Science is usually a race to the finish line. Researchers typically can’t wait to get their findings into a major journal, secure their citations, and maybe grab a headline or two. But things look different right now in the world of pediatric gender medicine. Specifically, a major US study on puberty blockers goes unpublished despite years of data collection and millions in taxpayer funding.
It’s messy.
Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, a prominent figure at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and a long-time advocate for gender-affirming care, has been at the center of this. The study in question followed 95 children—averaging about 11 years old—who were started on puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria. The goal? To see if these drugs improved their mental health. The results? Well, they didn't show the clear improvement many expected.
The data that didn't move the needle
Let's be real: when you spend $9.7 million of National Institutes of Health (NIH) money, people expect a "eureka" moment. Instead, according to Olson-Kennedy’s recent comments to the New York Times, the study found that the kids were actually doing fine mentally before they started the blockers. Because they were "in really good shape" at the start, there wasn't a statistically significant change to measure after they began treatment.
Basically, if the kids aren't depressed when they start, you can't prove the drugs cured their depression.
That explanation hasn't sat well with everyone. Critics, including some of Olson-Kennedy's own research colleagues, argue that the data should be out there regardless of the outcome. In the scientific community, "null results" are still results. They tell us what doesn't work, or in this case, they might suggest that the immediate psychological impact of blockers isn't as transformative as previously claimed in smaller, less robust studies.
Why withholding data matters for clinical practice
We are currently in a period of intense global scrutiny regarding how we treat minors with gender dysphoria. The UK, Norway, Sweden, and Finland have all hit the brakes. They've moved toward a "psychotherapy first" model after their own systematic reviews found the evidence for medical intervention was "very low" quality.
In the US, the vibe is different.
Professional organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health) still largely support the "gender-affirming" model, which includes blockers. But when a major US study on puberty blockers goes unpublished, it creates a vacuum. Into that vacuum flows a lot of political noise and parental anxiety.
If the data shows that the mental health benefits are negligible for children who are already well-adjusted, that is a vital piece of the puzzle. It helps doctors and parents weigh the risks versus the rewards. And there are risks. Puberty blockers (GnRH agonists) aren't just a "pause button." They impact bone density. We are still learning about their long-term effects on brain development, which undergoes a massive "remodeling" phase during the very puberty these drugs are designed to stop.
✨ Don't miss: Why Sometimes You Just Need a Hug: The Real Science of Physical Touch
The "Political Climate" defense
Olson-Kennedy has been quite open about her hesitation. She told the press that she was concerned the results could be "weaponized" by those seeking to ban gender-affirming care.
It's a tough spot. On one hand, you have a researcher who has dedicated her life to helping a vulnerable population. She sees the political landscape as a minefield where any nuance is blown up into a reason for a total ban. On the other hand, science doesn't work if we only publish the things that support our preferred narrative. That’s called confirmation bias.
Science is supposed to be the "tell-it-like-it-is" uncle of the medical world.
Think about it this way. If a pharmaceutical company ran a trial for a new blood pressure medication and decided not to publish because the results were "disappointing," they’d be crucified. The public deserves the data because the public—or in this case, the children—are the ones taking the risks.
Breaking down the 95-child cohort
This wasn't a small weekend project. The study was part of a larger, multi-site project called "Trans Youth Care." It involved some of the biggest names in the field.
- The Baseline: Most participants had high levels of support from their families.
- The Mental Health Metrics: Researchers looked at anxiety, depression, and "life satisfaction."
- The Follow-up: They tracked these kids over two years.
The fact that the children were "well-adjusted" at the start is actually an interesting finding in itself. It suggests that perhaps family support and therapy were doing the heavy lifting before the meds even entered the picture. But without the peer-reviewed paper, we’re just guessing based on snippets of interviews.
The Cass Review and the global shift
You can't talk about why a US study on puberty blockers goes unpublished without talking about Dr. Hilary Cass. In the UK, the Cass Review changed everything. It was a massive, independent deep-dive into the Tavistock clinic's practices.
Cass found that the evidence for medical transition in minors was on "shaky ground." She pointed out that for many kids, gender distress is tangled up with neurodivergence (like autism), trauma, or other mental health issues. When the US stays silent on its own data, it looks like an outlier.
It’s getting harder to ignore the discrepancy.
🔗 Read more: Can I overdose on vitamin d? The reality of supplement toxicity
European health authorities are looking at the same data sets and coming to very different conclusions than many US-based clinicians. In Europe, the trend is toward clinical trials only—no more "routine" prescriptions for blockers. In the US, it remains a standard of care in many states, though the legal map is changing by the week.
The impact on families and consent
"Informed consent" is a big deal in medicine. You can't really be "informed" if the latest, most expensive study on the topic is sitting in a drawer.
Parents are trying to make the best decisions for their kids in a high-stakes environment. They hear one side saying blockers are life-saving and prevent suicide. They hear the other side saying they are "medical experimentation." When a US study on puberty blockers goes unpublished, it robs parents of a neutral, data-driven middle ground.
If the benefit isn't mental health improvement, then what is it? Is it just preventing the "distress" of physical changes? If so, we need to quantify that distress and compare it against the physical side effects.
A look at the bone density question
One of the reasons this data is so anticipated is the bone health aspect. Puberty is when kids build the "bone bank" they’ll use for the rest of their lives. Estrogen and testosterone are the "construction workers" that build that bone.
When you block those hormones, bone density growth slows down or stops.
Some studies have shown that even after starting cross-sex hormones later, some of that lost bone density isn't fully recovered. For a 12-year-old, that might mean a higher risk of fractures or osteoporosis in their 40s or 50s. If the mental health payoff isn't massive, the "bone cost" starts to look much higher to a lot of families.
What happens next?
The NIH has reportedly been in contact with the researchers. There is pressure from both the scientific community and the public to see the full results of the Trans Youth Care study.
Honestly, the delay has probably caused more "weaponization" than the data ever could. It creates a sense of a "cover-up," even if the reality is just a researcher being overly cautious or protective. Transparency is the only way to build trust in medicine.
💡 You might also like: What Does DM Mean in a Cough Syrup: The Truth About Dextromethorphan
Doctors need this data. They need to know which kids are the best candidates for blockers and which kids might be better served by intensive therapy. Without the study, they are flying partially blind.
Actionable steps for parents and providers
If you are navigating this space, you can't wait for one study to solve everything. You have to look at the total landscape.
1. Demand the full picture
If a clinician suggests puberty blockers, ask about the "null results" in recent US research. Ask how they measure mental health success and what happens if those markers don't improve.
2. Prioritize a comprehensive assessment
Gender dysphoria doesn't exist in a vacuum. Ensure that any clinical path includes a deep dive into co-occurring conditions like ADHD, autism, or depression that might have existed prior to gender distress.
3. Monitor bone health specifically
If a child is on blockers, baseline and follow-up DEXA scans (bone density tests) are non-negotiable. Don't let this be an afterthought.
4. Follow the international data
Since the US study on puberty blockers goes unpublished, look toward the systematic reviews from the UK's NHS or the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. They provide the most rigorous look at the available evidence currently in the public domain.
5. Focus on "Relational" health
Data consistently shows that family support is one of the biggest predictors of well-being for gender-distressed youth. Regardless of the medical path chosen, keeping communication lines open is the most effective "treatment" available.
The conversation isn't over. It’s just getting started. But until the data is public, we’re all just arguing in the dark. Better science leads to better care, and that’s something everyone should be able to agree on, regardless of their politics.