. Are there other blockers? Yes or no? Did you suddenly forget? Are experts at wpath and MDs and patients wrong to call them lifesaving? Still do. Still prescribing them as such.
November 20, 2025 at 3:41 PM
It was for the patient reed lied about. Family said they wouldnt hesitate to do it again. Are there other blockers? Yes or no? Did you suddenly forget? Are experts at wpath and MDs and patients wrong to call them lifesaving? Still do. Still prescribing them as such.
Is the there just one blocker med? The wpath experts call them lifesaving necessary interventions. So do prescribing mds and families. Are they wrong? They are still prescribed as such. Are those doctors wrong?
November 20, 2025 at 3:25 PM
Is the there just one blocker med? The wpath experts call them lifesaving necessary interventions. So do prescribing mds and families. Are they wrong? They are still prescribed as such. Are those doctors wrong?
But never said its not a lifesaving intervention. They still say that blockers are lifesaving and necessary interventions. The expert body. Why mds prescribe them still. What patients say helped them survive. Lifesaving meds. Experts agree.
November 20, 2025 at 2:13 AM
But never said its not a lifesaving intervention. They still say that blockers are lifesaving and necessary interventions. The expert body. Why mds prescribe them still. What patients say helped them survive. Lifesaving meds. Experts agree.
Why should I distinguish? Is there some list of blockers WPATH issued that they say are not life saving interventions for GD? No? Are those experts and prescribers and families and patients wrong to call them lifesaving? The patient reed lied about says they have 0 regrets would do it again.
November 19, 2025 at 10:21 PM
Why should I distinguish? Is there some list of blockers WPATH issued that they say are not life saving interventions for GD? No? Are those experts and prescribers and families and patients wrong to call them lifesaving? The patient reed lied about says they have 0 regrets would do it again.
These experts and families still call blockers lifesaving interventions. Are they wrong? The experts. Are the patients wrong to make that claim? How so? Not sure why you are conflating heroin with the multiple legal and life saving puberty blocker options for GAC.
November 19, 2025 at 8:30 PM
These experts and families still call blockers lifesaving interventions. Are they wrong? The experts. Are the patients wrong to make that claim? How so? Not sure why you are conflating heroin with the multiple legal and life saving puberty blocker options for GAC.
So they never called blockers not life saving like you claim and you learned theres different types of blockers. Congrats! These experts and families still call blockers lifesaving interventions. Are they wrong? The experts. Are the patients wrong to make that claim? How so?
November 19, 2025 at 3:53 PM
So they never called blockers not life saving like you claim and you learned theres different types of blockers. Congrats! These experts and families still call blockers lifesaving interventions. Are they wrong? The experts. Are the patients wrong to make that claim? How so?
WPATH said that drug isnt life saving? When? They do say that blockers are life saving. I dont think they refer to any as not life saving.
November 19, 2025 at 2:09 AM
WPATH said that drug isnt life saving? When? They do say that blockers are life saving. I dont think they refer to any as not life saving.
The ones they choose when prescribing blockers for gac. Those are the ones they say unequivocally save lives and are medically necessary. But youve no opinion on that. Just agree with any statements against blockers. As youve demonstrated. A lot.
November 18, 2025 at 11:51 PM
The ones they choose when prescribing blockers for gac. Those are the ones they say unequivocally save lives and are medically necessary. But youve no opinion on that. Just agree with any statements against blockers. As youve demonstrated. A lot.
They say that blockers are medically necessary and life saving. Providers say the same. Patients say the same. So you neither agree or disagree with them saying that? They are neither wrong nor right? Unless its the one drug youre trying to focus on? Then you agree?
November 18, 2025 at 11:19 PM
They say that blockers are medically necessary and life saving. Providers say the same. Patients say the same. So you neither agree or disagree with them saying that? They are neither wrong nor right? Unless its the one drug youre trying to focus on? Then you agree?
You disagree with the medical science experts at WPATH who call blockers life saving and necessary for some patients. That's what MD's are experts in. Medical science. It's kind of their thing. You agree with anyone who says otherwise. Which you long established now.
November 18, 2025 at 8:42 PM
You disagree with the medical science experts at WPATH who call blockers life saving and necessary for some patients. That's what MD's are experts in. Medical science. It's kind of their thing. You agree with anyone who says otherwise. Which you long established now.