
Gender dysphoria should be treated with therapy instead of transition treatments, massive Trump-ordered HHS report urges
Researchers also concluded that many of the protocols for treating children with gender dysphoria became widely used before outcome studies determined whether or not they were safe practices, a massive 409-page Health and Human Services study revealed.
'The umbrella review found that the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects of any intervention on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long-term health, is very low,' HHS' Gender Dysphoria Report determined in its assessment of common studies on transgender treatments.
'This indicates that the beneficial effects reported in the literature are likely to differ substantially from the true effects of the interventions.'
President Trump signed an executive order in January ordering HHS to conduct a review of best practices for treating gender dysphoria within 90 days, which was released Thursday.
5 President Trump ordered the study shortly after returning to the White House.
AP
Transgender interventions in children that were scrutinized in the blockbuster HHS report include the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgeries.
While the report stressed it is not a 'clinical practice guideline,' the paper examined 17 systematic reviews of transgender treatments in minors and concluded that there was limited evidence to suggest those interventions had any 'meaningful improvement in mental health.'
In some instances, this was because studies did not properly measure track patient outcomes or studied individuals whose mental health was already at a 'high-functioning at baseline.'
'Multiple SRs [systematic reviews] have concluded that the evidence supporting the benefits of pediatric transition interventions—from PBs [puberty blockers] to CSH [cross-sex hormone therapy] and surgery—is of 'very low certainty,'' the HHS report said.
5 The Department of Health and Human Services worked with a number of researchers to produce the massive study.
Getty Images
'All medical interventions carry the potential for harm.'
A lot of the research into transgenderism in question was conducted overseas. One of the most famous ones was the Dutch Protocol, which was originally published in 2006 and outlined 'highly medicalized' methods to treat young people with gender dysphoria, including puberty blockers.
For years, the Dutch Protocol was generally regarded as the gold standard guideline for treating young people struggling with gender dysphoria. The guidance has since been weakened over time, with some of its eligibility restrictions pared down.
Following the 2006 publication of the Dutch Protocol, there had been a sharp rise in transgender treatments in minors.
An estimated 3.3% of US adolescents consider themselves transgender, per the HHS report. Meanwhile, about 0.1% of 17-year-olds received hormonal treatment between 2018 and 2022.
5 Treatment for children with gender dysphoria has been a politically fraught issue.
AP
But HHS researchers found that the Dutch Protocol was based on 'methodological flaws' that were 'largely overlooked' by the broader medical community since its publication.
'One of the study's limitations was its retrospective selection of 70 subjects from a larger 'intent-to-treat' group of 111 using non-randomized methods,' the HHS report said.
'This selection process inadvertently biased the sample toward cases with the most favorable prognoses, thereby limiting the generalizability of the study's findings.'
The HHS study cautioned that there is an 'extreme toxicity and polarization surrounding this field of medicine.'
Researchers in the HHS report frequently pointed to the United Kingdom's Cass Review, a sweeping four-year study by the National Health Service that similarly poked metholodical holes in more conventional research into transgenderism.
They also acknowledged that there's a 'growing international concern about pediatric medical transition' and that foreign countries are increasingly restricting transgender treatments on minors.
'There is currently no international consensus about best practices for the care of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria,' the HHS report stressed.
5 HHS researchers concluded that evidence that transgender treatments are beneficial is limited.
AP
Still, the medical ethicists, doctors and methodologies that put the HHS review together highlighted the potential benefits of psychotherapeutic approaches to tackling gender dysphoria in minors.
HHS researchers admitted that 'direct evidence for psychotherapy' in children with gender dysphoria is limited, but argued there is 'available evidence to support the role of psychotherapy in
treating children and adolescents with other mental health problems, like depression.
The HHS study has been met with mixed reactions from the medical community.
Susan Kressly, the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, slammed the report, arguing that it relied too heavily upon a 'narrow set of data' and 'select perspectives.
'This report misrepresents the current medical consensus and fails to reflect the realities of pediatric care,' she said in a statement.
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm, an organization that opposes so-called gender transition surgeries, hailed the HHS review for exposing 'a number of serious risks in the medical transition of young people.'
'The report cites a 'lack of robust evidence' for these medical procedures,' Goldfarb said in a statement. 'It is clearer now, more than ever, that we must end this misguided practice and replace it with evidence-based treatment for gender confused kids.'
5 Prominent medical associations have hit back at HHS' findings.
AP
Trump's directive for the HHS study was nestled in a broader January executive order to cut off government funding to support or promote operations for child sex changes.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, whose agency helped conduct the HHS study, underscored the need to not let political agendas interfere with science.
'Our duty is to protect our nation's children—not expose them to unproven and irreversible medical interventions,' Bhattacharya said. 'We must follow the gold standard of science, not activist agendas.'
Now that it has been released, the HHS study, titled 'Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices,' is set to get peer-reviewed.
