Trans Is Déjà Vu All Over Again

Medical Industry Scandals Happen All the Time

I know that I’m not the only TERF who hears things like All major medical associations support gender-affirming care! or Doctors have medical degrees and you don’t, so they must know what’s best for their transgender patients!

It must be said that nobody protests based on credentials when someone advocates for the “trans” lie because attorneys like Kate “Chase Strangio” Bachrach or actresses like Ellen “Elliot” Page can get away with it.

Only when someone criticizes the “trans” lie do they get asked if they have medical degrees or science doctorates, and even if they do, evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins are told he does not have experience treating patients and psychiatrists like Miriam Grossman are told she does not have scientific research experience.

Major medical associations and doctors have been involved in multiple medical industry scandals before the current “trans” scandal, and examination of those reveals not only how these things happen but also how they end.

Smoking

The results of nationwide surveys of doctors and their smoking preferences used to appear in advertisements for cigarettes in order to advocate for their efficacy and benefits.

In the 1952 R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ad above, doctors’ preferences for Camels are touted proudly to convince consumers.

This occurred at a time in the United States when nearly half of the country were smokers.

Once it became clear that tobacco companies were falsifying and lying about research regarding risks of cigarette smoking, doctors stopped appearing in ads and the focus went to cartoons like Joe Camel and icons like the Marlboro Man to appeal to customers.

Of course, the tobacco industry was eventually hit by devastating lawsuits and settlements by the 1990s which cost it billions of dollars for the lies it intentionally told about its products, and smoking rates have dropped significantly as cigarette ads have been proscribed.

If someone had said to average Americans in 1952 that cigarettes were highly addictive and dangerous, doctors would stop appearing in ads once that became clear, and the tobacco industry would suffer billion-dollar losses in just a few decades, they would have laughed because it would have sounded crazy at the time, even though that’s exactly what happened.

One must ask, where was the American Medical Association when results of doctor surveys were featured in cigarette ads? Did anyone in major medical organizations take notice when it became clear that tobacco companies had purposely lied about addiction, cancer, and emphysema rates? Did it cause any consternation that doctors were used to promote such a product?

It appears nobody learned anything from this scandal.

It is clear that the scandal of doctors promoting cigarettes isn’t as stupid as pretending a man can become a woman because at least cigarette promotion isn’t based on delusion. At that time, doctors did smoke cigarettes just like half the country did and the surveys actually showed their preference for Camels. That’s not based on delusion.

Once the truth about cigarettes emerged, doctors began recommending that their patients stop smoking and many stopped it themselves. Of course, people have probably heard of stories of people who smoked for 70 years, never developed cancer, and died of old age at 90 years old. That doesn’t mean that doctors, the medical industry, the government, or media should promote it because it has overall adverse effects on health and society.

That’s a lesson doctors must relearn today.

Transorbital Lobotomy

One of the most obvious analogous examples of a medical scandal is the transorbital lobotomy, which has been raised in relation to the “trans” scandal previously.

In 1949, Antonio Egaz Moniz and Walter Rudolf Hess won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for developing the modern form of the lobotomy.

Dr. Walter Freeman is considered most responsible for popularizing the transorbital lobotomy throughout the United States especially in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. His technique involved inserting an instrument (essentially an icepick) under the eyelid against the top of the eye socket and then using a mallet to drive through the bone and into the brain. This was performed outside of operating rooms and without anesthesia, a practice which became widespread at under-funded psychiatric hospitals.

This procedure cuts brain nerve fibers connecting the frontal lobe to other parts of the brain, and for years it was considered top-notch medical treatment by many doctors and major medical associations.

Dr. Freeman lobotomized minors, including a four-year-old child, and he frequently stayed in contact with his patients who did well after lobotomies and continued to work and raise their families.

As it became clear that lobotomies were having adverse effects on many patients, Dr. Freeman would frequently point to the Christmas cards he got from happy patients and cite the success stories from those who improved or did well after the procedure, and there were quite a few, including 12-year-old Howard Dully.

However, the drawbacks became too obvious to ignore anymore as patients died from cerebral hemorrhages and many were left incapacitated and completely disabled, including Rosemary Kennedy, who spent the rest of her life secluded in institutions since she was left unable to speak or care for herself.

