In yet another instance of leftists holding back a study because it disproves their progressive narrative, today we have the tale of Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy.

Olson-Kennedy is based in Los Angeles and runs the largest youth gender clinic in the country. She has also been part of a $10 million taxpayer-funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) study on the effect of puberty blockers on children’s mental health.

Puberty blockers are used to stop the natural progression of human development during adolescence, and they are definitively not harmless. They cause irreversible damage, such as voice deepening, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, infertility, increased cancer risk, and thrombosis.

Ostensibly, the purpose of pumping kids with puberty blockers if they show any signs of gender confusion is to give them time to make an informed decision before they mature into the man or woman they were born to be. So, the logic is to suppress the hormones that help with brain development so that these kids can “make an informed decision” on whether or not they accept their biological state? Make it make sense.

Olson-Kennedy recently gave an interview to The New York Times that detailed parts of the study and her thinking on the subject. The study began in 2015 and used 95 children from across the U.S., with 11 being the average age of the participants. That means there were plenty of kids younger than that who received these chemicals.

It is here where political pundit Allie Beth Stuckey’s mantra fits in well. To paraphrase: It is always children who are the innocent victims of the Left’s social experiments. Just despicable.

Notice that the study was conducted many years ago, and the results weren’t published. Why is that? According to Olson-Kennedy, “I do not want our work to be weaponized. It has to be exactly on point, clear, and concise. And that takes time.”

What exactly were her findings? Well, again, according to Olson-Kennedy, the kids were on exactly the same post-puberty blockers as they were the first time she saw them. But this is sort of a deceptive answer because, as she told the Times, “They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years.”

However, the Times points out that Olson-Kennedy’s “conclusion seemed to contradict an earlier description of the group, in which Dr. Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues noted that one quarter of the adolescents were depressed or suicidal before treatment.”

Important side note: Other scientists who have been studying the “transgender” phenomenon, such as Dr. Riittakerttu Kaltiala, have found that the majority of patients presenting with gender discomfort, particularly young women, were suffering from other mental problems that were being masked by this gender dysphoria red herring. Treating the most obvious symptom doesn’t resolve the pain driving these kids toward depression and suicide. In fact, encouraging the “transgender” fantasy heightens the likelihood of children making attempts on their lives.

Back to the Olson-Kennedy scandal, the study’s findings directly contradict the findings of the seminal 2010 Dutch study that pioneered the “Dutch Protocol” (i.e., “gender-affirming care”). In that study, the scientists claimed that the children improved. Olson-Kennedy’s study does align with a small study in the UK that showed children aged 12-15 had no psychological benefit.

By admitting that she doesn’t want the study politicized, she is admitting all. Puberty blockers aren’t the solution for gender-confused kids. If Olson-Kennedy truly wanted to help the kids she was supposed to serve, then shouldn’t her findings serve as a starting point for finding actual solutions? Many of these kids are distressed, and digging down to solve their actual problems might be a good place to start.

Olson-Kennedy has the NIH’s permission to publish the study when she sees fit. Which might be never. According to the Times, “While she said she intends to publish the results, she said her team has been delayed over NIH funding cuts to the project, which the NIH denied.”

In the end, politics is trumping scientific proof, which in this age of moral relativism seems par for the course.