Puberty blockers have finally been banned in the U.K. The decision came after an independent review of services for children under 18 and a sharp rise in referrals to the Gender Identity Development Service run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, which is closing at the end of March.
“We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty-suppressing hormones” an NHS spokesperson told the Telegraph on March 12th 2024.
MPs and media personalities have come out in support of this move. But in reality, most of them have remained silent on this issue up until now. It has previously been considered too politically sensitive and controversial to comment on, with the threat of being branded a ‘transphobe’ or ‘bigot’ no doubt playing a significant role in their collective silence. Nonetheless, I have yet to meet a single person, outside of social media, who agrees that puberty blockers are either ethical or safe. Thankfully, strong and courageous voices, such as J.K. Rowling, Allison Pearson, Molly Kingsley and Jordan Peterson have been calling out the dangers of this practice from the start. They are now clearly vindicated.
When the issue is stripped back to its essence, puberty blockers have been banned on the basis of long established medical ethics. Specifically, that children should never be given a medical intervention which they do not need and which poses known and serious risks to them – a view which before 2020 would have been the reasonable position to take. Indeed, to argue otherwise would have been regarded as extreme. The factor which changed after 2020 was the rollout of the Covid vaccines to children. Seemingly overnight, medical ethics was suspended and inverted in favour of pushing ahead with the vaccine rollout. However, if we apply the same principles behind the banning of puberty blockers to the Covid vaccines, they would also be banned for children with immediate effect.
The Covid vaccine rollout to children has always been controversial. Consider:
- Covid vaccinations were not recommended by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) for under-16s, a decision overridden by the Chief Medical Officers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
- When Matt Hancock was Health Secretary, he stated in Parliament that the Covid vaccines were for the adult population only. He said that children would not be offered the vaccine because it had not been tested on children and that they were at low risk from Covid. Despite this, he then supported the rollout to the nation’s children.
- There are still no long-term safety data for the Covid vaccines (and at the time of the rollout to children, incomplete short-term and no medium-term safety data).
- Covid vaccines pose known and very serious risks (these include potentially fatal myocarditis, pericarditis etc.) Tragically, there have also been coroner confirmed deaths caused by the Covid vaccines.
- A child can still catch and spread Covid when vaccinated against the virus.
- Healthy children are at extremely low risk of serious illness from Covid, so the risks posed by the vaccines outweigh any possible benefit for a child.
- When Sajid Javid was Health Secretary, he stated that 12 to 15 year-old children would have the final say on whether or not to receive the Covid vaccine. Children were told that they were allowed to override their parents’ decision. This remains, in my opinion, the most egregious act of the entire pandemic.
- The Government chose Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company with a long history of criminal and medical negligence (and which paid the biggest criminal fine in U.S. history) as the company to provide the Covid vaccine for our children. This really should have been a red flag from the start.
- One of the most controversial points was the decision by the U.K. Government to shut down its own Ethics Committee when its members raised serious concerns about the Covid vaccine rollout to children.
- Like puberty blockers, the general public appears to have been opposed to the Covid vaccine rollout to children. In the end, 89.4% of five to 11-year-olds did not receive a single Covid vaccine or booster. This is despite a multi-million pound marketing campaign directed at children and their parents. Over 50% of the 12-15 year old cohort did not receive a single dose either.
The evidence keeps stacking up against the Covid vaccines
MPs have said they believe the MHRA were aware of heart and clotting issues caused by the Covid vaccines in February 2021 but did not highlight the problems for several months. The all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on pandemic response and recovery raised “serious patient safety concerns”, claiming that “far from protecting patients” the regulator operates in a way that “puts them at serious risk”. Some 25 MPs across four parties wrote to the Health Select Committee asking for an urgent investigation.
The group also warned that the MHRA Yellow Card reporting system – which encourages patients and doctors to flag-up medicine side effects – “grossly” underestimates complexities, and in some instances picks up just one in 180 cases of harm.
MPs and peers have also accused the Health Secretary of withholding data that could link the Covid vaccine to excess deaths, and criticised a “wall of silence” on the topic. A cross-party group has written to Victoria Atkins to sound alarm about the “growing public and professional concerns” at the U.K.’s rates of excess deaths since 2020.
With the growing evidence that something is seriously amiss with the Covid vaccines, surely we should stop giving them to our children? Currently within the U.K., children who are considered vulnerable (including those with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and ADHD) and those living with clinically vulnerable adults are eligible for the vaccine. It is also possible for parents to privately purchase the Covid vaccine for their children if they are 12 years old or over. In light of the ban on puberty blockers, it makes sense to apply this thinking to the Covid vaccines too.
