Saturday • November 15 • 2025
Vol.XVII • No.XLVI
Manchester, N.H.
If Dartmouth Health is right that administering puberty blockers and hormones to boys and girls to try to make them look like the opposite sex is medically necessary, safe, and well-researched, then systematic reviews that say otherwise by France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, and Finland are wrong.
Dartmouth Health’s written testimony against New Hampshire bill HB619 which would end child transing, signed by 21 clinicians including head pediatrician Dr. Keith J. Loud, asserts that “All gender-affirming care (GAC) is safe, age-appropriate, medically necessary, and well-researched.” However, every country that’s conducted a systematic review of the data has concluded that the evidence for these treatments is low and the risks are great.
As a result of its systematic review, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare issued a warning about GAC’s dangers:
These treatments are potentially fraught with extensive and irreversible adverse consequences such as cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, infertility, increased cancer risk, and thrombosis. This makes it challenging to assess the risk/benefit for the individual patient, and even more challenging for the minors or their guardians to be in a position of an informed stance regarding these treatments.
The UK conducted a review of the data for gender-affirming care as part of their investigation of the Tavistock, the world’s largest gender clinic which was shut down this year. The resulting report, the Cass Review concluded that “At this stage, the Review is not able to provide advice on the use of hormone treatments due to gaps in the evidence base.”
The Council for Choices for Health in Finland concluded from its study that “Research data on the treatment of dysphoria due to gender identity conflicts in minors is limited.”
The Norwegian Healthcare Investigation Board stated:
The knowledge base, especially research-based knowledge for gender-affirming treatment (hormonal and surgical), is deficient and the long-term effects are little known. This is particularly true for the teenage population where the stability of their gender incongruence is also not known.
The two studies Dartmouth Health provided to the NH House Health Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee to support their claim that GAC is evidence-based are fundamentally flawed.
The University of Washington study Mental Health Outcomes in Transgender and Binary Youths Receiving Gender Affirming Care explored the effects of hormonal interventions on mental health after only one year of treatment. They didn’t find statistically significant improvements among the subjects who received hormone therapy.
The researchers based their claims of the benefits of GAC on the fact that while the treated patients didn’t get much better, those in the control group got worse. They ignored the fact that only 7 of the 92 members of their control group remained until the end of the study, making any inferences of causality irresponsible. The UW knew the study didn’t find causality, but covered up this information.
The other study Dartmouth Health submitted to the committee, Puberty Suppression for Transgender Youth and Risk of Suicidal Ideation was mined data from the 2015 US Transgender Survey, which used mostly online convenience sampling created for lobbying purposes. How accurate was the survey? Among the study’s significant flaws, 73% of those who claimed they had taken puberty blockers reported that they had done so before they were available for puberty suppression. Although the survey excluded those subjects from their final count, why assume the responses from younger participants are accurate?
Not only does Dartmouth Health brush aside consistent and compelling evidence that GAC isn’t safe or evidence-based, but they also blackmail lawmakers with the trans suicide myth recently denounced by a leading expert in gender care: “Our multi-disciplinary program includes pediatricians who understand that banning surgical care to gender-diverse individuals is harmful, and, according to data, can be life-threatening.”
Related: Detransitioner Sues American Academy of Pediatrics for Fraud and Conspiracy
Whether Dartmouth Health’s claims are deliberate deceit or willful ignorance, the consequences are the same. Children are having their fertility destroyed and their health permanently damaged with experimental treatments.
Dartmouth Health Testimony HB619
The post Dartmouth Health Falsely Claims Child-Transing “Well-Researched” appeared first on Granite Grok.
I don’t expect anyone at CBS to know how this works, but the story annoys me. It is clickbait from people in a business that pretends to know more than our knuckle-dragging morons (and their bloggers) about the NH primary and claims that “we” are defying Joe Biden. And it’s not just CBS.
Here’s that report shared at Gateway Pundit.
New Hampshire is defying President Biden and the DNC by remaining the first primary in the nation, rejecting their plan to put South Carolina first. “Republicans and Democrats up here were just not having it,” CBS News’ @JakeMRosen reports. https://t.co/DOT2Jnp0aZ pic.twitter.com/NCbvkizXaK
— CBS News (@CBSNews) November 15, 2023
There are a few obvious points for the cheap seats. The DNC is a private corporation. They do not define what states can or cannot do (I know, it depends on the state). President Biden is not the head of the Republican Party, another private corporation acting (when it chooses) without regard to Uncle Joe’s opinion (or the will of voters). None of these individuals or entities has any authority to circumvent state law unless they get elected to office and change it. The law states that New Hampshire will have the first ‘Primary’ independent of which or how many political parties want candidates on that ballot.
