Family Physicians, Be Warned: The AAFP Doubles Down on Radical Ideology

,

Over the last several years, Do No Harm has repeatedly exposed the American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP) for its embrace of DEI and its forays into radical identity politics and activism.

The organization’s 2024 annual conference in September showed that the organization is as committed as ever to its ideological project. The conference was replete with references to DEI, radical policy proposals, and endorsements of gender medical interventions for minors.

Though the AAFP has long endorsed child sex change procedures, the way in which AAFP speakers discuss the issue is very revealing of the organization’s prioritization of agenda over evidence.

For instance, one presentation on so-called “gender-affirming” included claims that are flat-out false, and reveal an ideological commitment.

“There’s no question that it (pubertal suppression and cross-sex hormones) works; there’s no question that it saves lives,” said Molly McClain, MD, a professor of family and community medicine at the University of New Mexico. “The fact that it’s being questioned across this country and across the world is not about medicine and it’s not about evidence. It’s about politics.”

There is, in fact, more than a question as to the efficacy of child sex change interventions. The United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland have all restricted these interventions. The Cass Review, an exhaustive examination of youth gender treatments within the United Kingdom, determined that the evidence for such procedures is of “poor quality.” Do No Harm recently released a report exposing the serious methodological flaws in the studies most often invoked to support so-called “gender-affirming care for children.”

Figure 1. A slide on the impact of pronouns on mental health.

The presentation also called for “structural belonging” to improve outcomes among youth who believe they are transgender; in other words, a reorientation of society to “affirm” the chosen gender of the child. This includes pronoun use in basically every social setting.

In another particularly bizarre presentation, the face of President-elect Donald Trump was superimposed onto an anthropomorphic Cheeto to represent poor nutrition, with the caption “Cheeto-in-Chief.”

Figure 2. A slide featuring President-elect Donald Trump as a cheeto.

Other presentations included methods of achieving “lactation equity” that invariably involved policies such as “pay equity” and other political reforms.

But also, and more worryingly, the AAFP continued to platform misleading narratives surrounding implicit bias.

Figure 3. A slide discussing implicit bias.

Tests used to evaluate implicit bias fail to meet widely-accepted standards of reliability and validity; a 2013 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that the IATs were “poor predictors” of real-world bias and discrimination.

“Twenty years of research produced very little evidence that the IAT test predicts any real-world behaviour,” University of Toronto Mississauga psychology professor Ulrich Schimmack, who spent years studying implicit bias, said in 2019. “On top of that, some of the articles that claim it does, on close inspection, fail to show that.”

Nevertheless, the AAFP argues that implicit bias is a pervasive blight on healthcare leading to racial disparities in health outcomes. The presentation includes a video claiming that physicians are less likely to prescribe black patients pain medication, and implies this is due to physicians’ implicit bias.

However, the evidence for this claim is far from convincing. A systematic review of studies on racial disparities in pain medicine prescription published between 2011 and 2021 reviewed 15 cohorts and found that in only seven of them were black patients less likely to receive opioid pain medicine. 

“Among 15 cohorts studied, 7 showed that Black patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesia, whereas 1 showed they were more likely to receive opioid analgesia compared to White patients,” the study found. “In the remaining 7 cohorts, there was no statistically significant difference in receipt of opioids between Black and White patients.”

Additionally, in several of the studies finding that black patients were less likely to receive opioid analgesia, the effect disappeared when controlling for socioeconomic status. This phenomenon indicates that socioeconomic status, rather than race, is the factor leading to this disparity.

But of course, that result is much less convenient to support the AAFP’s desired DEI agenda. After all, the AAFP’s Vice President of Medical Education explicitly endorsed racial discrimination in medical school admissions and decried the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action.

The AAFP seems intent on staying the course and continuing its slide away from medical education and best practices and into political and cultural activism. Family physicians should ask themselves whether this organization is genuinely representative of their interests.

S3E9: Exploring the Political Influence on Medicine

In Season 3, Episode 9 of the Do No Harm Podcast, host Ian Kingsbury engages in a deep dive into the complex relationship between politics and medicine with special guest, Eric Kaufman, Ph.D, a distinguished political scientist. This episode examines the significant impact of political ideologies on medical practices and institutions, emphasizing the widespread influence of woke ideology and its downstream effects. As the nation reflects on a pivotal election, the conversation addresses the evolving political landscape and its consequences for DEI initiatives in healthcare. Tune in for an insightful discussion on preserving the integrity of medical practice amidst political challenges.

Listen in via Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

Do No Harm Lawsuit Challenges Tennessee’s Racial Quotas for State Boards and Commissions

Nashville, TN; November 8, 2024: Today, Do No Harm, an association of medical professionals, filed a federal lawsuit to stop Tennessee’s unlawful consideration of race in appointments to state boards and commissions.

Tennessee medical practitioners fall under the purview of the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners, while the state’s Board of Chiropractic Examiners oversees chiropractors.

A requirement of both boards, however, has nothing to do with medicine or chiropractic care, and everything to do with race. Three separate state laws force the governor to consider race when deciding who can serve on these boards.

“State medical boards are given important responsibilities to oversee the quality of care in their state and the safety of patients,” said Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “It is crucial that they be the most qualified physicians available. Like all aspects of healthcare, patient safety and patient concerns should be primary, not the skin color or the racial makeup of any oversight committee.” 

Tennessee is far from the only state that uses immutable characteristics to limit opportunities for individuals to serve their state and local communities. A report released by Pacific Legal Foundation, Public Service Denied, found that 25 states codify such unconstitutional discrimination. Pacific Legal Foundation is working to defeat race and sex quotas in Tennessee and everywhere else the unconstitutional practice is required.

“Tennessee law forces governor after governor to engage in racial discrimination when making appointments to state boards and commissions,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Caleb Trotter. “Using race to make appointments to government boards is not only demeaning and unconstitutional, but it undermines the distinctive spirit of the Volunteer State by precluding opportunities for Tennesseans to serve their local communities.”

The case is Do No Harm v. William Lee and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Is the NIH Softening Its Support for Racial Discrimination?

The NIH has long been one of the main vehicles for DEI to corrupt medical education and research. But after a Do No Harm fellow spoke out, in at least one instance that appears to be changing.

Back in February, the NIH announced a notice of intent to publish a funding opportunity for cardiovascular disease research through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). However, the notice made clear that the NIH prefers applicants to recruit certain racial groups for their study team.

“NHLBI expects applicants to recruit individuals from diverse backgrounds, including individuals from underrepresented groups for participation in the study team,” the notice said. For reference, the NIH’s diversity guidance defines underrepresented groups as “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.”

The use of “expects” in the notice is key: the NIH wasn’t simply encouraging applicants to include these racial groups, but rather commanding them to do so.

If an applicant didn’t implement this bizarre racial preference, they wouldn’t get funding.

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Kevin Jon Williams, a professor of cardiovascular sciences at Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, wrote a March op-ed in the Wall Street Journal highlighting the grant listing’s discriminatory guidelines.

Dr. Williams, who has African ancestry, could have noted his underrepresented background in his application for the grant and thereby increase his chances of getting funding.

Dr. Williams nobly elected not to do so, and chose not to validate the NIH’s discriminatory enterprise.

Now, following Dr. Williams’s op-ed, it seems the NIH may have gotten the hint.

In the actual funding opportunity listings posted in July for the cardiovascular research in question, the NIH dropped the language telling applicants they were “expected” to prioritize certain racial groups in their study team composition. 

While applicants were still required to submit a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP), the NIH said that the applications would be assessed based on “the scientific and technical merit of the proposed project,” and that “[c]onsistent with federal law, the race, ethnicity, or sex of a researcher, award participant, or trainee will not be considered during the application review process or when making funding decisions.”

This is quite a shift. The NIH went from instructing applicants to racially discriminate when constructing their study team, to now saying that it’s illegal to consider race at all!

The irony, of course, is the NIH was the one telling applicants to discriminate in the first place.

“The new administration in D.C. should be able to help the NIH return to its core mission,” Dr. Williams said. “The voting, tax-paying public does not want racial discrimination.”

As Do No Harm has extensively cataloged, the NIH is one of the chief perpetrators of DEI in the medical field. And its diversity guidance still encourages racial preferences in prospective grant applicants. 

But this is a step in the right direction all the same. The NIH should abandon its embrace of DEI and its support for racially discriminatory application criteria, and get back to what it should be doing: advancing humanity’s medical knowledge.

S3E8: The Ethics of Care: Whistleblower Insights on Gender Medicine for Minors

In this eye-opening episode of the Do No Harm Podcast, hosts Ian Kingsbury and Scott Centorino delve into the controversial world of pediatric gender clinics and the ethics surrounding gender-affirming care. Joined by Jamie Reed, a former insider and whistleblower from a pediatric gender clinic, they explore the complexities of treating gender dysphoria in minors. Jamie shares her personal journey and the pivotal moments that led her to speak out against current practices. The discussion navigates through the challenges of evidence-based care, the role of public opinion, and the impact on the LGBT community. With personal anecdotes and a deep dive into medical ethics, this episode promises a thoughtful and provocative examination of a highly sensitive topic.

Listen in via Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

The American Society of Hematology Rebrands Its Racist Scholarship Program

The American Society of Hematology (ASH) may be learning its lesson. 

ASH previously operated the Minority Recruitment Initiative (MRI), a program designed to “increase the participation of those underserved and underrepresented” in hematology. The initiative included scholarships like the Minority Medical Student Award Program (MMSAP) that were restricted to “Indigenous American Indians or Alaska Natives, Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, African Canadians, Inuit, and First Nation Peoples.”

Now, ASH has rebranded the program and removed eligibility criteria that specifically restrict  the racial groups that are eligible to receive the awards. The “successor” program to MRI, the Hematology Inclusion Pathway (HIP) Initiative, likewise promotes awards and scholarships available to medical students, residents, and faculty.

ASH’s timing is curious, to say the least. In December 2023, Do No Harm filed a joint federal civil rights complaint against 20 medical schools that illegally promoted the discriminatory award, and following our complaint, many of the schools agreed to delete the award from their websites to resolve their violations of federal civil rights laws

For instance, Michigan State University (MSU) medical school promoted ASH’s MMSAP on its website. The university delisted the program earlier this year following Do No Harm’s federal civil rights complaint. Several other medical schools including those at the University of Chicago and the University of Cincinnati also agreed to stop promoting and advertising the discriminatory ASH programs on their websites.  

Perhaps ASH has decided that promoting explicit unlawful racial discrimination is not in the best interests of a medical association.

Figure 1: Invitation to the HIP luncheon

Still, it’s clear that ASH views the program as a vehicle to advance its DEI agenda, and may evaluate applicants accordingly. The organization is promoting a HIP luncheon where previous award recipients and DEI officials can “network” with one another.

Here’s how ASH describes HIP:

“[T]he new HIP Initiative better aligns with ASH’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion and reflects an evolving understanding of the communities that are underrepresented in hematology.”

Moreover, one of the initiative’s scholarships “encourages graduate students from communities underrepresented in hematology in the United States and Canada to pursue a career in academic hematology.” ASH also recommended embedding DEI in the clinical trial process, a sign that its commitment to radical ideology is not abating.

Nevertheless, a retreat from explicit racial discrimination is an encouraging sign: the days in which medical associations could broadcast and promote their racism without being held accountable are over.

ASH must know by now that any form of racial discrimination, regardless of whether it is undertaken in the name of “equity” or other ideological goals, is unlawful and morally unacceptable. Medical schools and medical organizations have to realize that there are no “if you have good intentions” exceptions to federal civil rights laws, and discrimination based on race or sex is still unlawful even if it advantages the “right” groups for the “right” ideological reasons.

Do No Harm encourages those who become aware of race-based or sex-based discrimination to submit your concern to our website.  

The Under-the-Radar Bureaucrats Driving the Federal Government’s ‘Health Equity’ Agenda

The federal government is one of the more overlooked culprits behind efforts to embed DEI into the healthcare profession, as well as into medical education and research. The policies and guidance of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as well as various health agencies inform how the medical field acts with regard to certain issues. So when these agencies embrace DEI, they encourage – and often coerce – medical institutions to do the same.

For instance, when fielding applications for grant funding, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) effectively considered the racial makeup of a research team, and mandated that applicants include how their research will advance DEI. This would naturally create incentives for grant recipients to engage in racial discrimination in order to receive funding.

While many of the federal government’s DEI actions follow executive orders from President Joe Biden tasking federal agencies to implement equity action plans, health agencies’ engagement with DEI predates the current administration and is much more endemic.

Here are several of the positions within the federal government that play a pivotal role in advancing DEI:

Director, Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion at the National Institutes of Health

The NIH has been one of the federal government’s chief drivers of DEI in the medical field, through such efforts as the aforementioned discriminatory grants as well as equity initiatives.

The agency currently maintains its office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) that, per the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Access), directly guides the NIH director’s DEI strategy and initiatives. The office has over 50 employees, according to City Journal, and is led by its director Kevin Williams, who earned roughly $200,000 in salary in 2020.

What’s more, the office is pretty up-front about its goal to impose racial preferences and racial discrimination through the euphemisms of increasing “diversity,” improving “equity,” and increasing participation of groups “underrepresented” in medicine. The NIH has defined groups “underrepresented” in biomedical research as “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.”

The office explicitly says its mission concerns “improving the outreach, recruitment, and retention of people of color, women, sexual and gender diverse people, and persons with disabilities.”

The agency also intends to embed DEI into clinical research by enhancing “consideration of DEIA in the biomedical and behavioral research funding cycle.”

“Integral to this, over the next 5 years, NIH is committed to the goal of enhancing the consideration of DEIA at all stages of the funding cycle, including the application process, peer review, funding decisions, and pre and post-award grant management,” the equity plan reads.

The agency also plans to “expand existing efforts and develop new approaches in research funding to promote increased participation of underrepresented and other marginalized groups

in biomedical and behavioral research.”

And as mentioned previously, the NIH considers the racial composition of research teams when awarding grants and requires that applicants explain how their research will advance DEI.

What’s more, the NIH already funds the Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Educational Diversity (ESTEEMED) grant program, whose recipients explicitly restrict grant funding to applicants of certain races.

Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity, NIH

As it turns out, the NIH’s DEI efforts are not restricted to one central office.

The Manhattan Institute’s Chris Rufo recently reported on how Marie Bernard, the agency’s chief officer for scientific workforce diversity, has helmed multiple DEI initiatives and efforts during the Biden-Harris administration. She directly oversees ten employees.

For instance, NIH UNITE, which styles itself as a DEI “think tank,” has originated numerous funding opportunities intended to funnel taxpayer dollars toward DEI research.

This includes the “Assessment of Climate at Institutions Award,” which “solicits applications to conduct institutional climate assessments using validated survey instruments and to develop action plans for positive change in the recruitment, hiring, retention, and advancement of faculty, including those from groups underrepresented in biomedical and behavioral research.”

Another program aims to “increase career opportunities for individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those from groups underrepresented in biomedical research.”

