Thread by @Gurdur

1/n In the first thread, linked below, I looked at how the UK court case of #KieraBell began, and how it ended, and the specific issues *decided*. But that's far from all; there are issues that came up in the court case.

https://twitter.com/Gurdur/status/1334246707694071820

2/ what was the #Tavistock NHS #GIDS doing to date? The court summarizes the first part so:
§ 15 of Section A (my inserts in square brackets [ ]) below. Keep in mind this is for the UK.

In § 5, we learn children as young as 10 have been prescribed puberty-blockers by Tavistock.

3/ In § 22, we learn that till 2011, puberty-blockers were only prescribed to those over 16. From 2011~2014 children 12~15 were prescribed PB's, so was it 2014 or after that children as young as 10 got given them?

4/ Then the first hammer. 🔨 § 23: "One of the issues raised in these proceedings is the non-existent or poor evidence base, as it is said to be, for the efficacy of such treatment for children and young persons with GD"

5/ Second hammer. 🔨 § 24: "...we note that though this research study was commenced some 9 years ago, at the time of the hearing [now] ... the results of this research had yet to be published."
Whoops? Medical basis not firm!

6/ The lack of data, the abnegation of collecting data, on the part of the #Tavistock #GIDS, surprised the court. Tcha. Given children **under the age of 12** were being given PB's, whoops, 🔨
§ 26, § 27, § 28:

7/ Despite the lackadaisical ways of the #Tavistock #GIDS, there's *some* data, in which we learn 2019~2020, 161 children were treated; 26 were 13 years old or younger (16% < 13, 59% < 16 🔨), & in the most extreme cases, children may have been on PB's for 5 years 🔨.
§ 29 & § 30

At this point, I will pause this thread, and continue it tomorrow. I will also delete this particular tweet, so don't bookmark this particular tweet. Pardon the pause, but at some point my eyes start bleeding & I want a holiday.