Health
1,000 UK doctors condemn medical association’s push to lift puberty blocker ban for minors

From LifeSiteNews
1,000 senior doctors signed an open letter to the British Medical Association after it lobbied for the NHS to lift a ban on puberty blockers for children following the Cass Review, which found the drugs were harmful.
On August 1, the British Medical Association (BMA) – the United Kingdom’s doctors’ union – called on the government to lift the ban on puberty blockers for minors. Weirdly, the BMA also stated that in their view the implementation of NHS England’s Cass Review should be “paused” despite the fact that, as the BBC noted, the review “took four years to carry out and was widely welcomed by the medical establishment in the U.K.” The BMA called the Cass Review’s recommendations – based on “the largest and most comprehensive review” on the subject seen, looking at 237 papers from 18 countries – “unsubstantiated.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care responded to the BMA, firmly rejecting both the request and the claim, stating, “The Cass Review is a robust report backed by clinicians and firmly grounded in evidence. NHS England will be implementing Dr. Cass’s recommendations so that children and young people get the safe, holistic support they need. We do not support a delay to vital improvements from the NHS to gender services.” Even the leftist Guardian ran an editorial criticizing the BMA’s position, stating, “The BMA’s stance on puberty blockers defies the key principle of medicine: first, do no harm.”
READ: FDA official recommends approval of puberty blockers despite suicide risk for gender-confused youth
As it turns out, there are plenty of physicians who are very unhappy with the BMA’s move – and they are now making their voices heard. This week, 1,000 senior doctors from across the U.K. published an open letter addressed to Professor Philip Banfield, chairman of the BMA.
“We write as doctors to say, ‘not in my name,’” the letter reads. “We are extremely disappointed that the BMA council had passed a motion to conduct a ‘critique’ of the Cass Review and to lobby to oppose its recommendations. The passing of the motion was opaque and secretive. It does not reflect the views of the wider membership, whose opinion you did not seek. We understand that no information will be released on the voting figures and how council members voted. That is a failure of accountability to members and is simply not acceptable.”
The open letter further emphasizes that the Cass Review “is the most comprehensive review into healthcare for children with gender related distress ever conducted” and urged the BMA to “abandon its pointless exercise” of attacking and opposing the recommendations. “By lobbying against the best evidence we have, the BMA is going against the principles of evidence-based medicine and against ethical practice.”
Among the signatories to the letter are 23 former or current clinical leaders at royal colleges, as well as the heads and former heads of some royal colleges.
The British Medical Association is the only main medical organization to oppose the Cass Review; all others have backed it. For example, Professor Sir Stephen Powis, NHS national medical director, stated, “These plans set out in detail how we will establish a fundamentally different and safer model of care for children and young people. The work Dr. Cass has undertaken has been invaluable in helping us shape the new service offer, and we have already begun our transformation of these services by opening two new regional centres this year.” Banfield responded on behalf of the BMA council to say that the points made in the letter would be considered during their ongoing evaluation.
As Josephine Bartosch observed, “it is becoming increasingly clear that the BMA is dangerously out of step with the medical consensus. The Cass Review has sent ripples across the world, and from lawsuits in the U.S. to a change of tack across Europe – medics are increasingly acknowledging that what is a crisis in youth mental health cannot be cured by changing bodies.”
COVID-19
FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men

From LifeSiteNews
Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA COVID shots must now include warnings that they cause ‘extremely high risk’ of heart inflammation and irreversible damage in males up to age 24.
The Trump administration’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it will now require updated safety warnings on mRNA COVID-19 shots to include the “extremely high risk” of myocarditis/pericarditis and the likelihood of long-term, irreversible heart damage for teen boys and young men up to age 24.
The required safety updates apply to Comirnaty, the mRNA COVID shot manufactured by Pfizer Inc., and Spikevax, the mRNA COVID shot manufactured ModernaTX, Inc.
According to a press release, the FDA now requires each of those manufacturers to update the warning about the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis to include information about:
- the estimated unadjusted incidence of myocarditis and/or pericarditis following administration of the 2023-2024 Formula of mRNA COVID-19 shots and
- the results of a study that collected information on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cardiac MRI) in people who developed myocarditis after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 injection.
The FDA has also required the manufacturers to describe the new safety information in the adverse reactions section of the prescribing information and in the information for recipients and caregivers.
Additionally, the fact sheets for healthcare providers and for recipients and caregivers for Moderna COVID-19 shot and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot, which are authorized for emergency use in individuals 6 months through 11 years of age, have also been updated to include the new safety information in alignment with the Comirnaty and Spikevax prescribing information and information for recipients and caregivers.
In a video published on social media, Dr. Vinay Prasad, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation & Research Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, explained the alarming reasons for the warning updates.
While heart problems arose in approximately 8 out of 1 million persons ages 6 months to 64 years following reception of the cited shots, that number more than triples to 27 per million for males ages 12 to 24.
Prasad noted that multiple studies have arrived at similar findings.
Business
National dental program likely more costly than advertised

