A prominent doctor and transgender rights advocate admitted that she intentionally withheld the publication of a $10 million, taxpayer-funded study into the effects of puberty blockers on American children – after finding no evidence to support it improve the mental health of patients.

Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy told the New York Times that she believes the study would be “weaponized” by critics of transgender child care and that the research could one day be used in court to argue: “We should not use blockers.” ”

Critics – including one of Olson-Kennedy’s fellow researchers on the study – said the decision contradicted research standards and deprived the public of “really important” science in an area where Americans remain sharply divided.

For the study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, researchers selected 95 children – with an average age of 11 years – and gave them drugs that inhibit puberty starting in 2015. The treatments are intended to delay the onset of physical changes such as the development of breasts and the deepening of the voice.

After two years of follow-up, the teens’ mental health status did not improve with the treatments, which Olson-Kennedy attributed to the children being in “really good shape” both at the start and end of the two-year treatment.

But the Times points out that its rosy assessment contradicts researchers’ previous data, which found that about a quarter of study participants were “depressed or suicidal” before treatment.

The finding also does not support the results of a 2011 Dutch study, which is the primary scientific study cited by advocates of giving puberty blockers to children. This study of 70 children found that children treated with puberty blockers reported better mental health and fewer behavioral and emotional problems.

Olson-Kennedy, the newspaper said, is one of the country’s leading advocates for providing gender-responsive care to adolescents and regularly provides expert testimony in legal challenges to state bans on such procedures, which have taken root in more than 20 states.

Asked by the Times why the findings had not been published after nine years, she replied: “I don’t want our work to be weaponised.” She added: “It has to be straight to the point, clear and concise .” And that takes time.”

She then flatly admitted that she feared that the lack of mental health improvements confirmed by the study could one day be used in court to argue: “We shouldn’t use blockers.”

A Washington Post-KFF Trans in America poll found that 68% of U.S. adults oppose providing puberty blockers to trans-identifying youth ages 10 to 14 and 58% oppose hormone treatments to those ages 15 to 17.

Clinical and research psychologist Amy Tishelman of Boston College, who was one of the study’s original researchers, pointed out the apparent contradiction of withholding scientific evidence on the grounds that it does not agree with an expected conclusion.

“I understand the fear that it could become a weapon, but it’s really important to get the science out there,” she told the outlet.

“No change is not necessarily a negative finding – it could have a preventive aspect,” she said hopefully.

“Without further investigation, we simply don’t know.”

Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist and transgender youth expert, told The Post she was “shocked” and “troubled” by the decision to withhold publication of such important research.

“We long for information about these medical treatments for youth who are questioning their gender. Dr. “Olson-Kennedy has the largest grant ever awarded in the United States on this topic and has data that would be helpful to know,” she said.

“It is not her prerogative to decide based on the results whether to publish them or not.”

She also didn’t believe Olson-Kennedy’s reasoning for withholding the study’s results for fear of backlash.

“This goes against the scientific method. You do research and then reveal the results,” she said.

“You don’t change them, you don’t distort them, and you don’t betray them or give them away based on other people’s reactions. You report what you’ve learned as a scientist.”

In a 2020 progress report submitted to the NIH, Olson-Kennedy hypothesized that study participants would experience “reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, self-harm, and suicidality over time, as well as increased body esteem and a higher quality of life.” would show.

Olson-Kennedy appeared to try to muddy the waters in her interview with the Times when she stated that her hypothesis didn’t pan out and claimed that the participants had “on average good mental health.”

She made this claim “several times,” despite previously saying that 25% of the study’s young patients suffered from various symptoms of mental illness before starting treatments.

When asked by the outlet for an explanation for the seemingly contradictory results, Olson-Kennedy attributed it to “data averages” that she said she was “still analyzing the entire data set.”

In April, England’s National Health Service (NHS) banned puberty blockers for children after independent researcher Dr. Hilary Cass had conducted a four-year review. In her report she wrote: “For most young people, a medical route will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress.”

Last year, Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala, a leading Finnish expert in pediatric gender medicine, said in a newspaper interview that “four out of five” children who question their gender will eventually grow out of it and accept their bodies even without medical intervention.

Olson-Kennedy did not respond to the Post’s request for comment.