In April 2026, a Finnish research team led by Professor Riittakerttu Kaltiala published in Acta Paediatrica the largest and longest-running study yet conducted on psychiatric outcomes after pediatric gender reassignment. The study drew on Finland’s mandatory national health registers, which captured every gender-referred adolescent in the country from 1996 to 2019 and followed them for up to twenty-five years. The finding contradicts the clinical claim that has justified these interventions for a generation. This essay presents that finding, the pre-referral pattern the finding rests on, the statistical work that closes off the obvious defense, and the international context into which the study lands.
The Trajectory
Among the natal males in Finland’s national cohort who underwent feminizing gender reassignment, the proportion requiring specialist-level psychiatric treatment rose from 9.8% before the intervention to 60.7% afterward.¹ Among the natal females who underwent masculinizing gender reassignment, the proportion rose from 21.6% to 54.5%.¹
The interventions were justified on the promise that they would reduce psychiatric suffering. In Finland’s national registry, they preceded a sharp increase in it.
The finding comes from a study published on April 4, 2026 in Acta Paediatrica by Sami-Matti Ruuska, Katinka Tuisku, Timo Holttinen, and Riittakerttu Kaltiala.¹ The cohort covers every adolescent under the age of 23 who contacted Finland’s nationally centralized gender identity services between 1996 and 2019: 2,083 individuals, matched against 16,643 controls drawn by birth year and municipality. Follow-up extended up to twenty-five years, with a mean of 5.49 years. Of the referred adolescents, 796 underwent medical gender reassignment through hormones, surgery, or both.
Because reporting to the Finnish Care Register for Health Care is mandatory and patients cannot opt out, the dataset captured the complete psychiatric history of every person in the cohort. There was no attrition or self-selection, and no mechanism by which the clinics involved could shape what the data would show.
This work stays free because paid subscribers make it possible. They get the full book library, the Deep Dive Audio Library, and the Questions for Your Doctor, Before You Consent, and Package Insert series. No grants, no gatekeepers — your subscription is what keeps it that way.
Audio Deep Dive (for Paid Subscribers)
Why the Registry Cannot Be Waved Away
The methodology closes a defense that has protected pediatric gender medicine for two decades. The evidence base underlying the interventions has consisted of small cross-sectional studies with short follow-up, high loss to follow-up, and no control groups. The Cass Review commissioned by the NHS concluded in April 2024 that this is “an area of remarkably weak evidence.”²
The Ruuska team has now produced the counter-model. Their study is a nationally representative cohort with mandatory reporting, matched population controls, and a twenty-five-year follow-up horizon that captures long-term outcomes rather than the short-term post-treatment satisfaction on which most of the affirmative literature has rested. Kaltiala has served on the Cass Review advisory board and has led Tampere University Hospital’s youth gender clinic since 2011.⁴ The lead investigator is not a critic writing from outside the field. She is the clinician who ran the clinic.
Specialist-level psychiatric treatment in Finland is not equivalent to any therapist visit. It is care available only on accepted referral, indicating severe mental disorders, with national guidelines ensuring a consistent threshold across the country.¹ The Finnish school system regularly screens students for possible mental health problems, meaning both the referred adolescents and their controls have been assessed many times across their lifetimes.¹ The study excluded gender identity assessments and multi-disciplinary gender team appointments from the psychiatric care count, so what the measure captures is care sought for reasons other than the gender assessment itself.¹
The Adolescents Who Arrived
Before ever contacting the gender identity services, the referred adolescents already carried heavy psychiatric loads. 45.7% had required specialist-level psychiatric treatment prior to their first clinic appointment, compared with 15.0% of matched controls.¹ Their lifetime psychiatric care was also more intensive: 27.6% had 101 or more specialist psychiatric contacts across their lives, against 4.3% of controls.¹
This pattern is consistent with what J. Michael Bailey and Suzanna Diaz documented in their 2023 survey of 1,655 parents of adolescents who developed rapid onset gender dysphoria: mental health problems in the youths preceded any gender-related distress by an average of four years.³ Bailey and Diaz’s paper was retracted by Springer under activist pressure without any finding of fraud or scientific error.³ Finland’s mandatory national registry has now confirmed the underlying pattern with a methodology no retraction can reach.
