Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy refused to publish a $10 million study showing puberty blockers don’t help mental health of teens who want to transition.

Natural News

<h2>Claim Review: Puberty Blockers and Mental Health in Transitioning Teens</h2>
The claim that Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy refused to publish a $10 million study showing puberty blockers don’t help the mental health of teens who want to transition is largely true. The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), involved 95 children with an average age of 11 who started receiving puberty-blocking medication in 2015. The study found that these treatments did not improve the mental health of the participants after two years.
Dr. Olson-Kennedy, a prominent advocate for trans rights and gender-affirming care, admitted to the New York Times that she withheld the study results due to fears that they could be 'weaponized' by critics of transgender interventions for children. She expressed concern that the findings could be used in court to argue against the use of puberty blockers for transitioning.
This decision to withhold the results has been criticized by fellow researchers and clinical psychologists. Amy Tishelman, a clinical and research psychologist at Boston College and one of the original researchers in the study, stated, 'I understand the fear about it being weaponized, but it’s really important to get the science out there.' Another clinical psychologist, Erica Anderson, called out Olson-Kennedy for not respecting the scientific method, stating that it is not her prerogative to decide whether to publish results based on their potential impact.
The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) has already banned the use of puberty blockers in children after a four-year review found that it was not a good solution. This decision was based on a similar study in England that also found no significant improvements in mental health from puberty blockers.
The claim that puberty blockers do not improve mental health in transitioning teens is supported by the study's findings. However, the ethical implications of withholding scientific results due to political concerns are a significant point of contention. The decision to withhold the study results undermines the principles of scientific integrity and transparency.
In conclusion, the claim that Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy refused to publish a study showing puberty blockers don’t help the mental health of transitioning teens is largely true. The study's findings and the ethical debate surrounding the withholding of results highlight the complexities of medical research and its political implications.
For further reading, refer to the following sources:
<ul>
<li><a href='https://nypost.com/2024/10/23/us-news/doctor-refused-to-publish-trans-kids-study-that-showed-puberty-blockers-didnt-help-mental-health/'>New York Post</a></li>
<li><a href='https://www.outkick.com/analysis/researchers-withheld-study-results-puberty-blockers-transgender/'>OutKick</a></li>
<li><a href='https://www.bc.edu/'>Boston College</a></li>
<li><a href='https://identitypolitics.news/'>Identity Politics News</a></li>
</ul>

Claim Review: Puberty Blockers and Mental Health in Transitioning Teens

The claim that the thimerosal-free HibTITER pediatric vaccine marketed by Wyeth from 2003 through 2007 was associated with 19 different medical conditions, according to a study published in the International Journal of Risk &amp; Safety in Medicine, requires careful examination.
The study, conducted by Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., from Children’s Health Defense (CHD), compared adverse events among children who received HibTITER to those among children who received other Hib vaccines. The researchers analyzed data from the Florida Medicaid database and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
The study identified 19 different diagnoses associated with HibTITER at frequencies significantly higher than those associated with other Hib vaccines. These adverse events ranged from mild to life-threatening and included respiratory, gastrointestinal, dermatologic, and generalized infections; ear, nose, and throat medical conditions; and other conditions.
However, several critical points must be considered:
<ul>
 <li>Methodological Limitations: The study relies on data from VAERS, which is a passive reporting system. This means that it is subject to underreporting and reporting biases. Additionally, the Florida Medicaid database may not be representative of the entire population.</li>
 <li>Lack of Peer Review: The International Journal of Risk &amp; Safety in Medicine is not widely recognized as a top-tier scientific journal. The study has not been peer-reviewed by reputable sources, which is a crucial step in validating scientific findings.</li>
 <li>Contradictory Evidence: Numerous safety studies have found Hib vaccines to be safe and effective. For example, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that Hib vaccines are safe and effective in preventing Haemophilus influenzae type b infections (<a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/193543">JAMA Study</a>).</li>
 <li>Regulatory Oversight: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continuously monitor vaccine safety. The decision to remove thimerosal from vaccines was a precautionary measure, not based on evidence of harm.</li>
</ul>
In conclusion, the claim that the HibTITER vaccine was linked to 19 diseases and poses a risk to 35 million adults is not substantiated by reliable scientific evidence. The study cited has methodological limitations and lacks peer review from reputable sources. It is essential to rely on well-established scientific research and regulatory oversight to ensure vaccine safety.
<h2>References</h2>
<ul>
 <li>JAMA Study: <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/193543">Safety and Effectiveness of Haemophilus influenzae Type b Vaccines</a></li>
</ul>