It is estimated that around 75% of patients who received lobotomies were women, which points to a tendency for male doctors and psychiatrists (the vast majority of doctors were male during this time of chivalry) to subject women to psychosurgery rather than deal with the familial, childhood, or social factors that might be leading them to distress or rejection of rigid, unfair sexist expectations.

In Rosemary Kennedy’s case, her father Joseph Kennedy arranged for her lobotomy with Dr. Freeman when she was 23 because she was deemed difficult and liable to embarrass the family by getting pregnant after getting caught sneaking out at night.

Her father didn’t inform her mother of the procedure until after it was done, and he never visited Rosemary at any of the institutions where she lived.

She died at 86 years old in 2005 at a hospital in Wisconsin.

                                                   Rosemary Kennedy at 20 years old

After Dr. Freeman performed a third (yes, that’s right—third) lobotomy on his patient Helen Mortensen in 1967, she died of a brain hemorrhage, and he was banned from performing lobotomies. This occurred as psychiatric drugs like Thorazine became more commonly used, and doctors began to rely on these medications to treat mental conditions rather than lobotomies.

Dr. Freeman died from complications of cancer in 1972, and the legacy he leaves behind is one of the most appalling instances of medical scandal and malpractice ever known.

Where were the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and American Psychological Association when patients were bleeding out and dying after having icepicks stuck into their brains? Did they demonstrate any courage or take any concrete action, even after the Nobel Prize Committee bestowed its highest honors upon the procedure?

If someone had told the Nobel Prize committee in the early 1950s that the world would look back on what they had just rewarded with the most important prize in medicine with absolute horror as one of the worst medical scandals of all time, they would have laughed. It would have seemed crazy that medical experts could get something so wrong.

But they did.

Hospitals banned Dr. Freeman after one too many patients died, as there doesn’t seem to have been any organized, industry-wide opposition by associations. Did this cause any consternation within these organizations that they failed so spectacularly on a structural level to avoid a scandal that ruined so many lives?

It is true that some people were helped by lobotomies. Some expressed their gratitude to Dr. Freeman, and they did well in employment and academics after their treatments.

However, the overall effects and damage to so many were not tolerable, especially when there were better ways to treat mental problems.

That is why nobody today can walk into a doctor’s office and demand a lobotomy in the name of bodily autonomy or civil rights. It’s unthinkable.

Lobotomies are actually not as stupid as the “trans” agenda because lobotomies were performed with an attainable goal in mind—to lobotomize the patient. The effects were frequently damaging (not always though), but it was not necessarily based on a delusion. Those who want to be the opposite sex are pursuing something impossible, even if they pass because passing is not being.

Thalidomide

In 1957, German company Chemie Grünenthal introduced Thalidomide as a treatment for anxiety, insomnia, and morning sickness. It was prescribed to women in 46 countries around the world especially for morning sickness, and it was marketed as perfectly safe to use during pregnancy.

However, after several years on the market, it became clear that women were giving birth to children with birth defects after ingesting Thalidomide. It is estimated that this included 10,000 to 20,000 children, and 40% died at or shortly after birth. Those who survived commonly had limb and body deformities.

Chemie Grünenthal refused to concede that Thalidomide was a cause of the birth defects in the 1950s and 1960s and tried to blame anything and everything else—environmental pollution, maternal nutrition, etc. The company only apologized in 2012 for releasing such a dangerous drug onto the world.

In the United Kingdom, the drug was introduced in 1958 and withdrawn in 1961, while in Spain the drug continued to be used up until the 1970s due to weaker government oversight. The United Kingdom set up compensation funds for the hundreds of survivors, which continued to be a legal and social issue up until 2009 and after.

In several countries around the world, oversight of drug use and liability for recklessness failed. Too many people believed the claims of drug companies and followed directions of doctors without questioning the evidence first. Plenty of women took the drug and did well, and they presumably greatly benefitted from helpful treatment for morning sickness. However, the overall damage to those with birth defects was too great and the drug had to be discontinued.

In the United States, the situation was surprisingly different and the drug was stopped largely due to the efforts of one woman—Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey. She was offered a job at the newly established department of pharmacology at the University of Chicago in 1936 after the head researcher mistakenly assumed she was a man since the male version of the name is spelled Francis.

In 1960, Dr. Kelsey was one of only seven full-time and four part-time physicians reviewing drugs at the Food and Drug Administration. She withheld approval because she believed that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the safety of the drug.

