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.
Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock…
The unjabbed, unlike the jabbed, have Time on our side.
Sadly not when it comes to childrens’ vaccines.
Take a look at this:
Vaccines Cause Autism – Thanks to Covid Some People Have Started to Realise This
And this:
How the Case Against Andrew Wakefield Was Fixed – In Eight Steps – A 21st Century Medical Controversy
Well there’s no such thing as a covid vaccine, if the word vaccine is to mean anything other than what people want it to mean at any given point in time. But the products marketed as covid vaccines should as a minimum have any official stamp of approval withdrawn, and if adults really want them they should have to buy them at market price, not have them paid for by me. I have come to have the view that drugs of all kinds should be legalised, so perhaps heroin dealers could also sell “covid vaccines”.
Heroin dealers do sell covid jabs. The pharma mafia also produce and sell opioids.
But I think you meant the unauthorised heroin dealers selling bootlegged opiods, right?
I don’t think there’s much demand for bootlegged covid jabs. No high, no kick. Just bad side effects.
I guess my point, clumsily made, was that I would not necessarily want to “ban” “covid vaccines” given that I tend to think adults using their own money should be able to buy pretty much anything they want.
Agree wholeheartedly.
I don’t think the government has any business telling anyone what they can or cannot consume.
Do you think hugely rich pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to buy adverts and buy mainstream media?
That’s a good question. I think it depends what they are selling. Let’s say we get to the point where state bodies responsible for regulating medical products and approving them for use can be trusted, we would have medicines that we could “trust” up to a point. On top of that, if firms want to try and sell other stuff that is not officially approved, and people want to buy it, then they should be able to as long as it’s made clear what has been approved by a neutral body and what is just some product they are trying to sell that they say is great.
I like to think those companies would become considerably less rich if states stopped colluding with the medical industrial establishment in approving dodgy products and paying tons of money for them.
My answer to that would be a resounding yes.
I don’t need any regulator to look after me.
In my ideal world, people are allowed to do whatever they please short of causing physical harm to others and of course are held to account whenever they do purposefully or inadvertently cause harm to someone else.
I want and would gladly accept the responsibility of establishing my own trustworthy sources and working out for myself what is safe or not.
In fact that is exactly what I do. The fact that a drug is approved means nothing to me. Same with everything, my decisions of what is safe or desirable for me are made from my own experience, observations and those of whom I trust (which definitely does not include the government or regulator or NGO).
Really? Including CHILD PORN? ANIMAL PORN? SNUFF MOVIES?
No, people should not be able to buy clotshots for themselves or their helpless children, if they are tricked and deceived into thinking they are safe and good for them.
Well, making child and animal porn and snuff movies is rightly illegal so selling them is too.
As for people being tricked and deceived into buying stuff, that happens all the time. I suppose we have rules about lying in adverts, not sure how I feel about that. My default position is that being an adult means you are free to make whatever choices you see fit, whether someone else thinks they are good for you or not. If we had a more vigorous marketplace for ideas and information, people would be more aware for example of information regarding the safety and effectiveness of things marketed as medical products. We seem to have got to the point where people want to outsource responsibility to the state or to “experts”, who enthusiastically abuse that trust for their own ends.
You said, “I tend to think adults using their own money should be able to buy pretty much anything they want.”
Can you not see the contradiction in your own words, now saying some things are “rightly illegal”, but others are not? Oh never mind, it’s not worth any more discussion.
I think “pretty much” is fairly obviously intended to cover obvious exceptions.
Discussion is what we do here – well, some of us.
I meant it’s not worth it for me to continue this discussion with you, because woolly thinking that slips and slides all over the place, saying one thing then contradicting it in the next breath, is just exasperating and leads nowhere. That’s just my opinion. I’m off now to do the washing-up.
Well I was expressing a general view about how I think these things should be approached, which is the opposite of the direction in which we are moving. Of course there is devil in the detail – I’m not an idiot. I wasn’t issuing a legislative agenda.
I would say my thinking is not woolly at all – my starting point is that a harm to others needs to be demonstrated before you want to stop adults from doing things.
So first they promote trans sexuality, going as far as to suggest it may be a crime to continue to address someone as a man when he tells you he’s actually a woman (or vice versa).
Then when the whole thing seems to get out of hand they ban puberty blockers.
How about they neither promote trans-sexuality nor ban anything? How about the government stops trying to micro manage society, stops intruding into our lives, stops treating us like little children who need to be kept away from things and sticks to the basics.