Claim Review: Vaccine ‘Quietly’ Pulled Off Market in 2007 Now Linked to 19 Diseases — 35 Million Babies Who Got the Shot Now at Risk as Adults

The claim that Bill Gates donated $50 million to Kamala Harris to avoid standing trial in the US for his crimes, as stated by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been circulating widely. However, a thorough investigation reveals that this claim is unfounded and lacks credible evidence.
Firstly, there is no verifiable record of Bill Gates donating $50 million to any political action committee (PAC) backing Kamala Harris. Political donations, especially of such magnitude, are subject to public disclosure laws in the United States. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) maintains a database of all political contributions, and no such donation from Bill Gates is recorded.
Secondly, the assertion that Bill Gates has been indicted in the Netherlands for lying about the COVID vaccine is also unsubstantiated. There are no official records or credible news reports corroborating this claim. The Dutch judicial system is transparent, and any high-profile indictment would be widely reported by reputable news outlets.
Furthermore, the suggestion that Bill Gates is attempting to avoid trial in the US by making political donations is speculative and not supported by any concrete evidence. Bill Gates has been a prominent figure in philanthropy and has been involved in various global health initiatives, but there is no evidence to suggest that he has committed any crimes that would warrant a trial.
It is important to note that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been a vocal critic of vaccines and has made several unfounded claims in the past. His statements should be approached with caution and verified against reliable sources.
In conclusion, the claim that Bill Gates donated $50 million to Kamala Harris to avoid standing trial in the US is false. There is no credible evidence to support this assertion, and it should be regarded as misinformation.
For further reading on the transparency of political donations, refer to the <a href="https://www.fec.gov/">Federal Election Commission</a>. For information on the Dutch judicial system, visit the <a href="https://www.rechtspraak.nl/">Official Website of the Judiciary of the Netherlands</a>.

Fact Check: Did Bill Gates Donate $50 Million to Democrats to Avoid Trial?

The claim that euthanasia is being introduced to save money and kill people who need health care and support is a serious allegation that warrants careful examination. The article from The Exposé suggests that euthanasia is not just for the terminally ill but also targets the depressed, frail, poor, or unemployed. This claim is alarming and deserves a thorough review.
Firstly, it is important to understand the legal and ethical frameworks surrounding euthanasia. Euthanasia, also known as assisted dying, is a highly regulated practice in countries where it is legal. For instance, in the Netherlands, one of the first countries to legalize euthanasia, strict criteria must be met, including the patient's voluntary and well-considered request, unbearable suffering, and the absence of reasonable alternatives. Similar regulations exist in other countries like Belgium and Canada.
The claim that euthanasia is being used to save money and target vulnerable populations is not supported by reliable scientific evidence. A study published in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5755175/">Journal of Medical Ethics</a> found that the primary motivations for legalizing euthanasia are compassion and respect for patient autonomy, not cost-saving measures. The study also noted that the majority of patients who request euthanasia do so because of unbearable suffering, not financial reasons.
Furthermore, the assertion that people are being legally killed because they are depressed, frail, poor, or unemployed is misleading. While it is true that mental health conditions can be a factor in euthanasia requests, these cases are subject to rigorous evaluation. For example, in Belgium, a psychiatric evaluation is required for patients with mental health conditions. The goal is to ensure that the request for euthanasia is not a result of a treatable mental illness.
The claim also suggests that euthanasia is not painless, peaceful, or dignified. This is a subjective assessment that varies widely among individuals. However, medical professionals strive to ensure that the process is as comfortable as possible for the patient. The use of sedatives and other medications is common to minimize discomfort.
It is crucial to address the ethical concerns surrounding euthanasia. The Hippocratic Oath, which many doctors take, includes a pledge to do no harm. This oath is often interpreted as a prohibition against assisting in suicide. However, the ethical landscape is evolving, and many medical professionals argue that assisting in a dignified death can be a compassionate act in certain circumstances.
In conclusion, the claim that euthanasia is being introduced to save money and kill people who need health care and support is largely unfounded. While there are legitimate concerns about the ethical implications of euthanasia, the claim oversimplifies a complex issue. It is important to engage in open and informed discussions about euthanasia, considering both the benefits and the potential risks.

Claim Review: Euthanasia is Being Introduced to Save Money and Kill People

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy refused to publish a $10 million study showing puberty blockers don’t help mental health of teens who want to transition." is Mostly True

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: