That’s the point. They knew it was bad and now they are going to create a study that states “It’s not so bad, look!” It will be the bludgeon to use against the “transphobes”.
Reminder that they don't conduct placebo controlled trials of vaccines because they claim it's 'unethical' to have any group of children grow up without their jabs, but they have no ethical problem pumping kids full of trannification meds for years without caring a damn for the long term effects.
Fuck studies. This is just an attempt at retroactively rubberstamping their mass castration strategy. At best it will be a limited hangout, ie. 'we identified these minor problems, so once we make the performative tweaks to fake-solve them, the anti-trans faction can no longer complain.'
I don't think Thalidomide was ever definitively proven to cause birth defects either. Let's give that another go.
It's the midwit meme. Studies don't prove shit. If someone is doing a study it means they have some dogmatic agenda and they want to find scripture to back it up.
Except the damaged bones. And lowered IQ. And stunt growth. And sterility. And life-long anorgasmia. And generalized persistent gender dysphoria ( as opposed to the vast-majority to near-totality of kids desisting if allowed to go through puberty ).
So the results can be falsified and used to push puberty blockers for years until some brave soul admits the results either couldn't be reproduced or the methodology was fatally flawed rendering the results invalid. Whatever the cause, the truth won't be known until significant and widespread damage was sustained (and probably after some just as flawed, NEW pharmaceutical drug is on the market to replace it and continue the cycle.)
That is an interesting discussion to have. It should also be mentioned that humans consume more calories than their bodies strictly need, in their formative years. During puberty, that excess energy is spent on creating hormones and developing the body itself. During the years prior, the majority of it is spent on developing the brain; changing its shape, increasing the number of neurons and synapses. For girls, that period of development ends earlier, and they enter puberty at a younger age than boys. If girls start to enter puberty at even younger ages, likely as a result of hormones ingested in food and water (the latter largely because our water purification and filtration systems don't work on substances as small as oestrogen, and that constantly more of it is being flushed in the toilet because of all the women who take the pill, which are essentially just chunks of oestrogen supplements, the excess of which is simply not ingested and thus gets released in urine), then it could cause permanent impairments to women's mental development.
However, I am unconvinced that puberty blockers could delay this in a way that the body would consider natural enough for it to continue developing the brain, as it normally would have if it hadn't entered puberty prematurely. Are we sure that we've found the right substance to accomplish that?
I disagree for the brain. Decline only begins post-puberty, in the early twenties. The brain is still in development until puberty is initiated, after which further changes are no longer caused by its structural development, but rather as a result of the influence of hormones.
As far as animals affected by particulates in the water supply go, isn't that why Alex Jones was saying they were turning the frogs gay? Sure, he can be a nutjob and not always present all the evidence required to convince the population at large, but there's usually some grounding behind his claims. I also remember hearing about some other animals that are hermaphrodites, that can change sex, that were beginning to have an overrepresentation of females in their populations. I guess it is possible that this was caused by plastic rather than oestrogen, though.
Probably something that should have been done before mass use…
That’s the point. They knew it was bad and now they are going to create a study that states “It’s not so bad, look!” It will be the bludgeon to use against the “transphobes”.
Reminder that they don't conduct placebo controlled trials of vaccines because they claim it's 'unethical' to have any group of children grow up without their jabs, but they have no ethical problem pumping kids full of trannification meds for years without caring a damn for the long term effects.
Fuck studies. This is just an attempt at retroactively rubberstamping their mass castration strategy. At best it will be a limited hangout, ie. 'we identified these minor problems, so once we make the performative tweaks to fake-solve them, the anti-trans faction can no longer complain.'
The long term effects of chemical castration are already known, because it's been used on convicts for decades.
I don't think Thalidomide was ever definitively proven to cause birth defects either. Let's give that another go.
It's the midwit meme. Studies don't prove shit. If someone is doing a study it means they have some dogmatic agenda and they want to find scripture to back it up.
British Medical Journal:
Thalidomide: Safe but effective
http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/thalidomide2.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1966593/pdf/brmedj02905-0002.pdf
Direct link to that journal, its around page 55 of 85. The other ads are hilarious too.
God damn. You have some super search powers!
Good thing we have a study on what happens when children are turned into artificial homunculi, otherwise I wouldn't know what to think.
I trust academics on trans issues as much as a heroin addict who wants to borrow my car.
bUt ThEy'RE tOTalLy rEveRsIbLE, bIGoTs!
Except the damaged bones. And lowered IQ. And stunt growth. And sterility. And life-long anorgasmia. And generalized persistent gender dysphoria ( as opposed to the vast-majority to near-totality of kids desisting if allowed to go through puberty ).
Sure, totally reversible. /s
Why is this being tested? The gold standard of big pharma testing already said it's ok to give this to kids.
So the results can be falsified and used to push puberty blockers for years until some brave soul admits the results either couldn't be reproduced or the methodology was fatally flawed rendering the results invalid. Whatever the cause, the truth won't be known until significant and widespread damage was sustained (and probably after some just as flawed, NEW pharmaceutical drug is on the market to replace it and continue the cycle.)
That is an interesting discussion to have. It should also be mentioned that humans consume more calories than their bodies strictly need, in their formative years. During puberty, that excess energy is spent on creating hormones and developing the body itself. During the years prior, the majority of it is spent on developing the brain; changing its shape, increasing the number of neurons and synapses. For girls, that period of development ends earlier, and they enter puberty at a younger age than boys. If girls start to enter puberty at even younger ages, likely as a result of hormones ingested in food and water (the latter largely because our water purification and filtration systems don't work on substances as small as oestrogen, and that constantly more of it is being flushed in the toilet because of all the women who take the pill, which are essentially just chunks of oestrogen supplements, the excess of which is simply not ingested and thus gets released in urine), then it could cause permanent impairments to women's mental development.
However, I am unconvinced that puberty blockers could delay this in a way that the body would consider natural enough for it to continue developing the brain, as it normally would have if it hadn't entered puberty prematurely. Are we sure that we've found the right substance to accomplish that?
I disagree for the brain. Decline only begins post-puberty, in the early twenties. The brain is still in development until puberty is initiated, after which further changes are no longer caused by its structural development, but rather as a result of the influence of hormones.
As far as animals affected by particulates in the water supply go, isn't that why Alex Jones was saying they were turning the frogs gay? Sure, he can be a nutjob and not always present all the evidence required to convince the population at large, but there's usually some grounding behind his claims. I also remember hearing about some other animals that are hermaphrodites, that can change sex, that were beginning to have an overrepresentation of females in their populations. I guess it is possible that this was caused by plastic rather than oestrogen, though.
It's a scooby do mystery.
Watch they'll talk about it "lowering anxiety." How much anxieties did it lower? 10? 11? Let's get some numbers.
Thats all you'll get. You'll be expected to take the researchers at their word, on behalf of all the group you'll know nothing about.
And if people don’t like the results they’ll throw “trust the science” out the window.
$20 says they find they are "safe"
I ain't fool enough to take that bet, no matter what odds you offer
$600k to "study" that spitting in the face of God leads to consequences, totally not a money laundering scheme
It needs to be done. Common sense is not scientific proof.