Basics, like, I don’t know, not ruining the country with unpayable debt. Basics like keeping unwanted migrants out.
Is there any chance the government can stop meddling in every little nook and. cranny of our lives and instead just try to get the basic stuff right and nothing else?
Mike Fairclough is yet another unsung hero, fighting for truth.
“Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized.
In the first stage it is ridiculed,
in the second stage it is opposed,
in the third stage it is regarded as self-evident.”
Schopenhauer
The Tory tyrants aka government and their mates at the U.K. health ‘security’ agency are pushing the Spring 2024 jabbing spree, ‘offering’ the slurry-in-a-syringe to the following poor souls:
‘People aged 75 years and older, residents in care homes for older people, and those aged 6 months and over with a weakened immune system will be offered a dose of COVID-19 vaccine in spring 2024.’
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-spring-booster-resources
Has everyone forgotten Thalidomide, the drug given to pregnant women against morning sickness which resulted in thousands of babies being born with missing limbs?
Thalidomide was clear proof that no medication should ever be released for public consumption without at least 9 months of testing. Of course, in the real world, or the world as it used to be, medical products were required to undergo extensive tests, lasting between 10 and 15 years. (A pathogen must be isolated, a cure developed, the cure tested on small animals, then larger animals, then penniless students, and so on, each step being carefully documented, whereby any failure may require the whole process to be repeated.)
The Covid ‘vaccines’ were developed at ‘Warp speed’, i.e. supposedly within very few months, and released on the public under ‘emergency’ conditions, meaning no tests whatsoever!
Should children be ‘vaccinated’ with such products? Of course not!
Should children be vaccinated against anything at all? Not if you go to https://expose-news.com/ and read any of the countless articles listed after doing a search for ‘vaccines’, or read books such as Virus Mania by Engelbrecht et al, or Dissolving Illusions by Humphries and Bystrianyk.
We have all been brought up to accept that vaccines are essential, miracle products protecting us against most serious diseases but these documents completely destroy this narrative.
No more vaccinations for me – ever!
They have manipulated the definition of “vaccine” over the years as well. Calling it so and issuing Emergency Use Authorization opened the door for a product, that would not be open for any other brand new drug. Thalidomide was a novel “miracle drug” in it’s day – but looking back further in time, Heroin didn’t work out as planned either.
‘Warp speed’ was a big fat lie when it comes to the technology behind these latest concoctions, as most of the components had been around for a significant number of years, and were found in many instances to be wanting and dangerous. The ‘warp speed’ label to me felt like an opportunity to crow (and Trump was set up in this regard by Fauci, Collins et al) about how good this technology was and to justify not having to test these products using proven established methods, which were refined to avoid disasters of the past. We were then treated to ‘unblinded’ half hearted attempts at randomised controlled trials, followed by a ‘study’ involving six mice and then no tests at all, because the ‘science’ was settled, a glib phrase which came to characterise this period for many aspects of our lives, driving a steam roller over caution, and with it the use of repurposed and safe agents, all justified in the safe embrace of the ’emergency use authorisation’ wrapper. As for ‘ vaccines’ the texts referred to clearly show the decline of the diseases well before the ‘vaccines’ were available, with the employment of sound public health measures, such as clean drinking water, improved nutrition, reduced overcrowding etc. For those who have been around a bit longer, and were subject to common childhood illnesses that they survived with out ‘vaccines’ (as these were not available), one may be left wondering how this could be, given the saintly way the proponents of ‘vaccines’ now push these in ever increasing numbers on the population, through a mixture of fear and apparent concern but, maybe I am just becoming more cynical as each year passes.
The legal protection for Big Pharma companies is null and void if their products are proven to have been the subject of fraud regarding testing and reporting.
The CDC (admittedly American) recently released a 148 page report relating to excess deaths, in which every single word was redacted, a quick read!
None of the mRNA gene therapy injections were ever approved, they only received Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), because the authorities lied and stated there were no curatives or prophylactic’s – which was a massive known lie.
Our country has changed . We now know yet allow political criminals to get away with it
Excellent article from a very brave man.
Under the GMC duties of a doctor there was always a requirement for doctors to speak out to the relevant authorities if they believed a patient was at risk. Unless they’ve changed this ethical code of practice most doctors have been guilty of failing to adhere to their professional and ethical obligations. Those that did speak out were heavily penalised, but by now the number of voices speaking out should be enough to silence the official and unofficial censors!