Pediatrician Holds Back Study On Puberty Blockers To Prevent Misuse By Critics, Fueling Debate

A highly anticipated study examining the effects of puberty blockers on young people’s mental health remains unpublished due to fears it may be “weaponized” in the political landscape surrounding gender-affirming care, according to Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, one of the study’s lead researchers. Dr. Olson-Kennedy, the Medical Director at The Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Los Angeles Children’s Hospital, stated that the decision to withhold publication stems from concerns about potential political misuse.

This research, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), began in 2015 and involved 95 children with an average starting age of 11, with the goal of assessing whether puberty blockers improved mental health outcomes. After two years of study, Dr. Olson-Kennedy and her team found no evidence that the puberty blockers had a measurable positive effect on the mental health of participants. She attributed this to the participants’ generally good mental health upon entering the trial, though this assessment conflicts with earlier characterizations indicating a quarter of the group had depressive or suicidal symptoms.

The study’s delay has sparked discussion on transparency in gender-related healthcare research. “I don’t want our work to be weaponized,” Olson-Kennedy told The New York Times, emphasizing the importance of presenting precise and clear findings—a process that, she notes, takes time. Nevertheless, some collaborators, including clinical and research psychologist Amy Tishelman from Boston College, argue that releasing the results is essential to advancing the science, even amid political tensions. “It’s really important to get the science out there,” said Tishelman.

The hesitation to publish data comes as evidence from other international studies, such as those by the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS), raises questions about the efficacy of puberty blockers. The 2020 independent review led by Dr. Hilary Cass, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, concluded that there was “no good evidence” supporting puberty blockers’ effectiveness in improving mental health among gender-dysphoric youth, deeming the medical basis “shaky.” Dr. Cass underscored the importance of research transparency, noting, “We need results out there to understand if this treatment is helpful, and for whom.”

The study’s publication delay also coincides with NIH’s funding cuts, which Dr. Olson-Kennedy has suggested may have been politically motivated, though NIH has denied this. Regardless, the gap in published research has left advocates, researchers, and the public debating the role of puberty blockers and the need for reliable, accessible information in this sensitive area of healthcare. As the political and scientific communities await the study’s findings, the discourse continues on how best to balance transparency with the complex, often politicized dynamics surrounding gender-affirming care for minors.