The pre-referral morbidity was also not stable across the study period. In the 1996 to 2010 cohort, 23.7% of referred adolescents had a history of specialist psychiatric treatment before their first clinic visit.¹ In the 2011 to 2019 cohort, that figure doubled to 47.9%.¹ The matched control groups in the same two periods showed 11.8% and 15.3%, a shift within the normal range of secular trends in adolescent mental health. The doubling occurred only in the gender-referred group. It occurred alongside a tenfold increase in the number of adolescents being referred.⁴
What the Authors Themselves Say
The Ruuska team draws the inference their own data implies. They write that the pattern “may also suggest that, for some, mental health challenges may manifest as concerns related to gender identity,” and that in some of these adolescents “GD may be secondary to other mental health challenges.”¹
The observation carries specific weight. It is the lead investigator of Finland’s gender identity clinic, writing from her own registry data, stating that a rising share of the adolescents being medicalized may be presenting with gender concerns as the surface expression of unrelated psychiatric illness. Kaltiala has said publicly of the patients at her clinic that they “were not thriving” and that “their lives were deteriorating.”⁴
The demographic shift the data captures aligns with what has been observed internationally. Among Finland’s cohort, 1,602 of the 2,083 referred adolescents (77%) were seeking change toward male, meaning they were natal females.¹ The historical pattern of gender dysphoria as a rare condition affecting a small number of natal males from early childhood has inverted within a single generation. The clinics attribute this to reduced stigma. The registry data suggests something else may also be operating.
The “Already Sick” Defense, Closed Statistically
The obvious defense of the interventions runs like this: these adolescents were already psychiatrically ill before they arrived, so the elevated morbidity after gender reassignment reflects what they brought in rather than what the treatment did. The Ruuska team anticipated this defense and closed it statistically.
They ran Cox regression models predicting the need for specialist psychiatric treatment two or more years after the first clinic contact. The models controlled for year of birth, year of referral, and any prior psychiatric treatment the adolescent had received. After all three adjustments, every gender-referred subgroup remained between 4.7 and 6.1 times more likely to require specialist psychiatric treatment than male controls, and between 3.0 and 3.7 times more likely than female controls.¹ This held regardless of whether the adolescent underwent medical gender reassignment and regardless of the desired direction of change.
Controlling for pre-existing psychiatric morbidity does not eliminate the elevated risk in follow-up. It does not meaningfully reduce it. The “they were already sick” defense fails on the study’s own numbers, produced by the study’s own investigators, using the statistical adjustment the defense implicitly assumes has not been made.
The Trajectory, Broken Out by Group
The subgroup data sharpens the picture. Among gender-referred adolescents who did not undergo medical intervention, the need for specialist psychiatric treatment moved little from before referral to two years afterward: from 53.1% to 59.7% among those seeking change toward female, and from 65.0% to 67.2% among those seeking change toward male.¹ The high baseline reflected the pre-existing morbidity that was itself typically a contraindication for medical intervention. What did not happen in this group was a dramatic worsening.
Among those who did undergo medical gender reassignment, the trajectory reversed direction. Those seeking change toward female (natal males on feminizing hormones and surgery) went from 9.8% needing specialist psychiatric care before referral to 60.7% afterward.¹ Those seeking change toward male (natal females on masculinizing hormones and surgery) went from 21.6% to 54.5%.¹ The rise was sharpest in the group that entered with the lowest baseline morbidity.
The comparison across all four subgroups sharpens the finding further. Adolescents who did not undergo medical gender reassignment ended follow-up with psychiatric morbidity between 59.7% and 67.2%. Adolescents who did undergo medical gender reassignment ended follow-up with psychiatric morbidity between 54.5% and 60.7%. The intervention did not reduce psychiatric morbidity below the level observed in the untreated group. It raised the treated group from a much lower baseline until they arrived at approximately the same terminal morbidity as those who received no intervention at all. The affirmation model’s central promise is that these interventions relieve psychiatric suffering. In Finland’s registry, the treated group finished with morbidity in the same range as the untreated group, arrived at by a trajectory that climbed rather than fell.
The authors note that “in some individuals, medical GR appears to be linked to deterioration in mental health” and that “subsequent morbidity burden may also arise from treatments not meeting the expectations placed on them.”¹ They further observe that estrogen has been found to potentially cause depressive symptoms in both cisgender women and in transwomen, offering a partial biological mechanism for the feminizing cohort’s outcomes.¹
The Study Lands into a Contested Policy Environment
In the United Kingdom, the Cass Review has already produced a systematic dismantling of the evidence base, with the NHS restricting routine prescribing of puberty-suppressing drugs.² In Sweden, Finland, and Norway, national health authorities have pulled back from the earlier expansion of these interventions. In the United States, following the Supreme Court’s June 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti and subsequent healthcare fraud settlements with Texas Children’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic, federal policy has reversed.⁵
Australia sits in a different position. The federal government has tasked the National Health and Medical Research Council with updating clinical guidelines, with interim advice on puberty-suppressing drugs expected in mid-2026.⁴ Queensland’s government has suspended initiation of the interventions for minors until at least 2031, pending its own state review.⁴ The Cass Review rated Australian child gender medicine standards nineteen out of one hundred for rigor of development.⁴
Two Australian clinicians who raised concerns have faced regulatory action. Queensland psychiatrist Dr. Andrew Amos was banned by AHPRA for publicly questioning the interventions and barred from direct clinical contact. No finding of patient harm or unsafe clinical practice was made against him.⁴ Queensland child psychiatrist Dr. Jillian Spencer was suspended from Queensland Children’s Hospital in 2023 after objecting to the state’s treatment model and was issued a termination notice one month before an independent panel was due to deliver its findings. Her case is now subject to legal challenge.⁴
The Finnish registry is the population-level evidence those clinicians were pointing at. The country that silenced them now has the data in hand.
