Mick Hartley

Hannah Barnes in the New Statesman:

The proposed NHS-backed “Pathways” puberty blocker trial “could not have received more oversight and scrutiny”, the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, told parliamentary colleagues in January. It had gone through “rigorous rounds of scientific, clinical, ethical and regulatory review”. How, then, to make sense of the U-turn from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on 20 February? The medicines regulator had initially given its approval for Pathways, which is being led by researchers from King’s College London (KCL). In a letter to KCL, the MHRA raised significant safety and ethical concerns, prompting the trial to be paused.

On one level, this suspension can be seen as scientific scrutiny working well. After the trial was announced in November 2025, hundreds of clinicians voiced “grave disquiet” about the trial’s design. I have scrutinised the trial’s documentation and asked, in the New Statesman, whether participants are being told enough about the balance of risks and benefits. Perhaps the MHRA has listened.

But it is also pertinent to ask why the regulator approved a study it now says risks sterilising children, damaging their bones, and impairing their cognition. Everything the MHRA appears to now be concerned about was known at the time of approval. The true reason behind the regulator’s actions is as yet unclear. 

Perhaps they’ve been surprised by the strength of opposition. Perhaps they’re beginning to realise the full horror of a government/NHS trial whereby children are given life-changing drugs to see if it cures them of a delusion picked up on social media. It’s not going to look good on anyone’s CV.