When the UK National Health Service’s bombshell Cass Review condemning gender “transition” for minors was published, virtually the entire Canadian press engaged in a voluntary blackout.
Unless you were reading an alternative news source, an international news source, or the National Post, it was as if Cass Review — and its findings — had simply never existed. Many media outlets did not run a single story; the state-funded CBC ran precisely one, and it was a laughable hatchet job claiming that the massive study was “biased.” They did not interview a single person associated with the research.
The Canadian press has functioned for years as a propaganda arm for the transgender movement, even as the gender ideology house of cards topples in in the U.S. and the UK, where there have been genuinely robust debates informed by scientific evidence rather than ideology. Thus, I wonder how they will deal with new studies by Canadian researchers that reach many of the same conclusions.
As Sharon Kirkey of the National Postreported. “The evidence surrounding the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children and teens identifying as transgender is of such low certainty it’s impossible to conclude whether the drugs help or harm, Canadian researchers are reporting.” The research was funded by the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM) and McMaster University, considered to one of Canada’s top institutions of higher hearing, and published this week in the journal Archives of Disease in Childhood.
“There’s not enough reliable information,” said Chan Kulatunga-Moruzi, one of the authors of the two new reviews. “We really don’t have enough evidence to say that these procedures are beneficial. Few studies have looked at physical harm, so we have really no evidence of harm as well. There’s not a lot that we can say with certainty, based on the evidence.” (Here, I would note that there are now thousands of testimonies of detransitioners testifying to the harm that sex-change “treatments” have caused them, but this is a remarkable admission nonetheless.)
The researchers conclude that doctors should approach these “treatments” with extreme care, clearly communicating with parents and children and — notably — checking “whose values they are prioritizing” if they should decide to prescribe cross-sex hormones or puberty blockers. As Kirkey put it with devastating understatement: “Originally considered fully reversible, concerns are emerging about potential long-term or irreversible effects, the Canadian team wrote … Questions have been raised about the effects of fertility or what impact, if any, they might have on brain development.”
The researchers painstakingly went through the available evidence on both cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers (Kirkey irritatingly refers to them as “gender-affirming hormones”) for those up to 26 years old. To analyze the evidence, they “graded” it “using a scoring system co-developed by Dr. Gordon Guyatt, a celebrated McMaster University scientist who coined the phrase evidence-based medicine.” As Kirkey reported:
After screening 6,736 titles and abstracts involving puberty blockers, only 10 studies were included in their review. While children who received puberty blockers compared to those who don’t score higher on “global function” — quality of life, and general physical and psychological wellbeing — the evidence was of “very low certainty.” Very low, meaning researchers have “very little confidence in the effect estimate” and that the true effect “is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.”
It gets worse. The research also debunked the perpetually asserted claim utilized by trans activists and their political allies to enforce their agenda: that these drugs are necessary to prevent depression and suicidal ideation. According to the researchers: “We are very uncertain about the causal effect of the (drugs) on depression. Most studies provided very low certainty of evidence about the outcomes of interest; thus, we cannot exclude the possibility of benefit or harm.” Again, despite the careful understatement, this is devastating: Thousands of children have been subjected to these treatments on the premise that they prevent harm and are harmless.
Indeed, the second review, which analyzed 24 studies, reached the similar conclusion of “very low confirmatory evidence of substantive change” not just in depression or health overall but even in gender dysphoria itself. As Kirkey noted: “Many studies suffered from missing data, small sample sizes, or lacked a comparison group.” The researchers concluded: “Since the current best evidence, including our systematic review and meta-analysis, is predominantly very low quality, clinicians must clearly communicate this evidence to patients and caregivers. Treatment decisions should consider the lack of moderate- and high-quality evidence, uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers and patient’s values and preferences.”
Imagine for a moment that you are a teen or young person who started these treatments after having been told, with utter, aggressive confidence, by counselors, psychiatrists, and doctors that they were both harmless and necessary — that they could even save your life. Imagine being a parent who subjected your child to these treatments, convinced by “experts” that this was the best thing you could do to love your son or daughter. I have written these words too many times to count: This is a medical scandal of unprecedented proportions in this century, and those that perpetrated it must be held accountable.
Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.
His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.
He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.
Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
The FDA old guard criticized the new leadership in a Dec. 3 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) letter over a higher regulatory bar for vaccines, namely the expectation that most new vaccine approvals will require randomized clinical trials, arguing it could hamper the market.
“Insisting on long, expensive outcomes studies for every updated formulation would delay the arrival of better-matched vaccines when new outbreaks emerge or when additional groups of patients could benefit,” the former commissioners wrote. “Abandoning the existing methods won’t ‘elevate vaccine science’ … It will subject vaccines to a substantially higher and more subjective approval bar.”
But while the former commissioners disclosed their conflicts of interest to the medical journal — per standard practice in scientific publishing — reporters didn’t relay them to the broader public in reports in the Washington Post, STAT News and CNN.
The headlines about a bipartisan rebuke from former occupants of FDA’s highest office give the impression that the Trump administration is contravening established science, but closer inspection reveals a revolving door between pharmaceutical corporations and the agencies overseeing them.
Three of the signatories have received payments totaling $6 million from manufacturers or former manufacturers of COVID vaccines.
Scott Gottlieb has received $2.1 million in cash and stock from his position on the Pfizer board of directors, where he has advised on ethics and regulatory compliance since 2019, according to company filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stephen Ostroff has received $752,310 from Pfizer in consulting fees since 2020, according to OpenPayments.
Gottlieb and McClellan did not respond to requests for comment. Ostroff could not be reached for comment.
FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Vinay Prasad outlined the higher standards and shared the results of an internal analysis validating 10 reports of children’s deaths following the COVID-19 vaccine in a Nov. 28 memo to staff. He called for introspection and reform at the agency.
The NEJM letter criticizes Prasad for cracking down on a practice called “immunobridging” that infers vaccine efficacy from laboratory tests rather than assessing it through real-world reductions in disease or death. The FDA under the Biden administration expanded COVID vaccines to children using this “immunobridging” technique, extrapolating vaccine efficacy from adults to children based on antibody levels.
Norman Sharpless — who in addition to previously serving as acting FDA commissioner also served as the head of the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute — consults for Tempus, a company that collaborates with COVID vaccine maker BioNTech. He has helped steer $70 million in investments in biotech through a venture capital firm he founded in November 2024. Sharpless also disclosed $26,180 in payments in 2024 from Chugai Pharmaceutical, a Japanese pharmaceutical company that markets mRNA technology among other drugs, on OpenPayments.
“I was grateful for the opportunity to serve as NCI Director and Acting FDA Commissioner in the first Trump Administration, and strongly support many of the things President Trump is trying to do in the current Administration,” Sharpless said in an email.
Margaret Hamburg, another former FDA commissioner and signatory of the NEJM letter, has since 2020 earned $2.8 million as a member of the board of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, which markets RNA interference (RNAi) technology.
Hamburg did not respond to a message on LinkedIn.
Most signatories disclosed income from biotech companies testing experimental cancer treatments. These products could face tighter scrutiny under Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist long wary of rubberstamping pricey oncology drugs — which Prasad points out often cause some toxicity — without plausible evidence of an improvement in quality of life or survival.
The former FDA commissioners disclosed ties to Sermonix Pharmaceuticals Inc.; OncoNano Medicine; incyclix; Nucleus Radiopharma; and N-Power, a contractor that runs oncology clinical trials.
Andrew von Eschenbach, who like Sharpless formerly served both as FDA commissioner and the head of the National Cancer Institute, disclosed stock in HistoSonics, a company with investments from Bezos Expeditions and Thiel Bio seeking FDA approval for ultrasound technology targeted at tumors.
Some FDA commissioners who signed onto the letter opposing changes to vaccine approvals have ties to biotechnology investment firms, namely McClellan, who consults Arsenal Capital; Janet Woodcock, who consults RA Capital Management; and Robert Califf, who owns stock in Population Health Partners.
Califf did not respond to an email requesting comment. Woodcock did not respond to requests for comment sent to two medical research advocacy groups with Woodcock on the board. Eschenbach did not respond to a LinkedIn message.
The two signatories without pharmaceutical ties may find their judgement challenged by the FDA investigation into COVID-19 vaccine deaths, having either implemented or formally defended the Biden administration’s headlong expansion of vaccines and boosters to healthy adults and children.
David Kessler executed Biden’s vaccination policy as chief science officer at the Department of Health and Human Services, helping to secure deals for shotswith Pfizer and Moderna.
Meanwhile Jane Henney chaired a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report published in October 2025 that praised the performance of FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine surveillance during the pandemic — underwritten with CDC funding.
That assessment clashes with that of a Senate report, citing internal documents from FDA, finding that CDC never updated its vaccine surveillance tool “V-Safe” to include cardiac symptoms, despite naming myocarditis as a potential adverse event by October 2020, and that top officials in the Biden administration delayed warning pediatricians and other providers about the risk of myocarditis after their approval in some children in May 2021, months after Israeli health officials first detected it in February 2021. The Senate investigation named Woodcock, a signatory of the NEJM letter, as one of the FDA officials who slow-walked the warning.
HHS is also working to “reverse the Biden administration’s attempt” to classify gender dysphoria as a type of disability.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services unveiled a multi-pronged regulatory effort Thursday to curtail gender-affirming care for minors, including gender transition procedures at hospitals.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has drafted a rule that would prohibit pharmaceutical or surgical gender reassignment procedures from receiving federal Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance Program funding. It’s also proposing a rule that would allow it to withdraw Medicare and Medicaid funding from hospitals that perform such surgeries on minors. HHS is also working to “reverse the Biden administration’s attempt” to classify gender dysphoria as a type of disability. If gender dysphoria were to be defined as a disability, then health care providers who don’t want to perform what the department has dubbed “sex-rejecting” procedures could be in danger of violating anti-discrimination laws.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy, Jr., described gender affirming procedures as “unsafe” and “irreversible,” and framed the administration’s actions as “[protecting] America’s most vulnerable.”
“Our children deserve better – and we are delivering on that promise,” Kennedy told reporters Thursday.
The department is acting on directives from an executive order from President Donald Trump’s first few weeks in office. The Jan. 28 order called on government agencies to “[defund] chemical and surgical mutilation” of children, seemingly in the manner that HHS has proposed, as well as “rescind or amend all policies” relying on guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
The Food and Drug Administration is also taking regulatory action against some organizations that market breast binders to minors.
“Illegal marketing of these products for children is alarming, and the FDA will take further enforcement action such as import alerts, seizures, and injunctions if it continues,” said Food and Drug Commissioner Marty Makary.
Kennedy signed a declaration Thursday that gender affirming procedures for minors “do not meet professionally recognized standards of health care” and the Assistant Secretary for Health and Head of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, Admiral Brian Christine, signed a public health message stating the same.
“Evidence shows sex-rejecting puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries are dangerous. Providers have an obligation to offer care grounded in evidence and to avoid interventions that expose young people to a lifetime of harm,” Christine said.
The House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would criminalize the act of providing gender affirming care to minors.
