Now, let’s start with something basic. While this author knows how the American legal system works, we are not trained in UK law. There are obviously similarities with the American legal system, but in this case, we are not one hundred percent sure what they have filed. And naturally, we wouldn’t know how likely it is to succeed.
But let’s start at the beginning. Last year, we learned that the United Kingdom announced they were going to conduct a puberty blocker experiment on children:
New puberty blockers trial to begin after UK ban https://t.co/zdYda4FPaF pic.twitter.com/5CDAs5RbiS
— Healthy Hoss 🍎 (@HealthyHoss) November 25, 2025
From the article:
Details of a new UK clinical trial to assess the risks and benefits of puberty-blocking drugs in children who question their gender have been announced.
It follows the banning of the drugs for gender treatment last year after a major review raised concerns about the lack of clinical evidence over their safety for under-18s.
Researchers from King’s College London say the trial will involve around 220 children under the age of 16 who are going through puberty, and will examine the impact of the drugs on their physical, social and emotional wellbeing.
Some clinicians and campaigners question whether the trial is ethical.
Yeah, what possible ethical problems are there when we are talking about children who can’t consent. But, don’t worry, a previous court found that they could! Yes, really:
The puberty blockers trial has already proved controversial, with campaigners threatening legal action.
Keira Bell, who took the Tavistock gender clinic to court in 2020 after she was given puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones as a teenager, said the trial should be halted immediately. If it is not, she says she and another campaigner will start judicial review proceedings at the High Court.
She said it was ‘disgusting’ that children were being put on the drugs when they had already been banned because they were ‘unsafe’.
In her case, the High Court ruled that under-16s were ‘unlikely to be able to give informed consent’ to puberty blockers, but this was later overturned by the Court of Appeal which ruled that doctors can judge whether young people can give consent to the treatment.
Recommended
Oh, so the doctors who stand to make thousands of dollars off of the treatment can determine whether or not the child can consent to giving them thousands of dollars? That’s convenient. For over four hundred years, it has been foundational in both the British and American legal system that no one can be a judge in their own cause (it's even referenced in Federalist #10), but we will let a doctor judge whether or not he or she gets rich off a procedure that the child might regret later but will probably get the doctor a new sports car. What could go wrong?
But that also gets to a term this author is not sure he understands: Judicial review. In America, it refers to the courts determining whether or not a law or an action by the executive branch is constitutional. But they appear to be using the term in a different way—sort of like how the word ‘football’ describes a completely different sport in the countries inferior to America (which is all of them). So, with some caution, we share this explanation from an organization called the Constitution Society:
The judiciary ⬇️ https://t.co/6yphH3y0jP
— The Constitution Society (@Con_Soc) March 3, 2022
This is what they say on the topic:
What is judicial review?
Judicial review refers to the process by which the public can ask judges to review the exercise of a power by a public authority. There are a number of reasons for which a decision can be ruled to be unlawful by the courts; for example, if the procedures that led to it were unfair or if it is irrational. Whilst judges cannot overturn primary legislation, they can declare secondary legislation to be void if it is found to be ultra vires. This means it is beyond the scope of the powers that have been granted to the authority by primary legislation.
Judicial review can be a powerful tool through which citizens ensure that ministers and other public officials are not abusing their power. It allows them to call on judges to review whether the decisions that affect them are legitimate and lawful. It is therefore one of the key mechanisms of accountability in the UK constitution.
Bear in mind, this is really the UK Constitution Society, which states on its website that
The Constitution Society is an independent educational foundation founded in 2009.
We promote public understanding of the UK constitution and work to encourage informed debate between legislators, academics and the public about proposals for constitutional change.