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Here’s an excerpt from Rufo’s article:

The most important of these initiatives is the NIH Common Fund’s Faculty Institutional Recruitment for Sustainable Transformation (FIRST) program, which was created in 2021 and “aims to enhance and maintain cultures of inclusive excellence in the biomedical research community” by funding the “recruitment of a diverse group of faculty” at research universities. NIH FIRST has subsidized such programs at 16 universities, including Cornell, USCD, Northwestern, and Drexel. The agency says that its efforts to make faculty more “diverse” will help to “ensure[] that the most creative minds have the opportunity to contribute to realizing our national research and health goals.”

According to the most recent salary data from Open the Books, Bernard’s annual salary was $300,000 in 2020.

Director for the Centers for Disease Control and Management’s (CDC) Office of Health Equity

The CDC has also ramped up its DEI initiatives in recent years. In 2021, CDC launched “CORE,” an “agency-wide health equity strategy and CDC’s umbrella framework to transform its work by engaging and challenging every part of the agency to incorporate health equity and diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and belonging (DEIAB) as a foundational element across all of its work.”

Key to this effort is the Office of Health Equity, currently led by director Dr. Leandris Liburd. According to data from Open the Books, her annual salary in 2023 was roughly $240,000.

According to the Office of Health Equity’s mission statement, the director is responsible for a vast array of duties that invariably involve embedding DEI into public health.

These include leading “the advancement of intersectional health equity practices,” incorporating “health equity into existing and future agency policies and programs building on current efforts that have been effective in achieving equity” and leading “the advancement of intersectional health equity practices and principles across the agency.”

Needless to say, this is an enormous amount of power over a federal agency that plays a crucial role in the health of everyday Americans. And as history has shown, the CDC’s equity decisions and agenda have proven to directly impact not just the health but the lives of Americans.

For instance, in 2020, the CDC advised states to give essential workers access to the mRNA vaccine over elderly Americans, reasoning that older Americans are disproportionately white. Several states did, in fact, prioritize minority residents when allocating COVID vaccines.

It is unconscionable for the CDC to subject Americans’ lives to its identity politics agenda, but this is the end result of allowing DEI to run rampant in such a critical public health agency.

Chief Health Equity Officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and Director of the CMS Office of Minority Health

The current Chief Health Equity Officer at CMS is Dr. Martin Mendoza. According to Mendoza’s biography, he is “the primary author of the pivotal FDA guidance recommending that clinical trial sponsors submit a diversity action plan to FDA. Dr. Mendoza’s original idea and recommendation became federal public law in December 2022.” Mendoza’s annual salary was roughly $170,000 in 2023, according to data from Open the Books, with 32 employees working within the Office of Minority Health. 

CMS may not be the first agency one would associate with health equity initiatives; but earlier this year, the Washington Free Beacon reported that CMS released a proposal to prioritize low-income patients for kidney transplants. It turns out this decision was spurred by an attempt to address “health equity” and close racial gaps in health outcomes. 

“The organ transplant industry, like every other part of society, is not immune to racial inequities,” Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Xavier Becerra said, according to the Free Beacon. “Black Americans disproportionately struggle with life-threatening kidney disease, yet they receive a smaller percentage of kidney transplants. The Biden-Harris administration is taking concrete steps to remove racial bias when calculating wait times and rooting out profiteering and inequity in the transplant process.”

Deciding who should receive an organ transplant based on race is morally reprehensible; but unfortunately, the proposal appears in line with CMS’ larger health equity agenda.

According to the CMS Framework for Health Equity, CMS’ goals are to “explicitly measure the impact of our policies on health equity, to develop sustainable solutions that close gaps in health and health care access, quality, and outcomes, and to invest in solutions that address health disparities.” The agency also seeks to “help organizations embed health equity in their programs to reduce disparities.” 

Knowing what that looks like in practice, it’s clear that these equity initiatives will lead to future racial discrimination in the name of ideology.

Needless to say, these practices are harmful to medicine, but also contrary to basic principles of fairness and morality. Although presidential actions and cabinet appointments are by far the most impactful factors in this trend, the aforementioned positions within federal agencies are key to their day-to-day operations.

Report Reveals 500 Instances of the Biden-Harris Administration Embedding DEI Into the Federal Government

RICHMOND, VA; October 31, 2024 – Do No Harm released a report detailing how the Biden-Harris administration infused discriminatory DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) practices and policies into the federal government. 

The report, Equity Everywhere: 500 Ways the Biden-Harris Administration Infused DEI Into the Federal Government, reveals that over 80 federal entities submitted “Equity Action Plans” which resulted in over 500 active or planned federal DEI actions.

These included 36 actions directly related to medicine and healthcare policy.

The comprehensive analysis found that a wide array of entities across the federal government were involved in pushing DEI, including well-established agencies such as the HHS, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Energy, as well as lesser-known entities like the Marine Mammal Commission and the American Battle Monuments Commission.

Do No Harm organized the agencies into 10 categories: Health; Security; Foreign Affairs; Law; Transportation; Preservation; Federal-State Partnerships; Science and Nature; and Finance, Labor, and Commerce. Do No Harm then split up the areas in which federal agencies advanced DEI into several categories: research and data; labor market transformation; procurement and contracts; outreach; training; and other avenues. 