Things will change when members of the public speak up
Being critical of puberty blockers will become the accepted narrative now that they have been banned. Members of the public, media personalities and politicians will begin to openly express this position (which has always been the majority view). However, we need to get to a point when people begin to express opinions which they genuinely hold but are still considered controversial. Expressing lawful opinions about sensitive topics, particularly when it comes to safeguarding children against harm, should be encouraged and not vilified.
All of the safeguarding training across workplace sectors is easily dismantled and destroyed in the face of moral cowardice. As a former headteacher, with 30 years’ experience within the education sector, I had to attend annual safeguarding training which laid out what an education professional must do when he or she has concerns about a child. The training always highlighted examples in which entire organisations have been complicit in widespread abuse. We are told that it is not just the perpetrators of the abuse who are accountable. Those who are not directly involved in the abuse, but who remain silent about it, are equally accountable under law. These individuals, woefully lacking in moral courage, place their self-preservation ahead of the needs of the children in their care. It is also a serious breach of their legal duty to safeguard children against harm.
Of course, cancel culture, as well as employers evangelised by whatever the latest thing happens to be, inhibits free speech. If an opinion goes against the current narrative, employees are likely to be attacked for expressing it. Whether that be criticism of puberty blockers, the Covid vaccines, climate alarmism, drag queen storytime or anything else. Expressing lawful opinions about controversial and politically sensitive topics will almost always result in some sort of attack. However, we must draw a line when it comes to safeguarding children against harm.
As the only U.K. headteacher to publicly express concerns about lockdowns, masking kids and the Covid vaccines for children, I have experienced multiple attacks and personal losses. This is why I am now taking my former employer, East Sussex County Council, to court. In the end, expressing my valid concerns in a lawful and moderate manner cost me my career. My employer tried to silence me through the complaints and investigation process, but I continued to express my concerns. I was fulfilling my legal and moral duty in doing so. My philosophical belief in the importance of critical thinking, freedom of speech and safeguarding children underpins my case. It is predicted to set an important legal precedent for free speech in the workplace and has gained the overwhelming support of the public, high-profile free speech advocates and the Daily Telegraph.
But it needn’t result in expensive court cases and conflict if everyone expressed their lawful opinions about the things which matter. The ban on puberty blockers is a fantastic development in the battle to protect our children, but those who were silent about it are partly responsible for the delay. This abhorrent medical intervention should have been banned long ago. The same principles applied to the ban on puberty blockers should now be applied to the Covid vaccines for children. Children do not need this medical intervention, which is ineffective and known to cause harm. The general public is clearly in agreement so the time to speak up about it is now. Silence should never be an option when safeguarding children against harm.
To support Mike’s case against his former employer for wrongful dismissal, go to the Democracy 3.0 website, navigate to ‘campaigns’ and click on ‘A Legal Battle for Free Speech‘.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Might there be any countries for which the current mess in Europe is to their advantage?
Wouldn’t that be most countries outside Europe?
I suppose the questions might be:
Does the conflict lead to increased exports?
Does the conflict lead to opportunities to take advantage of a distracted West?
Well, how about those that will benefit form selling Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)? According to the Beeb world propaganda radio, most of the plant for processing LNG is in eastern England, with pipelines across to Belgium & the Netherlands. Apparently even Australia is a potential source, also Canada, as well as the middle east. So, it’s likely that a fair bit will arrive here by sea, then converted to gas and exported to the mainland.
I’m not sure what the currency is, but spot the cash flow into HMG.
I think that may be the wrong question.
It assumes that the actions of countries are taken for the benefit of those countries, meaning, the people of those countries. I don’t think that’s the case. I think the state power of countries is hijacked by interest groups who use it for their purpose and benefit.
So the more accurate question, I think, may be: are there those for whom the current mess in Europe is to their advantage?
I am ever more certain that thinking of countries as monolithic units with a common interest only serves to confuse and muddle any attempt to understand what is really going on.
No…the fact that the EU is the second biggest economy after the USA, and is now an economic basket-case…can’t possibly help the US…..?
….and that the USA has become the largest LNG exporter in 2022, driven by European demand….…can’t possibly help the US…?
…and that the same US just might have had a teensy-weensy involvement in fomenting said conflict?
Just coincidence…LOL….!
A case of the US economy tanking & taking out the European one so that the NWO can be more easily installed.
