Gender Dysphoria. Is it caused by Pharmaceutical Drug Side Effects?

"There is no evidence" for this because "there is no evidence" because no-one has seriously looked for evidence!

The UK’s NHS describes gender dysphoria as “a term that describes a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity. This sense of unease or dissatisfaction may be so intense it can lead to depression and anxiety and have a harmful impact on daily life”.

Some of my recent posts, and now this one, have made reference to AI (artificial intelligence) and what it is prepared to tell us about the patient harm (or dis-ease) caused by pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. The issue of gender dysphoria, when someone’s gender identity does not align with their sex at birth, and the issue of ‘transitioning’, is another (very controversial) condition that has arisen in recent years.

I first wrote about sexual dysphoria in “Transgender. Sexual Identity. What role are pharmaceutical drugs playing in this? in January 2017 - over 8 years ago. It referenced three articles from the Rxisk website that raised the issue, and spoke specifically about SSRI antidepressants.

     “Given what we know about enduring sexual problems caused by SSRIs, it is reasonable to wonder how a prenatal or childhood exposure would affect a person’s long-term development and functioning. No studies have ever been done to investigate whether children exposed to psychotropic drugs either directly, or during pregnancy, grow up to have an unaffected sexuality.”

Then in 2022, in my article “Gender Dysphoria, Sexual Orientation and Pharmaceutical Drugs” I wrote about a homeopathic colleague who had linked Risperidone (an antipsychotic drug) to sexual identity. The known and published adverse reactions to Risperidone include many that relate to sexual identity, this quote taken from the Drug.com website.

     “Check with your doctor if you have breast swelling or soreness, unusual breast milk production, absent, missed, or irregular menstrual periods, stopping of menstrual bleeding, loss in sexual ability, desire, drive, or performance, decreased interest in sexual intercourse, or an inability to have or keep an erection”.

So what does artificial intelligence (AI) think about the question of a link with adverse pharmaceutical drug reactions? This is is the answer I received:

     “While no specific pharmaceutical drugs are known to directly cause gender dysphoria, certain medications can influence gender identity or exacerbate feelings of dysphoria in individuals already experiencing it. Here are some relevant points:

• Hormonal Treatments. Medications like testosterone or estrogen are used in gender-affirming hormone therapy. For some individuals, these treatments can alleviate dysphoria, while for others, they may lead to feelings of discomfort if the individual is not ready for such changes.

• Puberty Blockers: Drugs such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to delay puberty in transgender youth. While they do not cause dysphoria, they provide time for individuals to explore their gender identity without the pressure of developing secondary sex characteristics.

• Substance Abuse: Some studies suggest a link between gender dysphoria and substance abuse, where individuals may use drugs or alcohol to cope with their distress. This can complicate their mental health and exacerbate feelings of dysphoria.

The AI response concluded that “there are no specific drugs that cause gender dysphoria, but certain medications can impact individuals’ experiences of their gender identity” . This is probably accurate, but as with my recent article on aggression and violence, it is an incomplete answer.

Yet the ‘incompleteness’ of the link between gender dysphoria and pharma drugs is probably more to do with the availability of information rather than an instruction or and unwillingness to recognise and accept it.

“There is no evidence!”

What we know about any pharmaceutical drug or vaccine is a painfully slow process. Our knowledge about drugs comes in slow motion. There is usually a lengthy time delay between the Pharmaceutical company launches a “safe and effective” drug to when we discover it is not!

When drug companies produce a new drug or vaccine they are obliged to (at least) go through the motions of testing it for both effectiveness and safety. They have always done so reluctantly, and it has become increasingly obvious over recent decades that the industry restricts drug/vaccine testing both in its scope (what it will test for) and in the time it allows (how long it waits for ‘side effects’ to materialise). In large part this is because they do not wish to discover too many ‘negative’ results through drug testing - it might be bad for sales!

So does the drug testing process go as far as testing for gender dysphoria? It is most unlikely. Perhaps it is unreasonable even to expect that it should (which is one of the reasons I have always avoided taking any pharmaceutical drug or vaccine). The medical establishment may tell us their drugs are “safe and effective” but we should never assume that they are. In this case “there is no evidence” because “there is no evidence” and no-one has bothered to look for any!

For evidence to emerge we have to wait until a drug or vaccine actually causes serious patient harm. Then we have to wait for the harm is reported in sufficient numbers. Then we have to wait for drug regulators to take action to protect patients. And this has become a hopelessly delayed process.

