These posts are very helpful in understanding the operation of the clinic, but might I suggest that, if possible, you try to find a medical consultant to review the medical information? For example, "mild transient transaminitis" is a sign of liver stress but not usually actual liver problems and is quite a common side effect of many medications, including quite a number that are used for mental health conditions. It is also quite common when people have a virus such as mono or even a flu-like virus. In fact, if there is no other obvious cause, the patient has no other symptoms of liver disease and they are generally young-ish and in reasonably good health, mild transient transaminitis is often assumed to have been caused by a virus with minimal to no other workup. It can also happen after a night of heavy drinking. Generally speaking, a patient who develops mild transaminitis is monitored through blood testing. They may or may not switch to a different drug depending on their and the doctors' discretion. However, if the transaminitis resolves relatively quickly, as "transient" would suggest, generally you stay on course. Transaminitis that is relatively mild or even moderate but resolves on its own is not considered a liver problem or even a serious side effect. In fact, there is a decent likelihood that if the one out of 14 patients who developed it continued the drug and it still resolved, that it wasn't caused by the drug at all, or that the drug was just one in a number of factors predisposing the kid to having this transient bump in liver enzymes in his bloodwork.

The point being, that just because this one kid in the study developed it does not mean it was related to the drug and also does not necessarily indicate that it was a real problem. This is why it can be difficult for lay people to fully interpret medical research, even if they faithfully Google every single term they don't know. There is simply a lot of context missing. Coming from a health care background, I personally would find these posts more convincing if the medical info was more accurate. Otherwise, it gives the whole thing a veneer of alarmism, and I think you have some very important things to say. I think it's essential that there is more transparency in this field-at a minimum-and you are well-placed to provide it. I fully recognize the difficulty in discussing medical issues without a medical background, and that is why it would in my opinion reach a broader audience more effectively if you had a medical consultant to review the strictly medical info that is needed to provide context for what you're saying. I don't think it helps anyone to increase the amount of half-truths or out of context statements floating around in this area, and you're far from the only commentator to make some mistakes in this regard. But imo ANY inaccuracy just makes it easier for people with bad intentions to discredit everything you say, and that would be really unfortunate. Of course, I'm just one person.

In any case, thank you for taking the time to distribute your knowledge.

Expand full comment

Very informative. Thanks Jamie and LGBTCC!

Expand full comment