A psychotherapist has launched a scathing attack on Wes Streeting after joining forces with the Bayswater Support Group to mount a legal challenge against an upcoming puberty blocker trial.

Speaking to GB News, James Esses accused the Health Secretary of being “unable to think for himself” and declared the trial as “poison” for the children taking part.

Parents of transgender children in the UK have launched a High Court legal challenge aimed at stopping an NHS backed clinical trial of puberty blockers for young people.

The action has been filed against Health Secretary Wes Streeting and other officials, and argues the trial’s ethical approval was “unlawful” and “fails to protect vulnerable children”.

Discussing his decision to mount the legal challenge against Mr Streeting, Mr Esses told GB News: “He’s left us with no choice. We tried for many months to deal with it reasonably and respectfully.

“We tried to engage collaboratively, seek information, processes, protocols to try and find out if there is actually any ethical backbone to this study, and the relevant agencies completely refuse to engage with us. So we’ve been left with no choice now but to compel them.”

Citing previous studies on puberty blockers, which showed a damaging effect on “brain development”, Mr Esses warned that the new trial will result in a “slippery slope to infertility”.

He stressed: “We already know from previous studies that this causes harm to brain development, to bone growth, to sexual functioning, and we know it’s a slippery slope towards infertility. Thousands of children were put on this poison in the Tavistock clinic but were simply told, ‘well, we don’t know what happened to them because we never followed up’.

“And from our perspective, it’s not good enough for the Government to turn around and say, ‘well, we don’t know what happened to those children, so we’ll just wrangle up a few hundred more’.”

Arguing that there are only “harms” to children in taking puberty blockers rather than “benefits”, Mr Esses explained: “There’s a complete lack of rigour. The follow up period is two years. The harm that we’re talking about from puberty blockers may not be apparent and may last for decades after they’ve taken this medication, so it’s simply not rigorous enough.

“But crucially, in order to do a clinical trial, and people don’t often understand this, there needs to be at least a basis to suggest there is some benefit that comes from this proposed medicalisation. But as we know, there is no evidence whatsoever of any tangible benefits from puberty blockers, only harm.”

Citing previous conclusions from Hilary Cass in the Cass Review, Mr Esses argued that “belief should have no part in clinical trials”.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Parents of trans children launch High Court challenge against £10.9million puberty blocker trial
• Children as young as 10 to rate private body parts during controversial puberty blocker trial
• Wes Streeting urged to halt ‘absolutely ridiculous’ puberty blocker trial – ‘Abject child abuse!’

He told GB News: “That is the antithesis of safeguarding. There are people out there who genuinely believe that baking soda cures cancer, and the Government won’t be running a baking soda trial any time soon.

“It’s going to cost huge amounts of money to essentially mutilate and sterilise children, and this is our Government in 2026.”

As host Josh Howie questioned Mr Streeting’s stance on the trial, Mr Esses highlighted the Health Secretary’s previous work with Stonewall.

He said: “We have to remember that he did previously work for Stonewall. And they say you can take the man out of Stonewall, but you can never take Stonewall out of the man, and he is essentially talking out of both sides of his mouth. He’s trying to back both horses.

“So back in, I think it was September of last year, ge told an LGBT event that the decision to even ban puberty blockers in the first place made him very uncomfortable, and then just two months later, he said that the decision to trial puberty blockers made him very uncomfortable. He’s sitting on the fence, essentially, because he knows this is a contentious area.

“He’s not willing to actually be decisive and stand up for child safeguarding, and he’s essentially passing the buck. And he says, well, because Hilary Cass said it was a good idea, I’m going to go along with this. Can he not think for himself?”

In a statement, a Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: “Medical care must always be based on solid evidence, and children’s safety must come first.

“The expert Cass review, which was accepted by the last Government and this one, recommended a ban on puberty blockers for gender incongruence, and that clinical research be carried out to address a lack of scientific evidence. This trial will help provide the evidence that is currently lacking.”

A King’s College London spokesman said: “We strongly refute the claim that this carefully designed study is scientifically unsound, or that it bypassed the ethics process, and we can confirm that the study has completed all the necessary ethics and approvals processes.”