“Discrimination has no place in our society and certainly not in our federal government,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “This report documents hundreds of examples of harmful identity politics leading to government programs that treat people differently based on their race or sexual orientation. It is alarming that these programs, including initiatives that determine how the government regulates medicine and cares for our veterans, not only were implemented but encouraged and celebrated.”

“Though it’s no surprise activists and politicians have pushed this corrosive ideology, that DEI has permeated our institutions of power to such a degree in less than four years reminds us why it is so important to stand up for merit and equality, not equity and division,” Dr. Goldfarb said. “The same government that is charged with protecting the American people from discrimination cannot also perpetuate it. Our leaders must root this out and return to our founding principles.”

View the full report here. 

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With 13,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

Virginia Tech Recruits Psychologist to Target ‘Latinx’ Students

,

Should universities target their mental health resources toward certain racial groups?

A resounding “no” might seem obvious, but not according to Virginia Tech. The university recently advertised an open position for “Staff Psychologist/Staff Counselor – Hispanic-Latinx Focus.” As the title suggests, the position specifically focuses on Hispanic students.

The job description has since been removed from Virginia Tech’s website, but a listing remains live on a third-party site.

On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with Virginia Tech’s aim to improve student access to mental health counselors. But specifically directing taxpayer resources toward supporting the mental health of a select ethnic group reeks of racial preferencing. Why not simply improve mental health capabilities for all? Why specifically target certain racial groups?

Well, a glance at the job description reveals that Virginia Tech views its mental health counselors as agents in its effort to improve access to “underserved” students and increase racial diversity among its counseling staff. There’s clearly a strong ideological motivation at work, as well as the belief that the “lived experiences” of Hispanic students requires special care.

“Part of this initiative will include recommendations and strategies to make Virginia Tech more affordable and accessible for underserved students, addressing financial feasibility and student success,” the job description reads.

Additionally, if that weren’t obvious enough one of the job’s preferred qualifications is “strong commitment to social justice and issues of diversity.”

The justification for the position echoes the notion that racial concordance, in which the patient and the healthcare professional are of the same race, produces better outcomes. The weight of evidence shows that this is simply not true.

“Cook Counseling Center supports the academic mission of the university and has focused upon growing the multicultural competence and ethnic and racial diversity of the counseling staff,” the description continues. “The goal for this position is to further our work with Hispanic-Latinx communities and marginalized students as we better understand the lived experiences of these students on this campus.”

Unsurprisingly, this job posting is not an isolated expression of Virginia Tech’s commitment to ideology, but rather reflective of the school’s broad engagement with DEI.

Job descriptions for positions at the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine obtained by Do No Harm reveal the extent to which the school’s bureaucracy is saturated with DEI principles.

For instance, the medical school advertised for an “Admissions Specialist” whose duties included demonstrating a “commitment to advancing traditionally underrepresented groups in medicine.”

Similarly, the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs is expected to serve on DEI committees, while the Director of Admissions must have “significant progressive experience in educational training and in recruiting and relating to selecting a diverse body in lines with the goals of VT.”

One position, the “Inclusion Coordinator,” is entirely focused on “efforts to integrate inclusion, equity, diversity, and quality initiatives.” The position’s qualifications include a  “demonstrated commitment to diversity and inclusion,” while job duties include “URIM (underrepresented in medicine) recruitment, and implementation of DEI workshops/training sessions.”

In fact, Do No Harm identified over ten positions that explicitly required a commitment to diversity and related concepts as a qualification, or involved furthering DEI as a job duty. 

What’s more, the medical school operates its MEDS-E, or Medical Exposure for Diverse Students Experience, program targeting students who are members of groups “underrepresented in medicine,” and providing them with educational opportunities.

It’s a worrying sign when medical institutions view their racial composition as an urgent priority with public health subordinate to an ideological agenda.

What really matters is quality healthcare delivered by qualified physicians, pure and simple. Virginia Tech would do well to remember that.

S3E7: Balancing Politics and Policy: DEI Challenges in North Carolina

In Episode 7 of Season 3 of the Do No Harm Podcast, hosts Ian Kingsbury and Scott Centorino engage with North Carolina Representative Ray Pickett in a compelling discussion on the intertwining of politics, higher education, and healthcare. As North Carolina navigates the aftermath of a severe storm, the focus shifts to the contentious role of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies in universities and their broader impact on healthcare. Representative Pickett shares insights on the Board of Governors’ efforts to reform DEI policies and the challenges of maintaining neutrality in educational institutions. The episode underscores the emotional and divisive nature of DEI and gender medicine issues, highlighting the critical role of public engagement in shaping legislative processes.

Listen in via Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

LSU Med School Scrubs Link to ‘Defund the Police’ Site After Do No Harm Exposé

Last week, Do No Harm reported on the fact that the Louisiana State University (LSU) School of Medicine was maintaining a web page directing students to radical political activist sites, including a site explicitly calling to defund local police departments. Other resources included recommendations for medical schools to institute forms of racial discrimination in the name of “recreating Wakanda” and achieving health equity goals.

Now, it seems like LSU has decided this site perhaps isn’t the best advertisement for its medical education offerings. Following the publication of our story, the page was taken down. 

LSU is no longer directing students to these radical sites that have nothing whatsoever to do with the medical school’s pedagogical mission. And that is a welcome change.

