Peter Tatchell has defended the NHS’s plans to include children as young as 11 in a controversial puberty blocker trial. Speaking to GB News, the LGBT Rights Campaigner said there was not a “shred of evidence” that the treatment has caused harm to young people when conducted for medical reasons. GB News host Dawn Neesom asked: “We are stopping kids making fun videos on TikTok, and yet on the other hand, we are willing to give controversial drug treatment to youngsters as young as 11. Why would we do that?””I would ask people to reflect that for decades, young children as young as seven and eight have been given puberty blockers to prevent premature puberty,” Mr Thatchell responded.”These are not trans children. They’re non trans children. They have early onset puberty, and doctors have prescribed them puberty blockers. “This has been happening for decades in Britain and around the world.”Peter Tatchell defended the NHS’s plans to include children as young as 11 in a controversial puberty blocker trial | GB NEWS”There’s not a shred of evidence that has caused them any harm,” the LGBT Rights Campaigner stressed. Mr Thatchell then went on to explain his thoughts on puberty blockers to “trans children”.”If they can be safely prescribed for non trans children with early onset puberty, why can’t they be prescribed for trans children with safe protocols and obviously with parental consent?”Dawn interjected, asking: “So why do the Commission on Human Medicines say they did say they might have changed their mind and posed an unacceptable safety risk?”Under the updated rules, girls aged 11 and above and boys aged 12 and above will be eligible to take part in the study. | GETTY”If you say there’s so much evidence that proves puberty blockers are not dangerous to youngsters, why are so many health authorities saying there is a risk?””Child safety and welfare is the number one priority. Nothing must trump that,” Mr Thatchell said. “But unfortunately, this body has been under huge political pressure and lobbying by anti-trans campaigners. “I’m afraid they have buckled to that pressure,” he claimed. The UK’s Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) had previously raised concerns over the treatment. In correspondence with King’s College London, the regulator warned participants faced a “very likely” risk of fertility loss and permanent damage to bone health.The MHRA also highlighted the “potentially significant and, as yet, unquantified risk of long-term biological harms” associated with the treatment and requested further discussions before the study could proceed.