Lawsuit Reveals How California University Gave Sex Change Drugs To Small Children

Children as young as nine were given “puberty blockers,” a drug often used before sex change operations, by a California university, a new lawsuit reveals.

The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch reports it “received 2,491 pages of records in a California Public Records Act lawsuit on behalf of The Daily Caller News Foundation that show top doctors in the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) gave puberty blockers to children as young as age nine.”

Judicial Watch reports it “obtained the records as the result of a 2023 lawsuit for information about UCSF’s transgender program’s targeting of children,” noting ‘the records include many emails from which participants’ names are redacted and withheld from the public.”

“Normal people know that introducing permanent sex changes for nine-year-olds is sick. That’s why these people tried so hard to hide the information. Thanks to our partners at Judicial Watch, Americans can finally see what they were up to. People deserve the truth,” said Neil Patel, chairman of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“There is something rotten in the state of California: UCSF and LA Children’s Hospital were conducting transgender drug and surgical experiments on little children – and trying to cover it up,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Judicial Watch reports “an October 12, 2022, email chain between The New York Times reporters, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) officials with the subject line ‘Final Qs on Trans Youth Care study’ details discussion regarding ‘the big N.I.H. multi-site study’ of ‘the use of puberty blockers on transgender adolescents’ and whether an eight-year-old developed ‘significant osteopenia:’

Dear NIH team, Dr. [Redacted] and Ms. [Redacted],

Christina Jewett and Megan Twohey here, from The New York Times. We are preparing to publish a story on the use of puberty blockers on transgender adolescents that we have been working on for many months.

The story includes some information related to the big N.I.H. multi-site study on blockers and hormone treatment: 

In a 2014 funding proposal to the National Institutes of Health, four prominent American gender clinics pointed out that the United States had never produced data on the physiological and mental health impact, safety and tolerability of the drugs, particularly among transgender patients under 12, leaving a “gap in evidence for this practice.”

Awarded nearly $8 million to examine the effects of blockers and sex hormones, the investigators have yet to report on key outcomes of treatment.

A child in the N.I.H. study who started blockers at age 8, developed “significant osteopenia,” and switched to hormone treatment at 11 “to support bone health,” according to investigator reports submitted to the N.I.H.

Please let us know any of the information is inaccurate.

Also, we know that the N.I.H investigators have produced some reports out of their study — such as baseline measures, telehealth dynamics and height velocity. But why have they yet to report on key outcomes of treatment, such as the effects of blockers on mental health and bones (Aim 1)?  

Do you have any comment on the case of the 8-year-old study participant who was put on CSH as a result of developing osteopenia, per the 2019 study update?

“These questions are forwarded to Stephen M. Rosenthal, M.D, Medical Director, Child and Adolescent Gender Center, University of California San Francisco. A Children’s Hospital Los Angeles official writes: “Steve, you need to correct the information about your participant,’” Judicial Watch reprts.

Rosenthal responded to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, requesting a copy of the “2019 study update,” and confirms that children as young as nine were given the drugs, writing, in part:

OK, [redacted] and I have now reviewed all UCSF participants in both cohorts

First, with respect to the blocker cohort, we did not start a blocker on anyone age 8 years. The youngest participant in the blocker cohort from our site was 9 years, 3 months, and this individual did not develop osteopenia. Second, with respect to the GAH cohort, we had 7 participants who entered into the study having been previously treated with a blocker. None of these 7 participants started a blocker at 8 years of age, but were significantly older.  

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.