But LSU may have more to worry about.

Louisiana State Sen. Valarie Hodges said the page violated a recently-enacted law, Act 584, that prohibits professors from imposing “political views on students.” Hodges, who authored the law, characterized the medical school’s behavior as “unacceptable.”

“This type of politically motivated, radical calls to activism from a state-funded higher education institution cannot be allowed as per state law,” Hodges said in a statement. “Louisiana’s  Legislature and Governor have been clear about where our state stands in relation to radical leftist activism in our schools that is meant to divide our citizens and destroy our state and our nation. This blatant disrespect and disregard to Louisiana law and beliefs held by students who attend LSU Medical School is unacceptable and egregious.”

Other Louisiana state lawmakers who caught wind of the web page were similarly shocked at the content promoted by the publicly-funded institution.

Do No Harm asked LSU what prompted its decision to remove the web page and whether it was aware of concerns it violated state law; the university has yet to respond.

Still, LSU’s decision to remove the page is an encouraging sign. It demonstrates the importance of shining a light on the political activities of medical schools that detract or often outright contradict their role as educational institutions.

Do No Harm will continue to expose medical schools that prioritize radical political activism rather than focusing exclusively on their mission to educate the next generation of healthcare professionals.

American Society of Hematology Recommends Embedding DEI Into Clinical Trials

The American Society of Hematology (ASH) has decided the next frontier for DEI is clinical research.

In 2023, ASH launched the ASH DEI Toolkit for Clinical Trial Sponsors. The goal of the guide is “to help trial sponsors incorporate DEI principles throughout the trial life cycle.”

While some of the recommendations are fairly anodyne and have a plausible basis in an attempt to improve trial design, others are nakedly ideological. The guide recommends trial sponsors employ a “diverse workforce,” and that committees reviewing the trial do so not just for safety and scientific ethics but for “justice principles” as well. These recommendations mirror guidance from the National Institutes of Health, which also has pushed for DEI and racially discriminatory policies in grant applications.

The guide also recommends relaxing inclusion and exclusion criteria to allow for a more “diverse” pool of trial participants, despite the detrimental effects this could have on research.

“For example, in eligibility criteria, avoid unnecessarily strict organ function, or eligibility tests. For exclusion criteria, avoid nonspecific and potentially biased terms such as ‘unacceptable’ or ‘uncontrolled’ where more specific definitions can be used.”

ASH has been quite explicit in its endorsement of the DEI agenda, and has previously taken other steps to embed these discriminatory principles into the medical profession.

For instance, ASH offered a medical student award to “Indigenous American Indians or Alaska Natives, Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, African Canadians, Inuit, and First Nation Peoples.” Notably absent, of course, are whites and Asians.

The priority of those designing a clinical trial should obviously be the safety of the participants and then the integrity of the trial design itself. “Justice principles” really shouldn’t factor into it all, and ASH’s attempts to use clinical trials as a vehicle for DEI is misguided at best, and dangerous at worst.

Some of ASH’s recommendations, such as prioritizing a diverse workforce, could end up resulting in less capable researchers manning the helm.

At the end of the day, safety and integrity, not DEI, should be the key focus of clinical research.

Philadelphia Jewish Community Sends Health System a Clear Message: Ditch DEI

,

Jewish Pennsylvanians are rightfully concerned that their popular swing state governor was snubbed as a vice presidential candidate because of his Jewish identity. Liberals will need to prove that they are serious about confronting antisemitism if they want to win back Jewish voters.

If a petition circulating in the Philadelphia suburbs is any indication, that means abandoning the DEI agenda.

The Change.org petition, which has accrued more than 4,000 signatures, calls for Main Line Health (a large health system that serves the Philadelphia metro area) to “totally dismantle” its “Diversity, Respect, Equity and Inclusion” (Main Line’s branding of DEI) programming.

“Time and again,” the petition notes, “the Jewish community has observed that the tenet of ‘inclusion’ within the DRE&I apparatus does not extend to Jews. Rather, DRE&I portrays the world in a reductive paradigm that imagines ‘white’ oppressors pinned against a ‘nonwhite’ oppressed, with Jews assigned to the first group. This type of thinking doesn’t help anybody, including the patients it purports to help.”

The petition, drafted by local Jewish activists (including several physicians at Main Line Health), came in response to the headline story in Main Line Health’s July Diversity, Respect, Equity, and Inclusion (DREI) newsletter. The story, “Biography of a hospital during occupation and war,” purports to chronicle the plight of Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza. Instead, it offers an account so deluded that it could reasonably pass for either Hamas propaganda or anti-Hamas satire. 

The story begins with the line that “Al-Shifa Hospital translates as ‘house of healing.’” It predictably unfolds to characterize the destruction at the hospital as an unprovoked assault on Gaza’s health infrastructure.

“The article is rife with misinformation and omissions,” notes the petition, “creating a dangerously false narrative that distorts the truth and misleads readers. Omitted is any mention of the atrocities that precipitated the current conflict, the holding of multiple hostages at Al-Shifa hospital and the use of the hospital as a Hamas command hub.” 