When we are told “There is no evidence” it means just that, and no more. However, conventional medicine usually use this statement to suggest that the link between drug and condition does not exist.

It is essential for those experiencing gender dysphoria to seek professional guidance for appropriate treatment options”.

In a moment that marks a historic rupture with more than a decade of ideologically driven medical policy, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today formally declared that so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors constitutes chemical and surgical mutilation—and will no longer be permitted, funded, or protected by the federal government.

This is right - but the prior question is - what is causing the desire to ‘transition’ is so many children and young people? Evidence is beginning to emerge. Research by Shanna Swan, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist, suggests that prenatal exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals can blur physiological and behavioural sex differences in offspring. One scientist said:

     “I think the science should be done, but with an appreciation and understanding of how it can be manipulated in political ways”.

Amen to that!

'How can we know if pharmaceutical drugs being prescribed today are harming us?'

For all my regular readers on this platform I need to inform you that once again "Blogger" has seen fit to delete my post,"How can we know if the pharmaceutical drugs being prescribed today are harming us?' 

The Blogger platform is part of Google, which is a censorship organisation that does not allow us to write anything too critical about the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment.

However, the article on Blogger was first published on my 'Safe Medicine' Substack platform, and can be read there, in full, by clicking on this link. If you want to follow my writing can I suggest that you 'follow' me on Sustack instead of Blogger.

Blogger says that the article "was flagged for review" and they "determined that it violates our guidelines". Why was it deleted? They said:

        "Your content has been evaluated according to our Misleading content policy."

I do not write 'misleading' material. My only interest in writing these articles is to assist people to think more clearly about what is "safe", and what is not "safe" medicine. The content of the deleted article can be simply outlined. 

• All pharmaceutical drugs are tested before they are given to patients, and usually described as "safe and effective". However, as drugs are consumed by patients more evidence of patient harm is discovered, and has to be added to the information listed about the drug. I know of no pharmaceutical drug that has not followed this pattern. As a result many drugs have been withdrawn or banned because of this because they were deemed "unsafe". Therefore we can assume that all currently prescribed drugs will follow the same pattern, that is, we are prescribed drugs that are not as "safe and effective" as we have been led to believe.

There is nothing 'misleading' about making this argument, although the pharmaceutical medical establishment might prefer us not to understand this. If so there is a counter-argument to be made - but clearly conventional medicine prefer not to enter into such a debate. 

Perhaps they are not too confident about winning it!

The NHS - the Failure is Medical not Political

But don't take my word for it. And don't accept what the medical establishment, medical science, media and government tell us. Instead we should all observe what is happening around us.

Hospital corridors, storerooms, offices and gyms are being use as ‘extra care’ areas. Patients collapsing, unseen by staff, in hospital corridors, posing a serious risks of falls, infections, etc. All this was reported by the Health Services Safety Investigations Body (HSSIB) on 8th January 2006, and reported in the Guardian, the Independent and several other media outlets.

One year earlier, on 16th January 2025 a similar situation was reported by BBC News, and Sky News, which describes the situation at that time.

          "Patients dying and undiscovered for hours in hospital corridors: demoralised staff are caring for as many as 40 patients in a single corridor, unable to access oxygen, cardiac monitors, suction and other lifesaving equipment. Women are miscarrying while some nurses report being unable to carry out proper CPR”.

Clearly nothing has happened to change this unacceptable situation. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has pledged to end the practice by 2029 “though NHS staff groups are sceptical he will do so”. Perhaps this cynicism is based more on the experience of staff over the past year rather than any political (or even medical) optimism!

For decades the conventional medical establishment has complained that the problem is underfunding. Yet the annual NHS budget now exceeds £200 billion, with more funding being promised each year. In contrast, just £116 billion is spent annually on Education, £60 billion on Defence, and £34 billion on Transport.

Yet the solution to this is really quite simple.

• To prevent overcrowded hospitals the NHS has to engage a medical system that can receive sick people and with effective treatment get them back home both quickly and well.

• The NHS cannot continue to fund, year in, year out, a medical system that has consistently proven itself to be unable to do this, and has been largely ineffective.

• Moreover, the NHS needs to engage a medical system that does not actually make patients sicker - through drug-based treatments that cause serious adverse reactions.

If we are searching for solutions it is time to recognise that the foundations of the NHS are based on pharmaceutical drugs; and that these drugs are known to make us sicker, not better. (Yes, it is true, it is in the medical literature!)