Quite possibly, there were several scenarios when planning this campaign with Ukraine falling quickly being just one of them. But Moscow were negotiating from day one with not unreasonable demands well short of requesting full capitulation of Kiev.
Without negating the bravery of ordinary ukrainian soldiers, the task set for the russian military was extremely difficult. It had to target military objects, spare civilian lives and infrastructure trying not to alienate Ukrainian population while undertaking full scale military operation. Russia couldn’t just carpet bomb starting with Kiev thus decapitating the country. You also can’t dismiss ruinous errors and corruption on the russian side.
Is Ukraine holding for all this time against Russia a blessing or curse? One thing is certain – more Ukrainians will die. Will they be able to defeat Putin eventually as US wants them to? Not while Russia having nuclear weapons. Repel Russians from Ukraine? Maybe eventually in several years’ time. But was it what Ukrainians voting for Zelenskyy wanted? They wanted the end of Donbass war, but got full scale proxy war between nuclear powers in their country.
The response in Europe in particular to Russia’s Ukraine invasion was swift and highly coordinated.
“Sponataneous” expressions of support for Ukraine popped up on TV screens across Europe and in the UK almost instantly.
As far as I’m aware the sanctions imposed on Russia were not debated and decided in parliaments. They weren’t decisions taken by each individual country. They were decided at some supra-national level. The nominally elected heads of governments of our countries were gathered together and informed of what the “coordinated” response would be. And that was it.
This is the reality of our world. Decisions that have massive implication for our lives and our livelihoods are being decided by a group of people that we don’t really know who they are. We can speculate, but we don’t know.
In summary, the question of whether Ukraine was over estimated or underestimated is interesting, I suppose. But far more interesting is by whom?
I’m genuinely interested in finding out who makes the decisions of the British state (and all the other so called democratic states.)
WEF?
It’s an obvious candidate. But I think that at best the WEF is a rough approximation to the answer because the process by which the WEF reaches its well publicised and seemingly very transparent proclamations is rather opaque.
So when the WEF comes up with some dystopian insanity about the 4th industrial revolution, which really does seem to be reflected in actual policy implemented by many countries, who came up with it? Did Klaus Schwab? Was it a group of oligarchs who use the WEF and Schwab as a mouthpiece and. consensus building organism? Is there a board of WEF grandees that act in representation of a group of major corporations, institutions and perhaps some bigger countries?
Maybe the WEF is more like a system for producing groupthink. It gathers together people with influence, puffs them up telling them they are not just influential in their country or in their industry but on a global scale and then gets them talking to each other about the same things, climate change and controlling this and controlling that. They pepper in platitudes about making the world better and global responsibility to make themselves feel good about it all. And before you know it they’re all marching together like drones in the same direction.
What is undeniable is that the things the WEF says seem to be closely aligned with policy in western countries. How much the WEF leads and how much it follows is what isn’t at all clear.
And Bill Gates.
I agree with what you say…particularly in relation to the ‘spontaneous’ expressions of support…which to be fair just feels on the whole like horrendous one-sided propaganda….which media, anywhere, has discussed Russia other than as the bogey-man? Pretty much tells you there’s an ‘accepted’ agenda…
I know we have to unpick what we can from the media, but I don’t trust Reuters, anymore than I trust any MSM. Reuters has a ‘fact-checking’ partnership with Twitter and Facebook, we all know which way those lean…
They have ties with the WEF, Pfizer, and the Trusted News Initiative…well it’s not trusted by me…
I can’t disagree with any of that.
1) Russia expect good a quick win was the Straw Man of USA & NATO Countries propaganda. Russia made no such claim.
2) The ‘West’ didn’t under-estimate Ukraine, they under-estimated Russia – its willingness and ability to grind on, slowly, militarily and how adept it was at reorganising its economy.
‘… additional explanations. One is that European leaders didn’t expect Russia to respond by cutting off the gas supply…’
‘This seems extremely implausible, as it would imply our leaders lack even the most basic understanding of human affairs.’
Dear me!
Earth to Noah Carl. Earth to Noah Carl. On which planet have you been these last few years?
Implausible, because it implies that our leaders lack even the most basic understanding of human affairs? Well, indeed. Have you seen the shower of ‘leaders’ we have allowed to infest our governments? Half are pocket-lining, self-serving snakes who are taking orders from Brussels, the other half really are morons who think that being a good leader is promising to wipe everyone’s bum for them, then turning around to random businesses and individuals and saying ‘make it happen, I’ve got other things to do.’ And telling naughty Putin to just stop invading other countries, or else they will call him nasty names (not take him on in combat, of course).