Ultimately, “these omissions and distortions propagate a hateful narrative against the world’s only Jewish state. This unmasked contempt sets the tone for discourse and conduct across MLH.”

The apology that followed the incident, which referred to it as an “ouch moment,” only stirred more anger. The petition calls it “an appalling understatement of what transpired. The apology letter outrageously referred to Hamas, which repeatedly calls for the genocide of Jews, as a ‘combatant organization.’”

For the uninitiated, it might seem odd that DEI officials would wade into the Israeli-Hamas war or that they would so shamelessly and uncritically crib Hamas talking points. For many others, however, it doesn’t qualify as a surprise. 

DEI tends to adopt simplistic and neo-Marxist paradigms that imagine the world as a conflict between groups of oppressors and oppressed. It views global affairs through a lens that inextricably links race and power, hence the contempt for the “white” Jews of Israel (most of whom are in fact descendants of refugees from Arab countries) and the apologism for or infantilization of the “resistance” of Palestinian terrorists. 

Consternation over DEI within the Jewish community isn’t new. When I traveled to Israel earlier this year as part of a solidarity trip organized out of UCLA, President Isaac Herzog and his wife were explicit to our delegation about the threat that wokeism and DEI in particular poses to the welfare of American and Israeli Jews alike. Yet, the Main Line Health petition marks a notable development. Most American Jews are (or at least were) politically liberal and reside in progressive metropolitan areas. The incentives to self-censor about DEI are abundant, and yet, the stakes are apparently making silence untenable.

Though it’s unclear precisely how many of the petition signatories are Jews in metro Philadelphia, Dr. Lev – an Israeli-American physician based in the Philadelphia area who published the petition – insists that number is at least 1,000. 

“The Jewish community is furious and many now believe DEI to be dangerous,” he tells me. “Opposing DEI can create some awkwardness among neighbors and friends who truly believe that it stands for the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. But given what is happening in our communities – Swastikas appearing etched onto the side of public buildings, pro-Hamas demonstrators marching through college campuses, Jews being harassed in Philadelphia public schools – we’re now forced to have these uncomfortable conversations.”

Philadelphia’s suburbs are being courted by both candidates in the upcoming presidential election. The petition sends a clear message: Embrace DEI at your own peril.

Do No Harm Launches Continuing Medical Education Course Highlighting Risks of Excluding Race from Kidney Disease Diagnosis

RICHMOND, VA; October 23, 2024 – Do No Harm is launching a free course that examines the consequences of excluding race from kidney disease assessments. The course is titled, Excluding race from chronic kidney disease diagnosis and treatment: Science or politics?

Beginning in 2021, many health systems advocated for removing race as a consideration in kidney function assessment equations, often claiming that race-corrected kidney estimates are manifestations of “structural racism.” 

This course aims to provide medical professionals with accurate information on the merits of both the race-corrected approach and the race-free approach.

“This course will help physicians optimize their care for patients with kidney disease,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm. “By learning the intricacies of both the race-free and race-corrected estimates of kidney function, medical professionals can better predict kidney failure and prescribe therapy to their patients. Race is not simply a social construct; it is a biological reality that can have impacts on health. Decades of research indicate that including race in kidney assessment equations improves accuracy. Excluding race altogether from kidney disease diagnosis is an attempt to prioritize politics over care. Our course aims to provide doctors with the tools to always put care first.”

Click here to view the course.

The course will launch on October 23, coinciding with Do No Harm’s presence as an exhibitor at the American Society of Nephrology’s Kidney Week 2024 in San Diego. 

The course will help physicians best care for their patients with kidney disease. By the end of the course, participants will be able to:

  • Distinguish the strengths and weaknesses of the race-free and race-corrected estimates of kidney function (eGFR) based on their derivation, biases, practicality, and ability to predict kidney failure replacement therapy and mortality.
  • Apply knowledge gained on racial differences in current kidney disease treatments to address treatment inequities, including racial disparities in patient and primary care physician awareness of chronic kidney disease, treatment with various medications and nephrologist referrals.
  • Apply the race-free and race-corrected eGFR most appropriate for each patient based on their knowledge of the derivation and biases of each.

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With 13,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.

S3E6: Medicine Unmasked: Navigating the Politics of Healthcare

,

In this compelling episode of Medicine Unmasked, hosts Ian Kingsbury and Scott Centorino delve into the intricate world of healthcare where politics and medicine collide. Featuring special guest Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a distinguished figure in academic medicine and Do No Harm Chairman and Founder, the discussion unravels the growing influence of political activism on medical education and patient care. Together, they examine the contentious rise of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, questioning their impact on the core values and efficacy of medical practice. Tune in for a thought-provoking exploration of how social agendas might reshape the future of healthcare and what it means for both practitioners and patients alike.

Emails Reveal Political Rationale Behind UConn’s Woke Revision of Hippocratic Oath

In 2022, the University of Connecticut (UConn) School of Medicine debuted a “DEI-ified” version of the Hippocratic Oath for its new medical students. The school had transformed the oath – the cornerstone of Western medical ethics that includes the principle of “do no harm” – into a pledge of allegiance to social justice and DEI.

