Home › Research › Publication bias

Publication bias and scientific fraud in the gender field

No medical research field has faced as many structural integrity problems over the past ten years as the gender medical industry. Suppressed data, retracted publications, intimidation of critics, and activist peer review are not the exception but a pattern. Those who criticize are silenced; those who measure are attacked. This is no longer science — it is an ideological belief that protects itself with intimidation.

Suppressed data — Olson-Kennedy

Johanna Olson-Kennedy (LA Children's Hospital) led an NIH-funded study into puberty blockers and hormones in adolescents. In 2024, she announced that she was deliberately not publishing the outcome data — because they would be "misused." Loosely translated: because they would undermine the ideological line. A scientist receiving public funding has a duty to publish results. This is scientific fraud in its purest form: concealing data concerning the treatment of minors. See also evidence-based objection .

Suppressed data — WPATH/Johns Hopkins

As the WPATH Files show, WPATH commissioned Johns Hopkins to conduct systematic reviews. When the results were unfavorable, they were not published. An organization that calls itself "evidence-based" and suppresses negative evidence is no longer a scientific society — it is a lobby. See also the SOC versions and how each one disappears when the burden of proof becomes tight.

Retracted publications by critics

• Lisa Littman (2018) — Brown withdrew the press release under activist pressure. See ROGD .
• Michael Bailey & Suzanna Diaz (2023) — paper initially withdrawn for non-scientific reasons, later republished following opposition from scientists.
• Kenneth Zucker — fired from CAMH after decades of work, based on activist objections to his "watchful waiting" approach. His desistance research is still cited, but he himself has been sidelined.
• J. Michael Bailey's earlier work on autogynephilia and the Blanchard typology became the target of a decades-long intimidation campaign.

Intimidation of scientists

Critics are routinely attacked personally. Bailey's book The Man Who Would Be Queen (2003) led to a multi-year intimidation campaign, documented by Alice Dreger (2008). Hilary Cass received security protection following her review due to threats. Helen Joyce faced deplatforming on university campuses. In the Netherlands, critics of the VUmc/Dutch Protocol and affirmative gender care were branded as transphobic in academic journals and on social media. Criticism is not refuted — it is framed as hate and pushed out of public debate.

Methodological selectivity

Studies with positive outcomes — such as Tordoff (2022) — receive broad media attention, even though they had a 35% dropout rate and the measured majority did not improve. Criticized studies (Biggs 2022, Littman 2021, Hutchinson 2020, Vandenbussche 2022) appear in less visible journals or are accompanied by warnings. The consequence: self-reporting , small cohorts, and short follow-ups are accepted as evidence, while rigorous systematic reviews — Cass, SBU, NICE — are politically disqualified. See also the regret study for a textbook example.

The "scientific consensus" deception

The claim that there is "scientific consensus" on gender-affirmative care is a lobbying construct. There is no consensus — there is a dominant current that suppresses negative evidence, cancels out critics, and dismisses methodological objections. Outside the US, the tide is turning: Cass , SBU , COHERE , the Norwegian guideline , and the Danish guideline have broken with the affirmative model. The closure of Tavistock was no incident — it was the recognition that the numbers never added up.