The EU nations responded as one because Brussels instructed them to. This is the same Brussels that, under the authoritarian ‘green’ commissioner Timmermans, is literally telling people they just have to accept they will get poorer and will freeze and sit in the dark – all well awarding themselves a pay rise, natch.
Why is Brussels doing this? Pressure from the US combined with a hare-brained idea that this will help them achieve their ‘green’ plan. Once people see how wonderful it is to take cold showers and play shadow puppets by candle light, they will embrace the green. The one thing these people most definitely do not have is a basic understanding of human affairs. I think they really were shocked when, after telling Putin for weeks they would not pay for Russian gas, Putin turned off the gas. What the hell did they expect? They kept saying that not only would they not pay for it, they wouldn’t buy it after they had filled up their stores for the winter. And then were surprised when he said ‘fine by me’.
Certainly both Putin and the EU underestimated Ukraine’s military capabilities.
‘One of the most curious aspects of the Russian ‘special operation’ in Ukraine was how little effort the Kremlin had put into preparing its own population for what was about to be undertaken. The justification for the operation was made suddenly, over the course of about 10 days. In this it resembled the annexation of Crimea, despite being a much greater endeavour, suggesting that the Russian government wished to present it to the Russian public as a fait accompli.’
RUSI 22 Apr 22
The EU had, arguably still has, a complete blindspot regarding defence capability generally, particularly conventional defence in Europe, since its foreign policy has been dominated from 2005-2021 by a ‘peacenik’. The idea that economic ties between Germany and Russia would guarantee peace derived from the original concept of the EU as a construct to defang the Franco German struggles for supremacy in Europe of the recent past.
The fly in the ointment in all this has been the outstanding efforts of Britain, and, specifically, British Army trainers, as good as any worldwide, with recent combat experience, in training up the Ukrainian Army since 2014.
Swift and accurate target acquisition, using novel techniques, by well trained Ukrainian Forces has given Ukrainian artillery a force multiplying lethality.
If that has caught the world by surprise, it should not have. Montgomery instilled the need for intensive training into the British Army and that priority remains today. Consequently, they are very good at it.
But the British Ministry of Defence has, itself, been surprised by the failure of British and European conventional deterrence; Putin ‘going the full tonto’.
The lack of availability of significant European mechanised forces to protect EU members closest to Russia has contributed to the unmitigated disaster now in train in Ukraine.
Unsurprisingly, Poland, for example, is now intent upon purchasing 1000 tanks from South Korea, the only country able to supply that volume at relatively short notice.
What is the Ukrainian Army asking for, and they certainly appear to know what they are doing?
Tanks.
Britain’s modern tank numbers? That would be 148, available on a good day i.e. not really.
We have been caught napping, as we were in 1938.
The failure of conventional deterrence is always expensive. It is not yet clear that the political will exists in Europe, or Britain, to put a credible conventional deterrent back together again.
And yet that is the only thing that will guard against further military adventurism in Europe, as Poland, much closer to the action, with a legacy of suffering from just such historical occurrences, understands only too well.
It cannot be repeated too often; to the Russian mind, quantity has a quality all of its own. They, and others like them, will not be deterred by drones and cyber. By the time cutting edge systems can take effect, deterrence will have failed.
Deterrence is the key. If you wish for peace, then prepare for war.
This is concerning….
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/british-soldiers-told-ready-war-27791322
Especially as there is some information coming out that the ‘migrants’ being shepherded across the Channel are in fact UN militia currently being trained by the British Army in time for martial law to ensure full compliance with lockdowns, digital ID for rations etc
BE prepared!
https://rumble.com/v1ggt9v-britain-got-no-idea-what-coming-they-are-fast-asleep.html
What a pleasure it is to watch the gullible Brits swallow the ukraine/Russia fictionalised “war” and happily take it in the shorts by paying more for their energy this winter.. Ukraine, the third most corrupt country in the world and the Brits are doing their national duty and standing up for the “poor Ukrainians. Meanwhile zelensky, previously employed as a comedienne has a mega million dollar mansion on the beach in Florida and other properties. But the stoic Brits will do whatever they can to support ukraine against that bad man Putin. Has anyone even bothered to ask why exactly energy bills will be skyrocketing this winter. Anything to do with the US sanctions? Oh and don’t forget to take your next booster of the clot shot, guaranteeing ongoing mutation of the covid virus. The newest bivalent shot doesn’t even cover the current covid variant
but be sure to take it!!!