UConn’s oath, which was used in the school’s White Coat Ceremony for the class of 2028, now includes the following commitments: “I will work actively to identify and mitigate my own biases so as to treat all patients and coworkers with humility and dignity”; “I will strive to promote health equity”; “I will actively support policies that promote social justice and specifically work to dismantle policies that perpetuate inequities, exclusion, discrimination and racism.”

As Do No Harm previously pointed out, many of these commitments, such as “health equity,” contradict the Hippocratic Oath’s principles by implicitly endorsing racially discriminatory policies that, in practice, preference certain racial groups over others and thus harm unfavored patients. The oath dedicates comparatively less time to any actual tenets of medical education or the development of medical expertise.

It’s obvious that UConn’s decision to alter its Hippocratic Oath was in service of its DEI agenda. But internal communications obtained by Do No Harm between UConn medical school faculty reveal not only their rationale for making this change, but also the depth of their commitments to ideology over medical education.

UConn’s faculty first began considering altering the Hippocratic Oath in November 2020 after Dr. Clara Weinstock proposed the idea to the Department of Internal Medicine’s Diversity Committee, according to the internal communications. The Diversity Committee endorsed the proposal, and in 2021, both the dean of the UConn School of Medicine and the associate dean for medical student affairs approved the drafting of a proposal. 

According to the communications, Dr. Weinstock then created a working group to draft the proposal, which included student and faculty representatives from the following UConn “diversity” and “ethics-related” interest groups: the “Student National Medical Association, Latin@ Medical Student Association, South Asian Medical/Dental Association, Disabilities Interest Group, Reach Out [LGBTQAI+], Gold Humanism Society as well as the Director of Immigrant Health and members of the Internal Medicine Diversity Committee.”

The 2021 proposal to change the oath makes explicit the view that physicians should be political activists working to advance “social justice” and “antiracism.”

“Another way in which UConn SOM can reaffirm its commitment to social justice and antiracism is through a public affirmation, one that every future MD participates in first at the White Coat Ceremony, and then again, during Commencement, when students officially are welcomed into the profession,” the proposal reads. “Faculty, alumni, and other physicians join in reaffirming their pledge to the profession.”

Administrators for undergraduate medical education approved the proposal with some small revisions in November 2021.

The proposal goes on to reference a previous oath that UConn used, and says that “some of the language and content could be updated to reflect the active responsibility physicians have to change systems that perpetuate discrimination, racism, and inequities in health.”

Moreover, as justification for this pledge, the proposal cites “the violent murders of Trayvon Martin, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, the 6 women of Asian descent killed in Atlanta Georgia: Soon Chung Park, Hyun Jung Grant, Suncha Kim, Yong Ae Yue, Xiaojie Tan, and Daoyou Feng, and countless others,” which the proposal says “have put yet another spotlight on the pervasiveness of racism and injustice in the U.S.” and “continues to adversely affect the health and well-being of many members of our community; Black and Brown men, women, and children.”

It’s important not to lose sight of what’s going on here: UConn is using the foundational oath of medical responsibility as a vehicle for a pledge of allegiance to radical political ideology. The justification for this change expressly states that revising the oath is to further these ideological goals.

This is absolutely not the appropriate role of a medical school, and forcing new medical students to swear an oath to advance this agenda is downright perverse. 

Physicians are not activists. And indoctrinating new medical students into the belief that activism and the practice of medicine are one and the same will only harm patients.

Just look at the fruits of these beliefs: racially discriminatory policies that prioritize certain races for organ transplants in the name of “health equity.” Or fallacious notions that jeopardize patient care to reduce disparities between races.

The list goes on.

S3E5: Navigating the Storm: Parental Rights and Gender Ideology in Schools

In this gripping episode of the Do No Harm Podcast, hosts Ian Kingsbury and Scott Centorino engage in a timely discussion with January Littlejohn, a mother and mental health counselor, who shares her harrowing personal journey. Discover how DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) ideology is infiltrating schools and impacting parental rights as January recounts the story of her 13-year-old daughter’s social transition at school without parental consent. The conversation delves into the concept of social contagion among adolescents, the role of schools and healthcare providers in this dynamic, and the legislative efforts to safeguard parental rights. Tune in to explore how advocacy and informed action can protect children and restore sanity to education and healthcare.

Listen in via Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, or Amazon Music.

Do No Harm Sues University of Washington School of Medicine

RICHMOND, VA; October 16, 2024 – Do No Harm filed a federal lawsuit against the University of Washington School of Medicine (UWSOM) for restricting access to a physician networking directory based on race.

UWSOM supports students interested in specialties and residency programs through its BIPOC Physicians Directory, a database of physicians that students can use for questions about their career. However, the school limits access to this helpful resource to “black, indigenous and people of color” or “BIPOC” students and physicians, excluding white students and physicians.

“Putting racial roadblocks on medical students making the critical career choice of a residency program and blocking white doctors from mentoring medical students is unethical and illegal,” said Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “UWSOM should be ensuring that its students are well-trained and best able to serve patients.”

Do No Harm is asking the court for a permanent injunction to bar UWSOM from operating a directory that excludes students or physicians based on race, and to declare UWSOM in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.

Click here to read the lawsuit.

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With more than 12,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and in 14 countries, DNH has achieved more than 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.