Observing the NHS

We do not need to be medical scientists, or medical practitioners, to see what is going on. We just need to observe what is happening in a health service in which demand for services regularly outstrips the ability to provide them, where patients are left on trolleys for days. There are many other things we can observe. The massive waiting lists for treatment that the NHS is failing to reduce. The difficulty getting an appointment to see a doctor. And much more. What this tells us is that there are serious medical problems that need to be addressed.

To find the reason for these medical failures we have to look at what we can observe. After 70+ years of NHS treatment (treatment largely based on pharmaceutical drugs) are we getting healthier, or sicker? And again we do not need to listen to competing arguments - we just need to observe and understand what is actually happening on the ground.

Are we more healthy now than in 1948?

We do not have to look far to see that since the inauguration of the NHS in 1948 we have become increasingly sick. We can witness it all around us, in plain sight.

Arthritis. Significantly more people have arthritis now than was the case in 1948. Conventional medicine tries to excuse itself by saying that the population has aged, and has become more obese, and cites many other environmental factors.

However, the fact is that we know that many pharmaceutical drugs have ‘arthritis’ as a “side effect”, and that in the last 70+ years these drugs have been consumed in ever-increasing quantities.

Autism. In 1948 autism was rare, if not non-existent. Conventional medicine tells us that it did, in fact, exist, but it was either ‘misdiagnosed’ or not recognised. Parents in those days must either have been extremely dim; or this is an unacceptable argument that seeks to justify the explosion of Autism, to epidemic levels, that we have witnessed over recent years.

The fact is that many pharmaceutical drugs (and vaccines) are now known to cause autism as a “side effect”, and that in the last 70+ years these drugs/vaccines have been consumed in ever-increasing quantities.

Cancer. The number of people diagnosed with cancer has also risen significantly in the decades since 1948. Conventional medicine tries to explain this away by saying the population has aged (but younger adults, children and even babies are increasingly been diagnosed with cancer); and by pointing out that improved diagnosis and screening techniques (as if people did not know that they had cancer in 1948).

Again, the fact is that many widely consumed pharmaceutical drugs have ‘cancer’ as a known “side effect”), and that the consumption of these drugs have mirrored the increase in cancer during the last 70+ years”.

Dementia. The number of dementia diagnoses has also risen significantly since 1948. It was rare in 1948, but is now believed to be affecting over half a million people in the UK (probably an underestimate). Some sources now expect dementia to double every 20 years in future. The excuse of conventional medicine is that the population was smaller in 1948 (not that much smaller); that people did not live as long then (but now younger adults, and even children, are now being diagnosed); and the condition was not properly identified in 1948 (were people really this dim?)

And again, the fact is that many pharmaceutical drugs cause known dementia symptoms, like confusion, memory loss, disorientation, et al, as a “side effect”, And these drugs have been consumed in ever-increasing quantities during the last 70+ years.

I could continue with many more chronic diseases for which the same points can be made, chronic diseases, once rare, now running at epidemic levels. We suffer from more allergy, more diabetes, more heart, lung, kidney, liver, stomach disease, more anxiety and depression - more of every known disease than we did prior to the drug-dominated NHS was inaugurated.

What we can observe will explain what is happening.

This is why the hospitals are full, this why there are so many patients some have to be left in corridors, why doctors appointments are difficult to obtain, why waiting lists are so large. There is no need for complex, technical explanations or excuses.

• The drug-based medical system that has dominated the NHS for 70+ years is not making, and does not make people better; it actually makes them sicker!

• We are all able to observe what has been happening to our health during the pharmaceutical drug-taking bonanza of recent years, and come to our own considered conclusions.

• We do not need to rely on information coming from the NHS, from Patient Support groups, from the mainstream media, or from government.

We are all be able to observe that Pharmaceutical Medicine is not winning its ‘fight’ with disease; and it is not just losing it, it is making it worse.

We should observe that the NHS is not “under-funded”: it is actually close to bankrupting the economy; it does not need more (and more, and more) resources to spend on moe and more vaccines and drugs.

We should observe that medical charities have been arguing, (some for over a century) that “together we are defeating (this or that disease)”. Disease can be seen winning, hands down, in its fight with pharmaceutical medicine.

The mainstream media cannot continue telling us, ad nauseam, about new ‘medical breakthroughs’ that will ‘transform’ the treatment of disease. It has been doing so for decades, without effect or outcome.

In the end it will only be our observations of the real world, and our conclusions about those observations, that will determine the future of our own health, and the failed medical system on which we have depended on, and spent crippling amounts of money and resources on during the last 70+ years.