And the contradiction at the bottom of all of this is that there really is no constitution for the United Kingdom. What they claim across the pond is that they have an ‘unwritten constitution,’ which amounts to a bundle of traditions that are allegedly respected. But without anything in writing, we have to wonder if more than two citizens can even agree on what their unwritten constitution actually says, and history has shown that these gentleman’s agreements on human rights are not respected. As we wrote when comparing the English Bill of Rights to the American version, with the English Bill of Rights being part of this unwritten constitution:
The big problem with the English Bill of Rights is suggested by its name. It was a bill of rights that eventually became a statute, but with England having no written constitution, it could be superseded by any subsequent statute. It is my understanding that basically it has been almost completely obliterated this way so that the English Bill of Rights has little practical legal effect today.
In any case, that brings us to today's news: Another ‘judicial review’ is being sought to try to stop this barbaric experiment on children:
🚨Important Announcement🚨
— James Esses (@JamesEsses) February 6, 2026
We gave the government every opportunity to halt the monstrous puberty blockers trial.
They refused.
Now, we will compel them.
I’m pleased to announce that we have officially commenced our Judicial Review.
See you in Court, @wesstreeting.
👇 pic.twitter.com/tB0hZp1AUl
‘@wesstreeting’ is Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health & Social Care.
As for the substance of what he is saying, this article helps us to understand a little better:
Reading this article about an effort to block a barbaric puberty blocking experiment on children https://t.co/6Nww3JogEh
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) February 8, 2026
From the article:
Legal action against the Government has been launched in a bid to stop a trial into puberty blockers for children.
Campaigners sent a legal letter in December to regulatory bodies, the Government and the trial researchers calling for it to be halted, but have now launched formal action.
As well as seeking permission in the High Court to challenge the decision which saw the trial granted approval, the claimants said they will ‘if necessary’ ask for recruitment to be paused while legal proceedings are under way.
We are not sure how ‘high’ the High Court is, but it is below the Court of Appeals which apparently issued that ridiculous ruling that a doctor could decide if his or her minor patient has consented, but it is lower than the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, so more than likely Mr. Esses and his allies have to either 1) convince the Court of Appeals to overturn itself or 2) get the Supreme Court to overrule the Court of Appeals.
My quote:
— James Esses (@JamesEsses) February 6, 2026
“Claimant James Esses says, ‘We have given Wes Streeting and the relevant bodies every possible opportunity to pull the plug on this abhorrent trial. Even in the face of strong evidence of harm, consistent concerns from clinicians, and hundreds of thousands of members…
The cut off text:
Even in the face of strong evidence of harm, consistent concerns from clinicians, and hundreds of thousands of members of the public petitioning them to stop, it is business as usual. The recruitment of children is due to commence imminently, yet the conspiracy of silence continues. If they won’t safeguard children of their own accord, we will compel them to do so. The rest of the world is looking on. We will not allow the UK to become the country that knowingly destroyed the lives of vulnerable children’.’
As we said at the beginning, we are not sure what his chances are of being successful. Particularly worrying is the question of whether or not they will be able to halt the experiment while litigation is pending. If that is not granted, there is a chance that he will win, that a court will find the experiment is illegal, but only after irreparable harm is done to these children. In America, litigation can take a long, long time.
And if you want to get an idea of how damaging puberty blockers can be, read this absolute horror story about how it set off a chain of events that led to a young man’s death. But … um… be prepared to be absolutely disgusted.
Seriously, while the tide is turning, we wish it would turn a bit faster. We wished in that previous piece that these people would suddenly say ‘holy crap, we were experimenting on children! What the hell is wrong with us?’ But that involves requiring people to admit that they were wrong, and any student of human nature knows people and institutions have trouble doing that.
RELATED: Horror Show in Maryland: Police Neglect of a Homeless Camp Might Lead to Residents Being Evicted
DHS Lawyer Who Asked To Be Held in Contempt Leaves Minnesota Detail
WATCH: Jews and Allies Drag Tone-Deaf Superbowl Advertisement Against Anti-Semitism
BREAKING: An NYT Interview With Biden Just Undermined Thousands of His Late Pardons (A Deep Dive)