Not "might be", ARE PERMANENT.
Remarkably, 100 % of GD patients were under PB treatment including 9 patients (56 %) at the time of FP surgery, highlighting the widespread nature of PB intervention in this demographic (Table 1). Although sperm collection was suggested, all GD patients opted for FP surgery due to reluctance or inability to ejaculate. Two out of 9 PB-treated patients exhibited abnormalities: one had bilateral abnormal testicles with a lack of complete tunica albuginea, while another had a right testis that was not easily palpable. The remaining patients displayed scrotum symmetry with bilaterally palpable testes.
They could not provide a sample the old-fashioned "squirt it" way and two out of the nine had abnormal testicles on simple manual examination, not requiring any sort of investigation.
For the sex gland study, we digitally scanned 400+ Hematoxylin & Eosin-stained donor testicular biopsy sections available in Mayo Clinic tissue registry. We analyzed testicular specimen with and without PB exposure. The histology results showed abnormal testicular development in PB treated compared to non-treated patients (Figure 2A-B).
The evidence is that these puberty blocks result in abnormal testicular development -- in other words they screw you to some degree on a permanent basis in terms of what would otherwise take place.
For example, sex glands of a 12-year- old patient treated with leuprolide and estradiol (E2) for a period of 14 months had 59 % of sex glands fully atrophied with appearance of microlithiasis (Figure 2C-D).
Fully atrophied: Non-functional, presumably permanently.
Meiotogenesis is generally assumed to be absent in normal pre-pubertal children due to lack of sperm development. Remarkably, we observed spermatid-like cells across all juvenile stages, including newborns. The proportions of pre-meiotic (SPG 1/2/3, L/Z-SPC) versus post-meiotic (P/D/M-SPC, Spermatid 1/2/3) spermatogenic epithelial lineage reached up to 12 % of the total spermatogenic epithelium in prepubertal stages. In fact, PB-treated juvenile patient exhibited 7 % spermatids within spermatogenic epithelial lineage (Figure 3C; Figure 4A and Supplementary Figure S3).
We revealed a striking molecular clustering of pre-pubertal spermatid-like cells, challenging conventional assumptions about their developmental trajectory post-pubertal onset (Figure 3C). Furthermore, our analysis of significantly differentially expressed genes in pre-pubertal spermatid 2 and 3 compared to their adult counterparts suggests a potentially novel induction pathway independent of puberty (Supplementary Table S1 and Supplementary Table S2). This pathway leads to likely incomplete differentiation, resulting in the development of spermatid-like cells without subsequent sperm maturation and warrants investigation.
The presumption has been that prior to puberty there is no development of said sperm-generating cells in the testes. This apparently has never been actually studied, as these researchers found that in fact these cells are found in normal pre-pubertal boys which of course means that the entire premise -- that you can't damage what isn't there -- is now known false AND WAS ORIGINALLY PUT FORWARD WITHOUT STUDY AND THUS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Note that this study has not yet been peer-reviewed but it points out what I have maintained since all this started: We do not understand on any sort of comprehensive basis the natural progression and interplay of all the elements in puberty nor do we have sufficient knowledge to know what happens if you tamper with it, even temporarily.
This study shows that said tampering is very likely to lead to permanent dysfunction if it occurs at the time when normal puberty would otherwise take place. The promotion of these drugs as "safe" based on their use in precocial puberty was maliciously false in that it was promoted without a single shred of scientific evidence and now, based on actual study, we know it was false and the boys given these drugs were maimed.
I will point out that we know even less about the impact on girls given drugs for similar purpose because obtaining scientific evidence from samples is ridiculously more-complex and dangerous than it is in boys, since to do so requires significant surgery and attendant risks of permanent infertility or worse. As a result it would be virtually impossible to obtain review clearance for such a study, particularly on the control side, except perhaps from those young girls unfortunate enough to die of non-disease related causes (such as a car accident.) Again, there is no evidence that giving drugs to a pre-pubescent girl is benign in this regard nor is there any evidence that doing so does not carry a high risk or even certainty of permanent reproductive impairment.
This very closely mirrors my argument and, as time has gone on, facts have proved me right in multiple other areas of alleged "medical science." But in this case we are talking about children who simply cannot give informed consent and thus a lack of certainty is simply not acceptable when the condition in question has no physiologic basis nor can the alleged "remedy" be successful as it is not possible for a boy to ever be a functional adult female in a sexual (say much less reproductive) context, and vice-versa.
What these kids are seeking, whether they legitimately feel this way on their own or have it stuffed in their head by their caregivers and peer pressure -- to be the other sex, to experience it, to feel it -- is physically impossible. Telling them that it can be done is a deliberate and malicious maiming of said child's normal sexual life which they would otherwise experience when they reach puberty and adulthood. This is as clear an example of fraud as one can find as that deception in fact creates a lifetime dependence on and flow of payments into the medical system.
This practice must be immediately halted and everyone involved in or advocating for it must go to prison for said permanent maiming and what is clearly sexual abuse of children for profit as the acts in question are aimed at diddling the genitals with no possible medical outcome that matches what is being either offered to or expected by the recipient.