From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
At the beginning of June, the Canadian Dental Care Plan expanded to include all eligible adults. To be eligible, you must: not have access to dental insurance, have filed your 2024 tax return in Canada, have an adjusted family net income under $90,000, and be a Canadian resident for tax purposes.
As a result, millions more Canadians will be able to access certain dental services at reduced—or no—out-of-pocket costs, as government shoves the costs onto the backs of taxpayers. The first half of the proposition, accessing services at reduced or no out-of-pocket costs, is always popular; the second half, paying higher taxes, is less so.
A Leger poll conducted in 2022 found 72 per cent of Canadians supported a national dental program for Canadians with family incomes up to $90,000—but when asked whether they would support the program if it’s paid for by an increase in the sales tax, support fell to 42 per cent. The taxpayer burden is considerable; when first announced two years ago, the estimated price tag was $13 billion over five years, and then $4.4 billion ongoing.
Already, there are signs the final cost to taxpayers will far exceed these estimates. Dr. Maneesh Jain, the immediate past-president of the Ontario Dental Association, has pointed out that according to Health Canada the average patient saved more than $850 in out-of-pocket costs in the program’s first year. However, the Trudeau government’s initial projections in the 2023 federal budget amounted to $280 per eligible Canadian per year.
Not all eligible Canadians will necessarily access dental services every year, but the massive gap between $850 and $280 suggests the initial price tag may well have understated taxpayer costs—a habit of the federal government, which over the past decade has routinely spent above its initial projections and consistently revises its spending estimates higher with each fiscal update.
To make matters worse there are also significant administrative costs. According to a story in Canadian Affairs, “Dental associations across Canada are flagging concerns with the plan’s structure and sustainability. They say the Canadian Dental Care Plan imposes significant administrative burdens on dentists, and that the majority of eligible patients are being denied care for complex dental treatments.”
Determining eligibility and coverage is a huge burden. Canadians must first apply through the government portal, then wait weeks for Sun Life (the insurer selected by the federal government) to confirm their eligibility and coverage. Unless dentists refuse to provide treatment until they have that confirmation, they or their staff must sometimes chase down patients after the fact for any co-pay or fees not covered.
Moreover, family income determines coverage eligibility, but even if patients are enrolled in the government program, dentists may not be able to access this information quickly. This leaves dentists in what Dr. Hans Herchen, president of the Alberta Dental Association, describes as the “very awkward spot” of having to verify their patients’ family income.
Dentists must also try to explain the program, which features high rejection rates, to patients. According to Dr. Anita Gartner, president of the British Columbia Dental Association, more than half of applications for complex treatment are rejected without explanation. This reduces trust in the government program.
Finally, the program creates “moral hazard” where people are encouraged to take riskier behaviour because they do not bear the full costs. For example, while we can significantly curtail tooth decay by diligent toothbrushing and flossing, people might be encouraged to neglect these activities if their dental services are paid by taxpayers instead of out-of-pocket. It’s a principle of basic economics that socializing costs will encourage people to incur higher costs than is really appropriate (see Canada’s health-care system).
At a projected ongoing cost of $4.4 billion to taxpayers, the newly expanded national dental program is already not cheap. Alas, not only may the true taxpayer cost be much higher than this initial projection, but like many other government initiatives, the dental program already seems to be more costly than initially advertised.
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta Next: Immigration
-
International2 days ago
Elon Musk forms America Party after split with Trump
-
Business2 days ago
The Digital Services Tax Q&A: “It was going to be complicated and messy”
-
Crime16 hours ago
News Jeffrey Epstein did not have a client list, nor did he kill himself, Trump DOJ, FBI claim
-
COVID-1914 hours ago
FDA requires new warning on mRNA COVID shots due to heart damage in young men
-
Business11 hours ago
Carney’s new agenda faces old Canadian problems
-
Bruce Dowbiggin11 hours ago
Eau Canada! Join Us In An Inclusive New National Anthem
-
Alberta Sports Hall of Fame and Museum1 day ago
Alberta Sports Hall of Fame 2025 Inductee Profiles – Para Nordic Skiing – Brian and Robin McKeever