Closing
The clinical claim that has driven pediatric gender medicine for two decades is that medical intervention reduces psychiatric suffering in adolescents with gender dysphoria. The evidence offered in support has consisted of small uncontrolled studies with short follow-up, conducted by the practitioners performing the interventions. Finland’s national registry followed every referred adolescent for up to twenty-five years with no possibility of attrition or selection.
Psychiatric morbidity rose after medical gender reassignment. Among natal males on feminizing hormones and surgery, from 9.8% to 60.7%. Among natal females on masculinizing hormones and surgery, from 21.6% to 54.5%. The treatment is sold as reducing psychiatric suffering. In the country where the finding cannot be waved away, it produces psychiatric suffering.
How to Explain It to a Six-Year-Old
Imagine a doctor tells some parents that their child is very sad, and the only way to make the child happy is to change the child’s body with medicine and with an operation. The parents are frightened, so they say yes. Years later, people in a country called Finland count what happened to every single child who was treated this way. They find that most of the children became much sadder, not happier. The children who got the medicine and the operation ended up needing far more help from mental health doctors than they had needed before. The children who did not get the treatment stayed about the same. The medicine was supposed to fix the sadness. It made more of it. The doctors who sell the treatment do not talk about this. The country that has the numbers does.
In Print
The Unbekoming library is available in paperback, printed to order through Lulu and shipped worldwide. The shelf begins with the paradigm question underneath everything else — No Virus, the isolation problem, the collapse of virology’s foundational claims, and a disease-by-disease reappraisal — and moves through the suppressed compounds mainstream medicine set aside: The DMSO Book, Chlorine Dioxide: The Forbidden Remedy, The Iodine Book, and The Hydrogen Peroxide Book. Two more recover what’s still on the kitchen shelf: Baking Soda and The Castor Oil Book. Two more recover the minerals modern soil, water, and processing quietly stripped from the diet: The Magnesium Handbook and The Boron Book. Sitting alongside these is No Contagion, co-authored with Jamie Andrews — the case against germ theory itself, catalogued through 258 failed contagion experiments.
The critique books cover what medicine, dentistry, psychiatry, and veterinary practice have become. The Unvaccinated treats the completely unvaccinated as a comparison group across twenty chapters and five appendices. Medicalized Motherhood follows a woman through 123 documented interventions from teenage pill to postpartum discharge. Drilling for Profit treats cavities, gum disease, and crooked teeth as the dietary problem they are. What Your Vet Can’t Tell You applies the same critique to pets. Escape from Psychiatry documents the fabrication of the DSM and the specific damage of every major psychiatric drug class. The Vitamin K Injection covers what happens in the first hours of a newborn’s life.
The full shelf is at lulu.com/spotlight/unbekoming. A physical book reaches the person a Substack post never will — the skeptical relative, the friend who won’t click a link but might open a book, the visitor whose eye lands on a coffee table. Buy one to keep, and one to give away.
New Biology Clinic
For those of you looking for practitioners who actually understand terrain medicine and the principles we explore here, I want to share something valuable. Dr. Tom Cowan—whose books and podcasts have shaped much of my own thinking about health—has created the New Biology Clinic, a virtual practice staffed by wellness specialists who operate from the same foundational understanding. This isn’t about symptom suppression or the conventional model. It’s about personalized guidance rooted in how living systems actually work. The clinic offers individual and family memberships that include not just private consults, but group sessions covering movement, nutrition, breathwork, biofield tuning, and more. Everything is virtual, making it accessible wherever you are. If you’ve been searching for practitioners who won’t look at you blankly when you mention structured water or the importance of the extracellular matrix, this is worth exploring. Use discount code “Unbekoming” to get $100 off the member activation fee. You can learn more and sign up at newbiologyclinic.com
References
Ruuska, S.-M., Tuisku, K., Holttinen, T., & Kaltiala, R. (2026). Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adolescents and Young Adults Who Contacted Specialised Gender Identity Services in Finland in 1996–2019: A Register Study. Acta Paediatrica. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.70533
Cass, H. (2024). Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People: Final Report. NHS England.
Diaz, S., & Bailey, J. M. (2023). Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases [Retracted]. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Mahlburg, K. (2026, April 7). Psychiatric Needs Surge Up to 6x After ‘Gender Reassignment’, Major Finnish Study Finds.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2026). Wolves in White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of “Gender Medicine.”
We have always known this; the medical community is using mentally ill children as guinea pigs for their absurd experiments.
That's really good. I hope Dr. Jillian Spencer's legal team knows of this article, or at least the Ruuska trial.