GenderGP prescribed dangerous hormone levels to a child without any doctor contact
Ben Leo said:
“A 15 year old child was prescribed dangerous levels of hormones by your unregulated online clinic. Without speaking to a doctor.”
The claim is attributed to a High Court judgement, which carries obvious authority, and the detail of a 15-year-old receiving dangerous hormone levels without seeing a doctor is exactly the kind of safeguarding failure that would rightly alarm any viewer.
The judicial warning Ben Leo read from was made by Sir Andrew McFarlane in the context of offshore online prescribing as a general category of risk, and the specific case he was drawing on was heard in Australia, not the UK. Treating a warning about a category of provider as a specific finding against a named UK service in a different jurisdiction is a significant conflation, and the two proceedings are not the same thing. GenderGP's UK regulatory record is a separate matter, and nothing in that Australian case constitutes a finding against it. Viewers who leave believing a High Court ruling was made against GenderGP specifically are carrying away a distortion that has real consequences for how a legitimate service is understood.
What I said at the time:
“That's not that's not UK news. That's that that was an Australian case.”
Viewers who come away believing a specific High Court finding was made against GenderGP when the case described was heard in Australia, which distorts public understanding of the actual regulatory record.