Rory
Closed Account
In the 2022 documentary "What is a Woman?" (at around the one hour mark) three people make claims about Lupron (or Leuprorelin/Leuprolide), a "manufactured version of a hormone used to treat prostate cancer, breast cancer, endometriosis, and uterine fibroids" (according to Wikipedia). It is also used to perform "chemical castration of violent sex offenders, as part of transgender hormone therapy, and to block puberty". In the documentary it is mostly referred to as a puberty blocker.
First, professor of paediatrics Michelle Forcier says:
Scott Newgent, founder of TReVoices (TRans Rational Educational Voices), disputes this and says:
Finally, Dr Miriam Grossman, a child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist, says:
So in the documentary there are a variety of claims about Lupron:
1. That it's wonderful, completely reversible and doesn't have permanent effects
2. That there are no long-term studies on its use by children
3. That there is a link to osteoporosis (claim not made explicitly, but the implication is clear)
Researching whether these are true or not seems quite a straightforward task, but in attempting to look at it I find myself agreeing with the words of a Hormones Matter article: "Just reading and trying to understand Lupron's literature can be dizzying" - studies are often vague, contradictory, apparently dishonest, with a history of bribing, litigation, and suspiciously redacted reports all muddying the waters).
What's clear, however, is that there are many thousands of people who feel they have been irreversibly damaged by Lupron, with many support groups online and plenty of anecdotal tales (such as here, here, here and here) of debilitating and long-term side effects - particularly depression and bone, joint and tooth issues.
In trying to verify the claim that it's "completely reversible and doesn't have permanent effects" I don't find any long-term studies of its use by children that would be able to confirm that, while the Hayes Technology Review - "considered to be the industry standard in linking treatments with patient outcomes" - rated it D2 - "the lowest rating possible on [their] scale of safety and efficacy" - "based upon insufficient published evidence to assess safety and/or impact on health outcomes or patient management."
There also appears to be good evidence that its use does cause serious musculoskeletal issues, as outlined in a number of personal testimonies as well as in studies:
Lupron's own label (version used between 1991 and 1995) also warned that:
In contrast, while reduction in bone density during treatment wasn't disputed, some studies seemed to indicate that musculoskeletal side effects were temporary:
Further complicating matters, however, "many Lupron studies and follow-up studies have been designed using non-QCT bone density scans, and often it is wrist (and not hip or vertebral) scans that are performed" - ie, an alternate and less effective scanning technique such as Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) may have been used for these studies (current Lupron labels now cite bone density decreases as measured by DEXA, thereby reducing the previous average from 13.5% to 3.2%).
It seems a pretty complex issue. But in a tentative first pass I am of the opinion that:
1. The claim by Michelle Forcier that Lupron is "wonderful, completely reversible and doesn't have permanent effects" doesn't seem to have any evidence to support it, and that the contrary may be true
2. The claim by Scott Newgent that "there are no long-term studies on its use by children" appears to be true
3. The case of osteoporosis and musculoskeletal issues related by Miriam Grossman appears fairly commonplace among users of Lupron, as reported both in personal accounts and studies
There's lots more that could be written but perhaps it would be best to see what other people think and then address what's brought to the table rather than overload with information here.
Finally, in addendum, it's probably worth nothing that Walsh also made the news a few years ago by sharing what NBC called a "viral fake news story" which claimed that Lupron was "linked to thousands of deaths, [according to] FDA data."
This was explained by Professor Joshua Safer as a misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of data:
According to NBC Safer suggested that it was much more likely that the 6,370 deaths (spread over four decades) were in terminally ill cancer patients who were going to die anyway.
First, professor of paediatrics Michelle Forcier says:
"Puberty blockers are completely reversible and they don't have permanent effects. They are wonderful because we can pause puberty, like if you were listening to music, and then if we stop the blockers puberty goes right back to where it was, like the next note in the song. It just delays that period of time."
Scott Newgent, founder of TReVoices (TRans Rational Educational Voices), disputes this and says:
"You can't [pause puberty and pick it up where you left off]. How many long-term studies do they have on hormone blockers for children? None."
Finally, Dr Miriam Grossman, a child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist, says:
"I spoke with a mother whose fourteen-year-old daughter was put on blockers. They discovered after two years [she] has osteoporosis. That's something old women get."
So in the documentary there are a variety of claims about Lupron:
1. That it's wonderful, completely reversible and doesn't have permanent effects
2. That there are no long-term studies on its use by children
3. That there is a link to osteoporosis (claim not made explicitly, but the implication is clear)
Researching whether these are true or not seems quite a straightforward task, but in attempting to look at it I find myself agreeing with the words of a Hormones Matter article: "Just reading and trying to understand Lupron's literature can be dizzying" - studies are often vague, contradictory, apparently dishonest, with a history of bribing, litigation, and suspiciously redacted reports all muddying the waters).
What's clear, however, is that there are many thousands of people who feel they have been irreversibly damaged by Lupron, with many support groups online and plenty of anecdotal tales (such as here, here, here and here) of debilitating and long-term side effects - particularly depression and bone, joint and tooth issues.
