This is an important statement: complaint against the Stanford study was that it was a 'survey' rather than a randomized control trial:

The study acknowledged that a randomized controlled trial, as opposed to the survey method, would have helped to determine causality, but “many have noted that such a trial design is unethical in this context.”

UNETHICAL to do what the "opposition" wanted. Also, no one suggest Stanford changed or doctored any of it's findings.

Further, ALL of the studies in this "review" were from Europe. NONE from the US. None of the Studies included error bars, yet the review did, and almost everything was within the error bars, some as large as 20% (ie 9.5% +/-) suggesting low confidence in the findings. All of the Studies had low numbers of participants - a problem with ALL studies of trans people due to the fact THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF US OUT THERE!

From their conclusion:

A key limitation to identifying the effectiveness and safety of GnRH analogues for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria is the lack of reliable comparative studies. The lack of clear, expected outcomes from treatment with a GnRH analogue (the purpose of which is to suppress secondary sexual characteristics which may cause distress from unwanted pubertal changes) also makes interpreting the evidence difficult. The size of the population with gender dysphoria means conducting a prospective trial may be unrealistic, at least on a single centre basis. There may also be ethical issues with a ‘no treatment arm’ in comparative trials of GnRH analogues, where there may be poor mental health outcomes if treatment is withheld. However, the use of an active comparator such as close psychological support may reduce ethical concerns in future trials.

The studies included in this evidence review are all small, uncontrolled observational
studies, which are subject to bias and confounding, and are of very low certainty as assessed using modified GRADE.

So, to use this as something definitive to the contrary is invalid. Further, the societies in which these studies were held, while politically liberal, tend to have significant conservative social mores AND are homogeneous. Reconsider MY post on Trans teen suicide: [slug.com]

And anecdotally, given MY efforts with teens and interactions with dozens of them, supports the findings that blockers HELP. But also, medical transition usually means SOCIAL transition, during puberty, ie HIGH SCHOOL, not exactly a stable social environment that has significant pressures without the complications of transsexualism. Suggesting, in ignoring those pressures, that ONE portion of the treatment doesn't help, is UNETHICAL when the data, at best - for those opposed - is inconclusive.

In other words, if out of the 1200 adolescents involved, how many deaths are acceptable to those that want to ban the treatment? 5. 10. 20? 9.5%+/-.....