All you have to do is pay the registration fee to be on the First in the Nation Primary ballot.
The Secretary of State is not allowed to change this. He or she must set the date seven days before the next scheduled primary. It is not something anyone can debate except in the legislature, should they desire to change it, and no one wants it changed. Not even New Hampshire Democrats.
In other words, no one is defying anyone unless you’d like to argue that Biden and the DNC have defied tradition to make their weak president look better in a primary process whose outcome they will “fix” if needed so none of it truly matters.
What is news is how amusing the process of getting from there to here has been—a few examples from our pages.
NH Dems have no choice. They can’t have their primary until March (DNC rules), but New Hampshire isn’t doing this twice, not that it would. The law is clear.
So, Biden is not on the NH primary ballot, but many other “democrats” are, as are independents and Republicans, so the local Dems are running a write-in Biden campaign. Why? Because they hate jobs, prosperity, medical freedom, open and unregulated internet, national security, low energy prices, global peace, secure borders, and economic stability. (I’ve suggested they write in Hunter Biden, but we’ll have to wait to see if that got traction.)
The results of that write-in campaign will mean nothing to the DNC until their official Democrat primary date for the Granite State, weeks later.
To summarize. No one is defying anyone.
Joe’s puppeteers deciding to start their circus tour in South Carolina is irrelevant to New Hampshire law. We were always having our primary first, and until the law changes, we always will.
There will be ballots with names on them, and citizens will be encouraged to show up and vote in defiance of tyranny (we would hope), though there is no guarantee.
That’s how this all works.
The post New Hampshire is NOT ‘Defying’ The DNC and Joe Biden … appeared first on Granite Grok.
Ya gotta wonder why there are so many Americans siding with Muslim extremists and why the Biden administration is deeply bowing both to them and massive numbers of Palestinian “supporters” here in the US.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d guess it goes much further than payoffs to Biden: I’d guess that there are some major pockets of Muslim terrorists – and maybe some nukes – that are being used to blackmail the US into anti-American policies and the weakening of anti-American interests around the world.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, that is…
But then, we’ve been allowing (and practically importing) anti-American immigrants into the US and allowing them to settle here, and then standing by while they use Constitutionally guaranteed American freedom and liberty to undermine American freedom and liberty.
MIT has recently backed down from expelling violent Muslim protesters on campus because… well – because they’d lose their education visas and would have to leave this country and return home, which the MIT administration wants to prevent. So, by only suspending them for a short time, those Muslim protesters can stay here and continue to disrupt classes and intimidate non-Muslim students for the foreseeable future.
When John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” he was referring to those who would want to destroy this country…
…such as the descendants of the Barbary pirates from Algiers, Tunis, and other Middle East nation-states who were attacking American ships and taking prisoners as slaves in the early 16th century. We even fought a war – the Tripolitan war (ever heard of “Tripoli”?) against these Muslim invaders. (Related: The 1.5 Million White Slaves in North Africa.)
And yet, today, we welcome them in and then wonder why there are so many anti-Americans of Muslim descent here in the US.
We have learned nothing in the past 300 years…
The post From the Halls of… appeared first on Granite Grok.
As Tom Renz rightly notes, no one is saying definitively that the DoD was providing one or more service members with a Moderna COVID-19 (ish) vaccine in 2014, but given the information from the whistleblower and the Medical record obtained via court order, shouldn’t someone (in Congress) be asking some questions?
Renz is also curious about details related to developing a pathogen (SARS CoV2) in a lab in China (a sworn enemy of America) as part of American gain of function research (and why aren’t we all, I’d add). That could not have happened – he says – without DoD and or CIA knowledge. The DoD knew. CIA knew. Fauci knew. CDC. Who else knew? And what does it have to do with the 2014 medical record or patent documents showing the COVID-19 “vaccine” has been around a long time and that warp speed was smoke and mirrors? (Related: Dr. David Martin and Rasmussen Poll Reveal COVID Crimes Against Americans.)
COVID used to mean something more general, but check out the remarks and the context and let us know what you think.
@RenzTom
Attorney Accuses the CIA and DoD of Being Deeply Involved With COVID-19
“When someone got this [COVID] shot. They didn’t get it from Pfizer or Moderna. They got it from the DoD. The DoD distributed this,” testified attorney @RenzTom.
• Evidence suggests that COVID-19 was… pic.twitter.com/hSfk1GrdPr
— The Vigilant Fox (@VigilantFox) November 15, 2023
HT | Vigilant Fox
The post Medical Record Shows Service Member Received “COVID” Shot from the DoD … in 2014 appeared first on Granite Grok.