She was right.

This is an example of how the Food and Drug Administration can work properly when it focuses on its purpose of protecting American citizens from harm due to dangerous medications like Thalidomide. Dr. Kelsey did not care about profits for the drug company or convenience of the doctors, and she did not allow herself to be swayed by financial concerns.

How many lives did she save simply by saying no to all of it? Not by being kind, not by compromising, not by respecting the demands of others…but by saying no. Thousands if not millions.

No woman can walk into a doctor’s office and demand Thalidomide for treatment of morning sickness due to bodily autonomy and the fact that some people are actually helped by it, so it should be available to those who might be in the percentage who could benefit from it. Furthermore, use of this drug is not based on a delusion or fetish because morning sickness is an objective reality that affects many women.

This is government regulation working at its best. Sadly, that does not always occur, especially when it is needed the most.

Opioids

Much has been written and said about the destructive effects of the Sackler family and its business Purdue Pharma, who are currently working their way through the bankruptcy courts.

Multiple documentaries, books, and series have been dedicated to this topic because it has had a significant impact on the lives of many Americans.

Director Peter Berg dramatized the OxyContin scandal for Netflix in Painkiller, and he addressed the role of the Food and Drug Administration in the approval of the drug.

Curtis Wright approved OxyContin in 1995 and later went to work for Purdue Pharma. He was no Dr. Kelsey, much to the American public’s chagrin. If he had said no, this could have been likely avoided.

Even before approval, the Sacklers knew that the drug was highly addictive, and they spread the lie that less than 1% got addicted precisely to encourage addiction.

And it worked.

The Sacklers acquired billions of dollars, and they put their names on multiple medical schools (including Tel Aviv University in Israel) and museums until the fraud finally broke with lawsuits and depositions.

If somebody had said in 2003 or 2004 that the hugely powerful family worth billions with their name on the Louvre, promoting a seemingly unstoppable drug supported by the medical industry, with literally thousands of pharmaceutical reps and doctors making millions, would someday be bankrupt, shamed, and rewrite established bankruptcy law it probably would have sounded crazy.

But that’s what happened.

Where was the American Medical Association during this time? Did anybody within the industry find it concerning that doctors were essentially handing out heroin like Halloween candy to vulnerable patients, kicking off an addiction epidemic? Did any major medical association see fit to really look into how this could happen and who should be held accountable for it beside the Sacklers?

It appears they’re not that concerned with really digging into the structural issues that caused such a scandal, and now they’ve focused on handing out testosterone to autistic 13-year-old girls and estrogen to confused 12-year-old boys. But don’t worry, they’ve got medical degrees!

Also, the goal of abusing OxyContin is not as ridiculous as the “trans” lie because addicts are pursuing an attainable goal. They can experience a high from abusing drugs. No man can become a woman. That’s a big difference.

Nobody has the bodily autonomy or civil right to walk into a doctor’s office and demand unlimited OxyContin for whatever reason. Some people took the pills after surgeries or due to pain, and they were fine without any addiction issues. But the overall damage to society was too great, and the disgusting, vampiric greed by the Sacklers was so appalling, that it couldn’t be tolerated as it was for any longer.

Conclusion

As it has been said before, it is possible to avoid reality for a short time, but it is not possible to avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

The reality of past medical scandals show that they were built on lies and they will necessarily eventually collapse. This will happen with the “trans” lie as well, and the real tragedy is that quite a few people will have their lives ruined in the process. The sooner this agenda is stopped, the more suffering can be prevented. Lawsuits are already starting, as with survivors like Chloe Cole, but this is nowhere near over.

Fairly soon, everyone is going to pretend that they were always against this, that they were always against men in women’s prison and giving minors hormones and surgeries. Lots of people are going to develop amnesia, just as quite a few people forgot what they did during the opioid crisis.

So, when I say that the “trans” lie is going to collapse and in a few years people will look back with horror at what we’re doing at the moment, it might sound crazy right now. But it’s inexorable.

It’s not possible for humans to change sex. Nobody can feel like another body because we are our bodies. There is no such thing as “gender dysphoria.”

It doesn’t really matter if there’s a tiny percentage of people who are happier living a fraud, even if they pass, and basically none do. The damage to society overall is too great.

They can be told no.

In fact, they must be told no.