A modified version of the report is expected once the peer review process is complete.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

2 hours ago
Draft of new 'MAHA' report suggests RFK Jr. won't target pesticides
The draft of an upcoming government report suggesting ways to improve the health of American children does not recommend severe restrictions on pesticides and ultra-processed foods, according to a copy of the document obtained by ABC News. The draft's language, if left unchanged, would constitute a win for the agriculture industry and a potential setback for Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) allies, who have railed against the use of chemical additives in America's food supply, arguing that they harm children. A person familiar with the draft cautioned that the language could still change before it's released to the public. "Unless officially released by the administration, any document purporting to be the MAHA report should be dismissed as speculative literature," White House deputy press secretary Kush Desai said in response to ABC News' request for comment. An HHS spokesperson declined to verify the document's authenticity. The New York Times first reported details of the new draft report. The report will be the second "MAHA" report released by the Trump administration following one published in May. Both were composed by officials in the White House and across different federal agencies, including Kennedy's HHS. The May report detailed the factors officials said were worsening the health of American children and called for a second report, within 100 days, to recommend policies to address those factors. The earlier report -- which was dogged by the revelation that some studies it cited were nonexistent -- cited damning statistics about the effect of chemical food additives, tying them to cancer and developmental disorders. The draft of the new report does not signal any intention to eliminate pesticides from America's food. Instead, the draft calls for "more targeted and precise pesticide applications" and research programs that would "help to decrease pesticide volumes." The report also stated the Environmental Protection Agency "will work to ensure that the public has awareness and confidence in EPA's robust pesticide review procedures and how that relates to the limiting of risk for users and the general public." Regarding ultra-processed foods, the new report states only that HHS, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration would work to develop a "government-wide definition for 'ultra-processed food.'" In his January confirmation hearing, Kennedy declared that "something is poisoning the American people, and we know that the primary culprits are changing food supply, a switch to highly chemical intensive processed foods." Meanwhile, some "MAHA" influencers have loudly demanded changes to the country's food supply, putting their faith in Kennedy to leverage his position of power to uproot the agriculture industry. But this summer, agriculture groups lobbied intensely against the inclusion of anti-pesticide recommendations in the new report. They appeared to find an ally in Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, who indicated to reporters this month that the upcoming report would spare pesticides. "There is no chance that our current system of agriculture can survive without those crop protection tools," she said at a press conference in a Washington. "I feel very confident that his, and our, commitment to make sure that farmers are at the table remains paramount, and that the report will reflect that."
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
GoHealth Second Quarter 2025 Earnings: Misses Expectations
Explore GoHealth's Fair Values from the Community and select yours GoHealth (NASDAQ:GOCO) Second Quarter 2025 Results Key Financial Results Revenue: US$94.0m (down 11% from 2Q 2024). Net loss: US$55.2m (loss widened by 105% from 2Q 2024). US$5.10 loss per share (further deteriorated from US$2.70 loss in 2Q 2024). Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period GoHealth Revenues and Earnings Miss Expectations Revenue missed analyst estimates by 15%. Earnings per share (EPS) also missed analyst estimates by 100%. Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 3.5% p.a. on average during the next 3 years, compared to a 5.5% growth forecast for the Insurance industry in the US. Performance of the American Insurance industry. The company's share price is broadly unchanged from a week ago. Risk Analysis What about risks? Every company has them, and we've spotted 3 warning signs for GoHealth you should know about. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Elevance Health (NYSE:ELV) Is Reinvesting At Lower Rates Of Return
If we want to find a stock that could multiply over the long term, what are the underlying trends we should look for? Amongst other things, we'll want to see two things; firstly, a growing return on capital employed (ROCE) and secondly, an expansion in the company's amount of capital employed. If you see this, it typically means it's a company with a great business model and plenty of profitable reinvestment opportunities. Having said that, from a first glance at Elevance Health (NYSE:ELV) we aren't jumping out of our chairs at how returns are trending, but let's have a deeper look. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. What Is Return On Capital Employed (ROCE)? For those who don't know, ROCE is a measure of a company's yearly pre-tax profit (its return), relative to the capital employed in the business. To calculate this metric for Elevance Health, this is the formula: Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities) 0.11 = US$8.7b ÷ (US$122b - US$44b) (Based on the trailing twelve months to June 2025). So, Elevance Health has an ROCE of 11%. By itself that's a normal return on capital and it's in line with the industry's average returns of 11%. See our latest analysis for Elevance Health In the above chart we have measured Elevance Health's prior ROCE against its prior performance, but the future is arguably more important. If you'd like, you can check out the forecasts from the analysts covering Elevance Health for free. What Does the ROCE Trend For Elevance Health Tell Us? In terms of Elevance Health's historical ROCE movements, the trend isn't fantastic. Around five years ago the returns on capital were 14%, but since then they've fallen to 11%. Although, given both revenue and the amount of assets employed in the business have increased, it could suggest the company is investing in growth, and the extra capital has led to a short-term reduction in ROCE. And if the increased capital generates additional returns, the business, and thus shareholders, will benefit in the long run. The Bottom Line While returns have fallen for Elevance Health in recent times, we're encouraged to see that sales are growing and that the business is reinvesting in its operations. These trends are starting to be recognized by investors since the stock has delivered a 16% gain to shareholders who've held over the last five years. Therefore we'd recommend looking further into this stock to confirm if it has the makings of a good investment. Elevance Health could be trading at an attractive price in other respects, so you might find our on our platform quite valuable. For those who like to invest in solid companies, check out this free list of companies with solid balance sheets and high returns on equity. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data