External Quote:For years, Sharissa Derricott, 30, had no idea why her body seemed to be failing. At 21, a surgeon replaced her deteriorated jaw joint. She's been diagnosed with degenerative disc disease and fibromyalgia, a chronic pain condition. Her teeth are shedding enamel and cracking.
None of it made sense to her until she discovered a community of women online who describe similar symptoms and have one thing in common: All had taken a drug called Lupron.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/women-fear-drug-they-used-to-halt-puberty-led-to-health-problems
In trying to verify the claim that it's "completely reversible and doesn't have permanent effects" I don't find any long-term studies of its use by children that would be able to confirm that, while the Hayes Technology Review - "considered to be the industry standard in linking treatments with patient outcomes" - rated it D2 - "the lowest rating possible on [their] scale of safety and efficacy" - "based upon insufficient published evidence to assess safety and/or impact on health outcomes or patient management."
There also appears to be good evidence that its use does cause serious musculoskeletal issues, as outlined in a number of personal testimonies as well as in studies:
External Quote:Women who used Lupron a decade or more ago to delay puberty or grow taller [...] described conditions that usually affect people much later in life. A 20-year-old from South Carolina was diagnosed with osteopenia, a thinning of the bones, while a 25 year-old from Pennsylvania has osteoporosis and a cracked spine. A 26 year-old in Massachusetts needed a total hip replacement. A 25-year-old in Wisconsin, like Derricott, has chronic pain and degenerative disc disease.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/women-fear-drug-they-used-to-halt-puberty-led-to-health-problems
External Quote:Endometriosis Safety Update No. 43818 [...] notes that bone density measurements were performed on 32 patients in the follow-up study. Only 11 of the 32 patients experienced a complete recovery. Thus 21 patients did not have a complete recovery and many showed further decreases.
http://www.lupronvictimshub.com/home/GueriguianReport.pdf
External Quote:Researchers in Taiwan found "a possible major side effect" when they studied 11 girls who started Lupron around age 8 and continued treatment for about five years. When the women were about 20 they performed bone scans and found that 45 percent had lower-than-average bone density and merited a diagnosis of osteopenia.
Canadian researchers also identified five children who developed the same bone problem within years of taking a puberty-delaying drug. The children each suffered from slippage in the long bone of the leg, near the hip, due to "a lack of adequate sex hormone exposure at a 'critical period' of bone formation."
https://revealnews.org/article/women-say-drug-used-to-halt-puberty-has-ruined-their-lives/
External Quote:"[In a survey of over 1,000 users of Lupron] almost 20% reported some degree of osteoporosis, and 16% reported cracking or brittle bones, 42% reported toothaches (9% severe) and 26% had cracking teeth. Osteonecrosis was reported by 3% of the respondents.
https://www.hormonesmatter.com/lupron-side-effects-survey-results-scope-severity-side-effects/
Lupron's own label (version used between 1991 and 1995) also warned that:
External Quote:"After 6 months the vertebral trabecular bone density as measured by Quantitative Computer Tomography (QCT) was decreased by an average of 13.5%."
https://www.hormonesmatter.com/they-say-lupron-safe
In contrast, while reduction in bone density during treatment wasn't disputed, some studies seemed to indicate that musculoskeletal side effects were temporary:
External Quote:One 2009 study by Italian researchers examining 66 girls found that bone density was significantly lower after treatment, but within about 10 years returned to a level comparable with women who served as study controls. Another German study concluded that there was no harm to bones, even though 7 of 41 women studied, or 17 percent, had osteopenia several years after their treatment ended.
https://revealnews.org/article/women-say-drug-used-to-halt-puberty-has-ruined-their-lives/
Further complicating matters, however, "many Lupron studies and follow-up studies have been designed using non-QCT bone density scans, and often it is wrist (and not hip or vertebral) scans that are performed" - ie, an alternate and less effective scanning technique such as Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) may have been used for these studies (current Lupron labels now cite bone density decreases as measured by DEXA, thereby reducing the previous average from 13.5% to 3.2%).
It seems a pretty complex issue. But in a tentative first pass I am of the opinion that:
1. The claim by Michelle Forcier that Lupron is "wonderful, completely reversible and doesn't have permanent effects" doesn't seem to have any evidence to support it, and that the contrary may be true
2. The claim by Scott Newgent that "there are no long-term studies on its use by children" appears to be true
3. The case of osteoporosis and musculoskeletal issues related by Miriam Grossman appears fairly commonplace among users of Lupron, as reported both in personal accounts and studies
There's lots more that could be written but perhaps it would be best to see what other people think and then address what's brought to the table rather than overload with information here.
*
Finally, in addendum, it's probably worth nothing that Walsh also made the news a few years ago by sharing what NBC called a "viral fake news story" which claimed that Lupron was "linked to thousands of deaths, [according to] FDA data."
This was explained by Professor Joshua Safer as a misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of data:
"There's no study here, I think all they did is go into the FDA database and look at reports. The problem with that is you don't even know that those deaths are connected to the agent they are reported to be connected to."
According to NBC Safer suggested that it was much more likely that the 6,370 deaths (spread over four decades) were in terminally ill cancer patients who were going to die anyway.
Last edited: