When Advocacy Replaces Science: Political Agendas Masquerading as Medical Education

,

The American Medical Association (AMA) has fully eschewed any pretense of representing physician interests. Instead, it has unfortunately become a tool for far left advocacy that uses its once-noble mission as cover to advance leftist policy. While many physicians see through the charade, the organization responsible for overseeing continuing medical education (CME) ostensibly does not. 

Case in point: The AMA Ed Hub Continuing Medical Education module, ‘LGBTQ+ Patient-Centered Practices, clearly violates the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education’s standards. This is especially true regarding Standard 1, which requires that all educational recommendations for patient care be grounded in current science, supported by clinical reasoning, and presented in a fair and balanced manner. It also prohibits the promotion of practices that lack sufficient evidence or pose risks outweighing benefits. 

Consider:

1. Claims Without Clear Citation of Evidence

The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) requires that “all recommendations for patient care … must be based on current science, evidence, and clinical reasoning” and that “all scientific research referred to … must conform to generally accepted standards.”

However, the module presents interventions such as hormone therapy and surgical procedures under the umbrella of “gender-affirming care” without acknowledging any consideration that the overall quality of evidence for benefit is very low in the pediatric population. Similarly, the CME makes the claim that “research consistently shows that access to gender-affirming care is associated with better mental health outcomes for transgender and gender-diverse youth.” High quality systematic reviews, as noted in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Report, do not show this to be the case. This lack of transparency violates the ACCME mandate for evidence-based clinical recommendations.

Additionally, the module recommends “focus[ing] on social transition and reversible interventions for younger children,” ignoring all research demonstrating that hormonal interventions are generally irreversible. Even social transition, such as going by a different name or different pronouns, is an extremely slippery slope; experts warn that it is “not a neutral act,” but a powerful signal that validates the child’s gender distress. It’s no wonder that five years after transitioning socially, nearly two-thirds of children in a 2022 study were using puberty blockers or receiving cross-sex hormones. 

2. Lack of Balanced View of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Options

Standard 1 also requires providers to ensure their content “is fair and balanced and that any clinical content presented supports safe, effective patient care.” Standard 1.3 permits debate on “new and evolving topics,” but clearly prohibits providers from “promoting practices that are not, or not yet, adequately based on current science, evidence, and clinical reasoning.” New or evolving topics must be “clearly identified as such.” 

Yet, the AMA module frames “gender-affirming care” as a best practice without acknowledging controversies in the scientific community and limitations of current evidence, or even mentioning alternative approaches (e.g., watchful waiting, psychotherapy, non-medical support). By not identifying areas where evidence remains emerging or contested, the module is taking an advocacy stance rather than a neutral educational perspective.

3. Advocacy of Practices Without Clear Evidence

ACCME states: “Organizations cannot be accredited if … education promotes recommendations, treatment, or manners of practicing healthcare that are determined to have risks or dangers that outweigh the benefits or are known to be ineffective.”

The module advises clinicians on when and how to implement “gender-affirming” interventions, particularly in minors, but does not discuss potential long-term risks. Providers, for instance, are told to tell parents the “benefits of gender-affirming care” without any mention of the risks. 

More so, these same providers–according to the module–are to inform administrators of the “medical necessity of gender-affirming care,” which certainly does not exist when it comes to caring for gender confused children. As noted in the HHS Report, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s use of the term “medical necessity” was a “strategic move” that “remove[d] key safeguarding criteria” and “compel[ed] insurance coverage.” Clinical rationale was lacking.

Unfortunately, the AMA’s CME reads more like an advocacy directive than balanced guidance, straying from ACCME’s expectation to differentiate between established science and evolving or experimental practices.

4. Lack of Content Validation

ACCME clarifies that accredited providers must ensure content validity through “generally accepted standards of experimental design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.”

There is no indication in the module description of a process or methodology that confirms clinical reasoning and ensures validity. In fact, many of the organizations it cites are not medical organizations, but left-leaning advocacy groups, including the ACLU, Human Rights Campaign, the Trevor Project, Pronouns.org and GLAAD. The module also cites the AMA several times, employing a sort of circular logic that undermines its credibility.

By presenting unsubstantiated interventions as best practices, omitting discussion of risks and alternative approaches, and lacking transparency, the module prioritizes advocacy over scientific rigor. 

CME is supposed to make doctors better at their occupation. Instead, the AMA, with the apparent blessing of the ACCME, is corrupting the process so that it places political agendas ahead of scientific rigor. Unless that corruption is ended, patients will inevitably pay the price.

Do No Harm Survey Reveals Divide Between Physicians and Medical Establishment on Identity Politics in Medicine

,

RICHMOND, VA; November 24, 2025: Today, The Center for Accountability in Medicine released the results of a survey conducted of voters and doctors across the state of Florida. The survey aimed to compare the views of medical professionals with major medical organizations’ stances on gender ideology and DEI in medicine. The results of the survey are revealed in a report entitled, “What rank-and-file physicians think about DEI and pediatric ‘gender-affirming care’: Evidence from Florida.”

The results indicate a notable disconnect between physicians and the organizations that represent them. More specifically, doctors recognize the harm affirmative action, racial concordance, and pediatric transgender interventions present to patients when pushed aggressively through the system. 

“Our survey revealed that there are loud, radical voices in healthcare organizations drowning out the thoughts and opinions of everyday physicians,” said Ian Kingsbury, Director of CAM. “We see that a strong majority of doctors believe sex-change interventions should be prohibited for minors. That same group believes school admissions should be decided on merit only and disagrees with the disproven racial concordance theory. This overlap in opinion is no coincidence, but a clear call to re-center medicine around common sense and sound science. We cannot allow harmful ideologies pushed by woke activists to sully the integrity of medicine any longer. Instead, we must reinstitute excellence and integrity within our medical organizations, schools, and hospital systems.”

Click here to read the report and cross-tabs.

Key Takeaways from the Survey:

  • A large majority, 66%, of surveyed doctors showed support for Florida’s policies of protecting minors from sex-change interventions (puberty blockers, hormones, and surgery), and 75% support protecting women from being forced to compete against men in sports. 
  • Only 31% of surveyed doctors agree with the theory of racial concordance and think that patients experience better health outcomes when treated by doctors of the same race. 
  • The proportion of respondents who believed admissions to medical school should be based solely on merit reflects the proportion who reject the racial concordance theory.
    • 68% believe in merit-based acceptance into school and 69% reject the racial concordance theory.
  • 64% of surveyed doctors found that the increase in diagnosis of gender dysphoria among youth should be a cause for concern. 

###

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.

OHSU’s Radical DEI Regime: Indoctrinating Future Health Care Professionals

Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) has surrendered its academic mission to a radical DEI regime that appears to care more about promoting ideology and policing language than it does patient care.

For health sciences students at OHSU, the indoctrination begins early and continues throughout their education. The 2024-2025 Course Guide shows the curricula at OHSU to be saturated with DEI classes:

  • Dentistry students can take Community Dentistry 705 Social Determinants of Health, Social Justice and Equity, which “challenge[s] the dental students to reflect on any incorrect assumptions that poor oral health is primarily an individual consequence due to self-neglect”—likely placing the blame on social conditions with little regard for personal accountability.
  • The School of Medicine offers Clinical Psychology 615 Cultural Considerations & Diversity, centering “equity in the practice of psychology with individuals from diverse backgrounds.”
  • The School of Medicine pushes Food Systems & Society 511 Food in Culture, “discuss[ing] the role of cultural meanings and practices in food systems through the lenses of cultural studies and social equity” and “investigat[ing] frameworks, issues and representations of race-ethnicity, class and gender.”
  • The School of Medicine also offers Neuroscience 644 Racial Equity in Scientific Research & Beyond, training students to see “systemic racism” everywhere and become “active agents of change.”
  • Public Health offers Health Behavior 522 Health & Social Inequalities, teaching the “‘embodiment’ of social forces” and examining actions, including “legislative and political” to “eliminate health inequities.”
  • Physician assistants have the opportunity to take Physician Assistant Studies 518A Principles of Professional Practice I, drilling “bias in medicine” and “cultural humility.”
  • Undergraduate Medical Education courses like Family Medicine 705NA Introduction to Native Health compel students to “consider and discuss how colonialism, bias, and historical trauma have shaped health systems and experiences for Native patients.”
  • Another Undergraduate Medical Education course, General Internal Medicine 709B Health Equity Elective, sends students to work with specific ethnic community partners to witness “structural inequality.”
  • Nursing devotes an entire series—Nursing 546A through 546C Clarifying Racism—to “institutional racism,” “bias,” and “unequal treatment,” forcing students to master “inclusive communication practices with regard to racism and diversity issues in health care.”

These are just a few of the courses taught at OHSU. Some are more blatantly ideological than others, but there are too many to discount any one of them as being fringe, and several take a significant departure from clinical practice placing the student squarely in the world of activism.

For example, the nursing series listed above elicits a serious question: Why are no fewer than three 500-level classes needed to clarify racism? 

Nursing is a complex profession that requires understanding a wide range of conditions from which people suffer. At the same time, nurses must be able to gain their patients’ confidence and trust. The ability to synthesize knowledge in a high-paced environment while maintaining therapeutic relationships with patients is paramount to nursing. 

However, when a school responsible for the foundational education of these young professionals spends a great deal of time indoctrinating them with continued assertions of “institutional racism,” then how much trust will they place in their preceptors, supervisors, and the profession itself? 

Nursing is just one example of many, unfortunately. The sampling of courses here demonstrates a focus of the OHSU curriculum on seeing future patients as victims of oppression rather than individuals seeking objective care. 

Equally concerning is OHSU’s still-active Inclusive Language Guide, a “say this, not that” type of speech code that runs roughshod over biologically accurate terms. After instructing readers with a deeply confused assertion that discourse is “dominated by the majority point of view” and, in America, “people who are white, heterosexual and cisgender” are at the center of this discourse, the guide informs and cautions on various fronts:

  • Students and teachers are instructed to say “pregnant people or person”—not “pregnant women or woman,” because that would be exclusionary.
  • “Biological male/female” is “derogatory”; say “assigned male/female at birth.”
  • “Obese” and “fat” are stigmatizing—use “higher weight” or “larger body” unless the patient “reclaims” the term “fat.”
  • “Minority” is forbidden because it allegedly “centers people… usually white people.”

The logic is absurd: in addition to creating a false construct that demonizes white people and puts students of different backgrounds unnecessarily at odds with one another, students are taught that saying “pregnant woman,” for example, supposedly “suppresses diversity,” while terms like “noncompliant” must be replaced by “did not complete treatment” just to avoid any perceived offense. 

Precision in health care saves lives; OHSU demands its students to twist language to appease ideology. Patients deserve care based on science and merit, not guilt and grievance.

Do No Harm stands firmly against the ideological capture of academic medicine and health care education. OHSU would far better serve its students—and their future patients—by truly focusing on the health sciences, not activist indoctrination.

When Equity Goes Overboard

Michigan State University (MSU) is hardly the first institution of higher education to post a medical-related professorship with a DEI twist. But its “1855 Associate/Full Professor-Tenure System” job posting within the College of Human Medicine is riddled with so much woke jargon, it’s hard to ascertain what exactly the job entails.

Consider the following portion of the job description: “This 1855 Professorship offers a unique opportunity for an established researcher who seeks to continue their highly impactful, community engaged health equity research to drive change in areas both relevant to Flint and widely applicable. These include increasing equity in social determinants of health, behavioral health, healthy behaviors, chronic disease, maternal-child health, and environmental justice, among others.”

Other than some vague language about researching equity, it is anyone’s guess as to what the 1855 Professorship does. But what is clear is that the job listing mentions “equity” eight times.

The program is financed by a “$25 million gift from the Flint-based Charles Stewart Mott Foundation [which] allows [MSU] to largely or fully guarantee salary coverage for researchers who are willing to move their substantial research portfolios to MSU.” The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation’s mission is, of course, “Promoting a just, equitable and sustainable society.”

Upon further peeling back the layers, it is clear that this is only a small sample of the College of Human Medicine’s fixation with DEI concepts. From their “Dean’s Advisory Committee on Diversity” to their “Health Quality and Equity Team” to their “Center for Cancer Health Equity Research” and more, it is no wonder why they feel the need to hire even more equity specialists. There is no shortage of tasks to carry out and committees to serve on to advance their pet cause.

But the problem isn’t just limited to the College of Human Medicine—it is emblematic of a broader challenge with Michigan State University as a whole. For example, in 2023, Do No Harm reported that a job posting in the College of Osteopathic Medicine required the submission of a “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) statement” as a condition of an application for a faculty-level position. Yes, you read that right—no DEI statement, no chance at a job.

At the time of that blog’s publication, the job posting had been removed—but the College’s Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives webpage was still active (archived link). Now it appears that link is broken as well.

While the 1855 Professorship position does not list a DEI statement among its required application materials, it might as well—because for all practical purposes, the College (and University as a whole) have made it clear they are looking for candidates who conform to their ideology and way of thinking, and not someone who will disrupt the comfort of their status quo mindset.

In fact, using the University’s career search tool, the keyword “equity” returns 75 different open positions—i.e., positions that reference equity in at least some portion of the job description. For the keyword “diversity,” 91 open positions are listed.

It is unlikely that Michigan State University is going to change its commitment to woke practices and hiring standards anytime soon, even as other colleges and universities around the country have moved away from these concepts. But it would not be entirely unsurprising—or without precedent—if some of these job postings begin to change or become inactive following greater scrutiny.

In any case, one can only hope, for the applicants’ sake, that they do not need to include “equity” eight different times in their cover letters. However, with the type of candidates MSU is apparently looking for, that task might be a welcome one for a prospective future employee that fits the University’s mold.

Texas child gender transition still happening despite statewide ban

Texas state laws ban doctors from giving guidance on transgender medicine and procedures on minors — but the Texas Medical Association is still doing it.

“Sometimes I even think, ‘Well, that’s behind us now.’ It’s actually not. Even here in the state of Texas because despite the fact that Texas outlawed this awful, brutal practice mutilating healthy body parts of children … there still seem to be doctors and associations that are trying to carry out this disgusting, brutal torture ritual,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”

Read more on The Blaze.

UW School of Medicine: Behavioral Health Education, or Social Justice Indoctrination?

This past September, the University of Washington School of Medicine (UW Medicine) hosted its annual “Re-Imagining Behavioral Health: Race, Equity and Social Justice Conference,” offering attendees the opportunity to earn continuing education credits. The explicit purpose of this series was “dismantling systemic oppressions” and “combating social injustice.”

The actual result was a muddled set of platitudes from its speakers that offered minimal, if any, substantive insight into behavioral health.

For example, in a talk titled “Mindful Communities: Rehumanizing Behavioral Health through Community, and Connection,” children’s mental health specialist Neerja Singh suggested that organizations “reduce administrative burdens,” and that policies should be shifted “from top-down mandates to community-driven solutions.”

It sounded promising at first—but what did it actually mean? As the conference went on, attendees were told that the healthcare system is fundamentally unequal, that racism and xenophobia are pervasive and foundational throughout healthcare. No concrete examples were given about reducing administrative burdens, and the so‑called “community‑driven solutions” were framed in the language of identity politics. Far from resembling a localized approach to improving mental health, the conference ultimately came across as a confused mix of bureaucratic social engineering that bordered on incoherence.

To begin, the first speaker presented a slide that, to put it mildly, was baffling in its intent. Titled “System We Work in Based on,” it listed several bullet points that appeared to reflect her perspective on those factors underlying the behavioral health system:

  • “Philosophy of Othering than Mutuality”
  • “Oppression on the Name of Equality”
  • “Dominant Culture is Uncomfortable with Equity”
  • “Dominant Culture’s Discomfort is Running the System”

Confused grammar and verbiage gave the impression that the presenter might not fully grasp her own message and the content itself seemed disconnected from any meaningful point. It left one wondering: What exactly was she trying to communicate?

What is the current dominant culture, and what exactly is that “discomfort” claimed to be “running the system?” How does one even measure discomfort in this context?

The lack of coherence was made clearer when viewers were introduced to a slide titled “From Control to Care: Lessons from History.” 

From UW Medicine’s “Reimaginging Behavioral Health: Race, Equity, & Social Justice Conference” (September 2025).

In this overly simplistic view of our nation’s past, participants were informed of society’s “jump” from an oppressive Elizabethan-era (complete with “public whipping”) to a modern-day utopia that includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). No explanation was provided for any of it, despite the speaker informing viewers that “knowing this history is essential to dismantle entrenched biases.”

Considering that the presenter is a psychologist and not a historian, her limited and overly simplified portrayal of the past could be forgiven. However, the overall presentation came across as disjointed and lacking in the psychological depth one would expect from a behavioral health conference, leaning heavily on advocacy at the expense of educational content.

As the conference progressed, participants were introduced to numerous unsubstantiated assertions without the backing of evidence.

Following multiple slides about the impact of culture on health, a graphic illustrating “Systemic Inequities & Barriers” declared that problems in healthcare are “not ‘just’ a clinical issue,” but a “social justice issue.” 

From UW Medicine’s “Reimaginging Behavioral Health: Race, Equity, & Social Justice Conference” (September 2025).

The continued assertions of “systemic inequities,” as we can see at the top of the slide in bold print, are done without any proof. We’re simply told there is “racism,” “ongoing discrimination,” and the like. Moreover, suggesting that professionals aren’t “culturally competent,” despite the extensive training they receive, is both factually unfounded and unduly disparaging.

Mental health providers dedicate themselves each day to serving people from all backgrounds with compassion and generosity. Their focus is on addressing the behavioral health needs of the individuals they support. They need not become the next social justice warrior, but rather strengthen their expertise and professional skills.

Nevertheless, the perspectives of the speakers—who appear more like activists themselves rather than clinicians—hold significant influence, especially when amplified through the platform of a professional conference. For attendees passionate about the field of behavioral health, such presenters often command considerable authority. This makes it all the more essential that their insights be delivered with nuance and intellectual integrity. When their messaging veers toward ideological persuasion rather than grounded, evidence-based analysis, it becomes a cause for serious concern.

It is either reckless or purposefully misleading.

Sadly, this reflects a troubling trend in the education of healthcare professionals where advocacy has taken the lead at the expense of any intellectual rigor: declare a preferred belief, then reinforce it through repetition until it gains the appearance of truth.

People with professional credentials repeatedly declare that there is structural racism, and to combat it, systems must be dismantled. The reason for restructuring the system is because there is structural racism, which is evidenced only by the fact that they said there is.

It’s a closed loop. It is also why those lecturing at UW Medicine’s conference can bring up ideas like “ethical harm through cultural invalidation” without defining what any of those terms mean. Doing so is an example of indoctrination disguised as legitimate continuing education. We need better for our behavioral health professionals and the individuals they support. 

Viewpoint with a Valence: Framing Muslim Victimhood, Ignoring Israeli Trauma

, ,

Editor’s note: This comment originally appeared as a response to the Viewpoint, “Mental Health Challenges of Muslim Populations Exposed to War and Discrimination,” published in JAMA Psychiatry.

In publishing the Viewpoint, “Mental Health Challenges of Muslim Populations Exposed to War and Discrimination,” JAMA Psychiatry has been swept into a treacherous stream of thought flowing from the Gaza war: Muslim-as-victim. The piece asserts that media coverage of the war, anti-Muslim discrimination, ‘Islamophobia,’ and racism exacerbated an “increased prevalence of anxiety and depression, and an overall deterioration in Muslim individuals’ mental health.” The implication is that ‘Islamophobia’ and Israel’s military actions are to blame.

Read the full comment at JAMA Psychiatry.

* * *

Additionally, Do No Harm members Howard Fenn, MD, and Mark Schiller, MD, offered additional insight into this Viewpoint:

Dr. Miceli’s Comment on November 6, 2025, prompted us to review the references offered to support the Viewpoint “Mental Health Challenges of Muslim Populations Exposed to War and Discrimination” published on October 1, 2025. Two examples follow:

One reference analyzed 53 peer-reviewed articles on Islamophobia, discrimination, or racism affecting Muslim populations. It found “consistent relationships” between experiences of discrimination and poor mental health among Muslims and “Muslim-like” populations across the globe, with nearly half focused on mental health of Muslims in the United States. Yet the authors note “important methodological and conceptual shortcomings” with their findings.  Definitions of ‘Islamophobia’ and/or discrimination were inconsistent across studies, without specific measures to identify these phenomena. The literature review acknowledged it did not account for confounding variables which may have influenced mental health such as loss of status, age at immigration, educational attainment, skin color, refugee status, citizenship, or gender. Even if an association between discrimination and mental distress was found, causation was not demonstrated (Samari G, et al., 2018).

Another reference described a cross-sectional on-line survey of 2635 adults in Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, or Tunisia, conducted two weeks after the October 7, 2023, massacre of Israeli civilians documented in videos by Hamas itself. The survey reported, “higher war media exposure was significantly associated with higher depression” concluding that “symptoms of stress and depression were present as early as two weeks following the beginning of the war”  (Fekih-Romdhane F, et al., 2024). No mention was made of the specific media consumed by those who completed the survey nor of any bias contained therein. In fact, on or after October 7th Arabic language coverage focused primarily on Muslims as victims. Al Jazeera, a global source of Arabic language news coverage, headlined the massacre in this way: Israel retaliation kills 230 Palestinians after Hamas operation. Al Arabiya, another widely viewed Arabic language outlet, reported upon danger to Muslims without mention of any Israeli civilians killed; its headline on Oct 10th read: “Israeli retaliation strategies post-Hamas attack heightens concerns of Gaza invasion.”

These aforementioned references exemplify a feat of journalist jiu jitsu; they reverse a horrific massacre by a terrorist group and present it as a one-sided assault by Israel on the Palestinian population. The Viewpoint published on October 1, 2025, reframes the October 7th murder of Israeli civilians into a story of global Muslim victimhood, implying Israeli responsibility. Its selective focus on a single group’s trauma reflects a deeply biased framing—a distorted approach that undermines balanced discourse and is unfit for a medical journal.

Do No Harm Sues Michigan Law Firm for Racially Discriminatory Scholarships

,

Richmond, VA; November 14 – Today, Do No Harm and the American Alliance for Equal Rights (the Alliance) filed a lawsuit against the Michigan law firm, Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C., for operating two racially discriminatory scholarship programs.

Recently, the law firm rejected scholarship applications submitted by student members of Do No Harm and the Alliance, opting instead to make awards to individuals identifying as racial minorities. The lawsuit alleges that Buckfire’s scholarships violate Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which bans racial discrimination in contracting by public and private actors.

“Racial discrimination has no place in healthcare – especially when it comes to training tomorrow’s physicians,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Students who demonstrate the highest levels of medical knowledge and expertise should be rewarded for their merit, as opposed to elevating candidates based on immutable characteristics with no bearing on qualifications. It is particularly egregious to see such a violation from a law firm, which directly violates their code of conduct and professional obligations. We are confident that the District Court will put an end to this facially discriminatory behavior. Do No Harm remains committed to rooting out divisive identity politics from medicine wherever it rears its ugly head.”

“This racially exclusive scholarship is illegal. The fact that a law firm is flagrantly discriminating against certain individuals because of their race is flabbergasting,” said Edward Blum, President of the American Alliance for Equal Rights. “The goal of this lawsuit is not to eliminate Buckfire’s scholarships but to ensure they are based on legitimate criteria, such as financial need or merit, rather than race. There are many deserving students from all races and ethnicities who need help affording law and medical school. Excluding some of them because of their race is unfair and unlawful.”

Background:

  • The programs in question are the “Medical Diversity Scholarship” and the “Law School Diversity Scholarship,” both of which award a $2,000 scholarship to one recipient each year.
  • The scholarships require applicants to be “a member of an ethnic, racial, or other minority”; otherwise, applicants must  “demonstrate[] a defined commitment to issues of diversity within their community.” The application also involves completing an online form and submitting a “one-page typed essay describing how you have utilized your time promoting ethnic diversity within your community.”
  • The Buckfire law firm has operated its racially discriminatory program since 2014, despite mandated professional and ethical rules that hold lawyers to a high bar to “assur[e] equal treatment for all.” Over this decade-plus period, Buckfire has awarded scholarships to 25 students. None were white.

Read the full complaint 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. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.

Obamacare Didn’t Fail — It’s Working Exactly As Intended

I’m old enough to remember when the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) passed. It was 2010, and I had just joined Twitter the previous fall while I was on maternity leave following the birth of my second son. That means I recall exactly how Obamacare’s passage unfolded.

It was forced on an unwilling American people by the Democrats, who shoved it through Congress without a single Republican vote. Many people, myself included, warned it was a bait-and-switch scheme that wouldn’t lower healthcare costs but would usher in single-payer socialized medicine.

Read more on Townhall.

The Perils of Reductionism

,

In their article, “Neighborhood Social Vulnerability and Racial Disparities in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder Prevalence,” Deidre Anglin and colleagues posit that disparities in schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) between the black population and non-Hispanic whites are explained by structural racism.[1] The claim is made with generalities, broadly referencing “racially inequitable policies” related to housing, education, and economic structures. Doing so unfortunately fulfills an ideologically one-sided narrative that diverts attention from medically actionable practices such as prenatal care during pregnancy and psychiatric treatment for substance use disorders. 

More specifically, in outlining “racially inequitable policies,” Anglin and colleagues reference unsubstantiated claims like “police victimization,” including two footnotes which provide no evidence linking such to the development of SSDs. They also offer a series of risk factors, including “childhood trauma, prenatal and perinatal complications induced by stress in mothers, and chronic environmental stress.” While we take no issue with exploring these variables, the connection to “structural racism” itself is not established. 

Despite this lack of clarity, the authors are quick to collect any contributor to population differences within the construct of “structural racism.” This preoccupation with a singular, overarching explanation for disease also adds a political valence to the discussion. In doing so, the authors overlook additional researchable risk factors, some of which are modifiable, including: parental age, low birth weight, obstetric complications, maternal malnutrition, maternal infections, brain structural abnormalities, and cannabis use – all of which have been related to SSDs.[2]

This study feeds a divisive narrative that neither encourages individual agency nor examines critical non-racial factors that contribute to the formation of SSDs. Its  conclusions misguide public health efforts and limit the development of targeted interventions that could address the complex interplay of genetic, behavioral, and environmental influences on mental health. Should we follow this reductionist presumption for the etiology of SSDs, we will be limiting rational and scientifically sound medical care for many individuals.

References

[1] Anglin D, et al. Neighborhood Social Vulnerability and Racial Disparities in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder Prevalence. Am J Psychiatry. 2025 Sep;182(9):850-860. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20240906.

[2] Schmitt A, Falkai P, Papiol S. Neurodevelopmental disturbances in schizophrenia: evidence from genetic and environmental factors. J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2023 Mar;130(3):195-205. doi: 10.1007/s00702-022-02567-5. Epub 2022 Nov 12. PMID: 36370183; PMCID: PMC9660136.

Dustup at Washington State University Underscores the Politicization of Continuing Medical Education

, , ,

Continuing Medical Education (CME) is a requirement for maintaining a medical license and is meant to promote professional growth and improve patient care. In practice, a recent dust-up at a Washington medical school reveals that it has become yet another vehicle for injecting and enforcing far-left ideological orthodoxies into American medicine.

Washington State University’s medical school took the commendable step of providing access to CME courses developed by the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine, a nonprofit that aspires to bring reason, rigor, and healthy skepticism into debates about so-called “gender affirming care” for minors. 

Unfortunately that decision drew the attention and ire of transgender activists as well as the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the organization tasked with determining which entities can provide continuing medical education. Recently, the ACCME initiated an investigation into WSU’s vetting of SEGM courses and ordered them to pull those courses even before the investigation concludes. 

While skeptics of pediatric sex changes are scrutinized by the ACCME, those who toe the line for transgender activists appear to enjoy full autonomy. 

A module provided by the American Medical Association claims that “Access to gender-affirming care is associated with increased quality of life and decreased rates of self-harm…in transgender adults and youth” and that “For some, gender-affirming surgery may be the only effective treatment.” The module fails to note that the evidence used to support these claims is weak and has a high risk of bias, the precise problems that health authorities in the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland acknowledged in their u-turn on pediatric sex changes.

Meanwhile, the AMA doesn’t feature a single module dedicated to understanding the significant risks of “gender-affirming care.” At best, some courses mention risks in passing. There is just one lone module on detransitioning, compared to 22 modules that mention “gender-affirming care,” which flies in the face of “giving a fair and balanced view of diagnostic and therapeutic options.”

Standard 1 in ACCME’s accreditation requirements is “Ensure Content is Valid,” and mandates that “recommendations for patient care…must be based on current science, evidence, and clinical reasoning, while giving a fair and balanced view of diagnostic and therapeutic options.” Meanwhile, the Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education are supposed to “present learners with only accurate, balanced, scientifically justified recommendations.” In practice, it’s clear that ACCME “standards” are wielded as political cudgels and not mechanisms for rigorous, apolitical gatekeeping. 

The problem doesn’t appear to be unique to transgender issues. In a module on the American Medical Association’s website entitled ‘Five Ways Health Care Can Be Better for Fat People,’ sociologist Kristen A. Hardy, who does not hold a medical degree, writes, “Medical or surgical treatments that intentionally attempt to manipulate body weight should not be offered and should be recognized as manifestations of a biased (and racist) cultural mindset…”

There is no attempt in this article to find balance, alternative viewpoints, or scientific justification. Instead, it privileges “cultural mindset” over actual science. This shouldn’t come as a surprise; ACCME’s Strategic Goals for 2022 – 2026 call for “incorporating the issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion into all aspects of accredited education.” Regrettably, this has only exacerbated political agendas permeating medical education. 

While CME holds promise for advancing medical care, we must demand that the ACCME uphold their standards of “only accurate, balanced, scientifically justified recommendations,” lest we waste doctors’ valuable time, contribute to their indoctrination or—much worse—risk harming patients.

Do No Harm Notches Legal Victory After HHS Scraps Discriminatory Biden-Era Rule

RICHMOND, VA; November 10, 2025 – Do No Harm achieved another significant legal victory after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reversed a Biden-era regulation that offered higher federal payments for physicians who implement an “anti-racism” plan. Aimed at treating broad societal disparities regardless of their cause, the “anti-racism” rule encouraged doctors to use race as a primary factor in care over individualized medical treatment.

In 2022, Do No Harm took issue with the rule, supporting a lawsuit against the Biden administration’s HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Chiquita Brooks-Lasure. Specifically, the lawsuit argued that CMS’s adoption of the “anti-racism” rule unlawfully exceeded the agency’s permissible authority under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA).

Following the Trump administration’s reconsideration of its position in the case, CMS removed the challenged racial equity provisions in a new final rule published on November 5, 2025.

“Do No Harm applauds HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz for undoing the unscientific and discriminatory Biden-era rule,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman at Do No Harm. “While masquerading under the misleading ‘anti-racist’ moniker, in practice, these policies injected race-based decision making into the doctor-patient relationship. Such racial discrimination has no place in healthcare. By prioritizing evidence-based policies, HHS is working to rebuild public trust in our medical system.”

Additional Details:

  • The case was brought by a Do No Harm Visiting Fellow, Dr. Amber Colville, and a group of states.
  • Given CMS’s new rule removing the challenged racial equity provisions, the lawsuit is expected to be voluntarily concluded in the coming weeks.

Click here to read the original complaint.

Click here to read the new rule.

###

Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.

The Unfortunate March to Wokeness by March of Dimes

Continuing education modules in medicine may, at times, reveal the ideological goals of the organization hosting them. The March of Dimes (MoD), a nonprofit originally founded to combat polio, and now ostensibly devoted to maternal and infant health, is no exception.

In its course titled “Awareness to Action: Dismantling Bias in Maternal and Infant Healthcare®,” MoD finds a way to include as much wokeness as it possibly can. From the beginning, one of its four goals is to “Explain how structural racism has played a key role in shaping care settings within the U.S. and contributes to implicit biases in patient/provider encounters.”

This trope is all too familiar at this point, but deserves pointing out again: simply saying “structural racism” over and over does not make it real, even though the curriculum writers claim it is. 

Do they make any attempt to prove this assertion?

Within the context of “structural racism,” several slides are shared by MoD focusing on the disparity between black and white maternal mortality, yet their own graphs do not offer the full context, and they do not back up the implied connection between disparities and “structural racism.” 

As Do No Harm reported three years ago, a data set of 800 people out of over 3.5 million births is too small to draw society-wide conclusions, especially when the CDC data and research demonstrates that many of these deaths were not as preventable as is often claimed.

To be clear, even a single death of a pregnant woman is one too many. But the overwhelming majority of women survive motherhood, and highlighting the extremely rare instances of maternal death does not, in itself, indicate an inherent problem with the way society functions.

In other words, simply showing a disparity between racial groups does not prove claims of “structural racism,” especially when such analyses fail to account for medical co-morbidities and other contributing factors in maternal mortality. For example, Do No Harm reported on a detailed study by the CDC showing that 42% of deaths related to pregnancy were not preventable, having to do with conditions such as cardiovascular disease and pulmonary embolism. Other contributing factors, such as hypertension and kidney disease, are often genetic.

These facts are conveniently left out of the presentation shared by MoD.

The course continues with a distinction between equality and equity, stating:

Equality

Treating everyone the same, no matter where they’re starting from or whether outcomes remain unequal. Equality has to do with giving everyone the exact same resources.

Equity

Equity involves distributing resources based on the needs of the recipients.

To that end, MoD pushes learners to “establish a culture of equity” as another one of its educational objectives. This drive for equity – instead of equality – rests on the unproven premise that there is continuing “structural racism” throughout healthcare.  And, consequently some people must be treated more favorably than others based on their identity. 

Another word for this is discrimination.

Offering terms like equality and equity in this way, and defining them as they do, demonstrates a desire to turn medical professionals into social justice warriors rather than improve their skills as healthcare providers. 

Moving on to a section titled “Implication of Bias,” we are told:

Bias can influence behaviors and actions that are discriminatory. When these behaviors and actions are consistently repeated without being interrupted, it can lead to inequitable practices on a systemic and structural level. As you continue with this learning activity, you will learn more about the impact of structural racism in care settings and research.

Structural racism is a key driver of unequal outcomes for people of color in the United States. It has resulted in political and economic setbacks especially among Indigenous and Black populations. It also contributes to health disparities among these groups.

First, it does not follow that ‘structural racism’ is the chief cause of racial disparities because of the false claim that healthcare professionals have unconscious biases that ‘can’ influence their behaviors. But more importantly, the notion that implicit bias predicts real-world behaviors, much less health outcomes, is simply false and has been repeatedly debunked.

In popular terminology, this is called a bait-and-switch. We are told that bias can influence behaviors and actions, but then again assured that “structural racism” is foundational to the way healthcare operates.

Structural racism is the historical, cultural, social, psychological, and legal system of racial bias across society and institutions that disadvantage certain racial groups.

The claim that “structural racism” drives maternal mortality disparities is bold and far-reaching, yet the mechanism behind it is never clearly explained or supported by evidence.

To bolster this, we are given examples of Dr. James Marion Sims operating on women of color (in the mid-1800s, which MoD conveniently leaves out) and Puerto Rican women taking part in high-dose hormonal contraceptives studies (more than half a century ago), as if these stories prove their point. 

How might isolated historical references demonstrate “structural racism”? While we certainly want to appreciate past events for what they are – acknowledging wrongdoings while simultaneously also understanding them in historical context – citing a 19th-century surgeon  and unethical studies from the 1950s is hardly sufficient evidence to label the modern healthcare system as fundamentally racist. To state that their evidence is cherry-picked would be too kind.

From here, the class moves further towards promoting political activism. Section titles such as “Race Forward: Framework for advancing racial equity in the federal government” point directly toward a goal that goes well beyond the scope of maternal care by, once again, attempting to turn medical professionals into social justice warriors. 

If the goal were truly scientific education, then MoD’s class would provide evidence-based information, not ideological rhetoric that shifts focus from patient care to political advocacy.

For those truly focused on improving maternal care a “framework for advancing racial equity in the federal government” is simply unnecessary – unless the goal is to prioritize ideology over the actions that can be taken to mitigate medical co-morbidities and improve access to care.

Yet, this focus on advocacy shouldn’t come as a surprise. Throughout the course MoD can’t even use the term “mothers.” Instead, it opts for phrases like “birthing people” or “people with uteruses,” demonstrating far more concern for being woke than maternal health. 

It’s disheartening to witness a once-respected organization like the March of Dimes shift so drastically toward political advocacy. Sadly, this course – led by so-called professionals in maternal and infant health – offers little more than an attempt at ideological indoctrination. Instead of providing clear, evidence-based medical guidance to support mothers as they bring new life into the world, it delivers confusing, politically charged messaging that undermines its stated purpose.

Medical College of Wisconsin Subjects Students to DEI Workshop

In early October, the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW) subjected medical students to a workshop aimed at inculcating students into the DEI ideology.

The “Race Matters Workshop” was included in MCW’s “The Good Doctor” course, which is intended to instruct students on professionalism, ethics, and other soft skills in the medical workplace.

According to a description of the workshop obtained by Do No Harm, its learning objectives are replete with references to DEI and implicit bias. These objectives make clear that medical students are expected to agree with the premises of radical identity politics.

For instance, one objective is that students “[d]emonstrate knowledge of inherent biases and how they affect the way we interact with patients and advocate for them.”

There is no evidence that “implicit biases” explain racial health disparities, and the tests used to evaluate implicit bias fail to meet widely-accepted standards of reliability and validity.

For instance, a 2013 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that Implicit Association Tests (IATs) were “poor predictors” of real-world bias and discrimination.

Nevertheless, other course objectives include: “Describe the role that providers have in addressing racism as a health issue in clinic settings and discuss some of the challenges and barriers faced when doing so”; and “Discuss ways that participants can be the voice for patients who are affected by health disparities created by racism.”

To be clear, it is not the role of a medical provider to serve as an activist; a physician’s goal is to provide the best possible care to his or her patients. 

Moreover, redefining the responsibilities and mission of healthcare professionals so that they moonlight as “racism ombudsmen” is harmful and naturally politicizes the workplace. It erodes trust, creating a presumption that healthcare is inherently racist, and encourages healthcare professionals to adopt the premises of political ideology. It encourages providers to be on the hunt for structural boogeymen rather than focusing on promoting the good health of individual patients.

Additionally, the workshop asks students to read a resolution from the Wisconsin Public Health Association (WPHA) declaring that “Racism is a Public Health Crisis.”

The resolution states that “public health’s responsibilities to address racism include reshaping our discourse and agenda so that we all actively engage in racial justice work.”

Additionally, the resolution commits the WPHA to “creat[ing] an equity and justice oriented organization” and “identifying specific activities to increase diversity and to incorporate antiracism principles across WPHA membership, leadership, staffing and contracting.”

Other commitments include: “Advocat[ing] for relevant policies that improve health in communities of color, and supports local, state, and federal initiatives that advance social justice.”

This resolution is presumably the MCW’s model for its students: promoting DEI in the workplace, including through discriminatory means, and engaging in political activism.

But that’s not all.

According to the workshop’s agenda, students were then subjected to various DEI-related activities. 

These included a video titled “Allegories on Racism,” as well as a quiz on “equity/diversity awareness.”

In sum, it’s clear that MCW is intent on injecting radical identity politics into its curriculum.

This is not the function of medical education, pure and simple. MCW should focus on educating the best possible physicians, not training the next generation of radical activists.

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Hosts DEI Activism Discussion

Earlier this year, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) hosted a discussion overviewing recent laws restricting DEI – and discussing strategies to skirt these new policies. SAEM is a membership organization representing clinicians, educators, students, and others involved in academic emergency medicine.

The discussion, titled “Shhh! Don’t Say DEI: An Open Dialogue to Address DEI in Academic Emergency Medicine” focused on the impact of legislation, litigation, and other efforts that prevent medical schools from engaging in discriminatory behavior. 

According to the video description, the goals of the event included: “discuss strategies used by residencies that successfully maintained or expanded DEI efforts despite opposition”; “discuss approaches to creating psychologically safe spaces for trainees to discuss DEI concerns”; and “discuss collaborative ways to sustain DEI work in the face of institutional and political challenges.”

In other words, the discussion would focus on ways in which medical schools could continue DEI activities despite recent legislation, executive orders, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard that race-based admissions are unconstitutional.

Although the speakers identified themselves at the start of the discussion, due to the audio quality of the recording coupled with Do No Harm’s interest in accuracy, Do No Harm has refrained from attributing specific quotes to individual speakers.

The discussion began with an ostensible justification for DEI in medical education: the theory that racial concordance – when patients are treated by physicians of the same race – improves health outcomes. 

“It’s known that whenever you have a patient and a provider and they look similar or they share an identity characteristic, something really powerful happens,” one of the speakers began.

“And it’s not just about these behavioral changes; it’s literally about survival,” the speaker continued. “So, black newborns are more than twice as likely to survive whenever they are cared for by a black physician. It also increases lifespan.”

First, the argument that racial concordance improves health outcomes is not supported by the existing evidence. As Do No Harm’s own research has shown, five out of six systematic reviews find that racial concordance has no impact on health outcomes

Second, the claim referring to black newborn mortality appears to be referring to a long-debunked study, “Physician–patient racial concordance and disparities in birthing mortality for newborns,” which found no race concordant effect when the proper controls were applied.

Nevertheless, the speaker repeats arguments for racial concordance further on in the video, arguing that DEI programming and a more diverse student body contribute to better health outcomes. 

“So, it is known that at med schools where they have more DEI programming, that the student body is more diverse,” the speaker said. “We already showed, diverse student body, diverse physicians; better patient outcomes, better science.”

Again, the premise of this argument is the notion that minority patients receive better care when treated by physicians of the same race.

This is simply false.

Further in the discussion, another speaker discusses “anti-DEI” litigation and legislation, explicitly mentioning efforts by Do No Harm. 

The speaker mentions Do No Harm’s ongoing effort to challenge California’s law requiring all continuing medical education (CME) courses involving direct patient care to include implicit bias training.

Next, the speaker refers to litigation challenging state laws requiring that medical boards contain racial minorities. Do No Harm sued Tennessee over its racial quota law, and dismissed its lawsuit after Tennessee passed legislation removing the discriminatory requirement.

Racial quotas, by definition, prioritize innate characteristics over aptitude and merit. Medical boards cannot properly safeguard public health when membership is based on the color of board members’ skin over medical expertise. Moreover, treating people differently on the basis of race violates the very notion of equality before the law.

“California currently has AB241, which is a requirement that all physicians, in order to be recertified every two years, have to undergo one single hour of implicit bias training,” the speaker said. “However, a group of doctors, and also the nonprofit Do No Harm […] are actually suing the California medical board to get that requirement removed.”

In actuality, the law requires that all CME include implicit bias training; a far cry from one single hour. To be clear, there is no evidence supporting the claim that these perceived “biases” have any impact on real-world health outcomes.

The final part of the discussion centered on strategies medical schools could take to continue implementing DEI and achieving diversity goals. 

These included “local outreach” and “holistic review,” in which schools de-emphasize the metrics that should determine admission to medical school (e.g., GPA and MCAT scores) and place greater focus on other non-merit-related factors such as socioeconomic background or personality traits.

One speaker noted that these strategies could further diversity goals, with personal statements by applicants used as a proxy for determining their “diverse” status.

As the speaker put it, medical school admissions departments are “placing more of an emphasis and more points on personal statements in the prompts and how people answer questions, how they do in interviews, and so forth.”

The speaker later discussed strategies that emergency medicine departments in medical schools are employing to deal with DEI bans, including scrubbing websites to remove mentions of DEI.

In short, SAEM should not be agitating against efforts to remove divisive, discriminatory practices and policies from medical education.

Eliminating these discriminatory abuses is necessary to promote excellence and merit in the medical field.

New Do No Harm Report Exposes How Parents Are Being Denied Access to Children’s Medical Records

,

RICHMOND, VA; October 28, 2025 — Today, medical watchdog Do No Harm released a new report exposing how prominent medical systems and providers use electronic healthcare records (EHRs) to restrict parental access to children’s medical records, enabling providers to hide aspects of pediatric medical transition from parents.

The report, “Parental Access to Their Children’s Medical Records is Under Attack,” reveals how woke medical systems are limiting parents’ “proxy” access to their children’s medical records. These include restrictions that have been extended well beyond the limits of the law, thereby opening the door for hospitals to push a harmful gender ideology and sex change interventions on children.

“There is a heavy responsibility linked to medical decision making, one that children are not equipped to bear alone—nor should they,” said Kurt Miceli, MD, Medical Director of Do No Harm. “Our report calls out the policies, systems, and proxy configurations that put children directly in harm’s way by removing parental protection. The Privacy Law does not permit, nor is it intended to remove lawful parental access during their child’s developmental years. We are calling upon our colleagues in healthcare, to remember that their first and most important commitment is to do no harm, and to stop putting children at great risk during an age of confusion and vulnerability, particularly when they lack full cognitive maturity.”

“The Epic-Oracle duopoly provides the framework for activist physicians to funnel minors into the gender cult without parental knowledge or consent,” said Michelle Havrilla, CRNP, Director of Programs of Do No Harm. “From doctors asking kids about their sexuality to parents being blocked from their child’s medical decisions, transgender politics are increasingly pushed on children—and EHR companies design the systems that enable and sometimes encourage this. This report should be a wake-up call to legislators and medical professionals across the country: empower parents, protect kids, fix the system.”

Main Takeaways from the Report:

  • Epic, the most used electronic health record system, holds 41% of the US hospital EHR market. Oracle is the second most used system and holds 22% of the market.
  • Both systems embed gender ideology within their functionality by asking patients their preferred pronouns, sex “assigned” at birth, and gender identity.
  • EHR companies across the country are recommending the ages at which parents’ “proxy” access might be removed or limited due to their own understanding of how federal and state legislation guarantees privacy rights for children.
  • For instance, Oracle Health uses 13 as the default protected status age, enabling minors to be influenced by gender ideology without the knowledge of their parents.
  • Health systems in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Washington State all exhibit evidence of limiting parents’ medical record access. Children as young as 12 have independent access and control over their medical records.
  • In Florida and Oregon, health systems ask parents of toddlers to fill out surveys asking for their child’s “sex at birth,” “preferred pronouns,” and their “internal sense of self.”

Read 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. It has over 50,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries. 

Eating Disorder Organization Pushes Gender Ideology on Minors

Individuals with eating disorders, especially those who are not yet adults, often struggle with the psychological complexities of anxiety, depression, and body image. It is therefore particularly worrying that a group would impose a dangerous ideology onto a child who is psychologically and physically suffering. 

And yet, that appears to be what is happening at the Eating Recovery Center (ERC), a nationwide eating disorder treatment center with numerous facilities and a great deal of online resources.

Although ERC’s website appears to be geared towards eating disorders, it only takes one click to find the following page, titled “Supporting Trans People with Eating Disorders: A Guide for Providers.”

This header appears cleverly crafted. There is a noticeable difference between these words on the webpage and the actual URL, which ends with “family-based-treatment-for-trans-youth-with-eating disorders [emphasis ours].”

The headline hides what the rest of the page explicitly says – namely, that the content is primarily centered on youth. 

To begin, ERC centers its care around the so-called “gender-affirming” model. It endorses the “right to be affirmed” and the right to “receive gender-affirming medical care and gender-affirming mental health care. Full stop.”

It continues:

Eating disorders in transgender teens

First, let’s talk about trans youth. Adolescence is a time of blossoming gender identity and expression…For trans youth, when the body image doesn’t quite line up with who they want to portray in the world, like when a trans male begins to grow larger hips and breasts, gender dysphoria can arise. And it is extremely painful.

An organization that ostensibly seeks to treat eating disorders should not be rushing to “affirm” the self-professed gender of a distressed child; doing so pushes children onto the transgender medicalization pathway and encourages further harmful interventions. This is important, given the ERC’s explicit advice:

As eating disorder professionals, we must ask ourselves if the person we see in our office has a true eating disorder or sub-threshold eating disorder behaviors that are intended to increase acceptance and affirmation as their identified gender. Is the eating disorder about losing weight or is it about aligning with one’s identified gender?

This poses a serious concern: why does ERC advocate for “affirming” a youth’s gender identity, yet encourage scrutiny of an eating disorder to determine if it might be masking gender dysphoria?

Could ERC’s approach suggest to a patient that his or her eating disorder might stem from being transgender?

As concerning as this sounds (and also being at odds with solid, medically-based mental health care), there is solid reason to believe ERC is doing exactly that. Consider the following from the same page:

Benefits of gender-affirming treatment for trans individuals

Here’s one of our favorite data pieces to share.

When trans individuals take part in gender-affirming gender reassignment and gender dysphoria treatment, there is often a reduction in eating disorder behaviors. When one’s gender is affirmed and gender dysphoria is reduced, eating disorder symptoms decrease.

Isn’t that amazing? Treating underlying gender dysphoria is critical to supporting the health of transgender individuals, and this is supported by the data.[10, 11] By starting hormone treatment and gender-affirming surgery, body dissatisfaction decreases along with eating disorder symptoms.

First, the claims here are dubious.

Large-scale analyses such as the Cass Review and the Department of Health and Human Services’ “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices” demonstrate that the evidence supporting so-called “gender-affirming care” to treat sex-confused children is greatly lacking.

Second, the way in which ERC makes these claims (“Isn’t that amazing?”) indicates an almost cheerleader-like endorsement of gender ideology. It’s as though ERC is so committed to the so-called “gender-affirming” approach that it resists even entertaining the possibility of an alternative being valid.

And is ERC so intent on this being true that the idea is suggested to patients when it may not even be a relevant clinical consideration? Imagine what that would do to a young mind.

But then ERC reveals its position by explicitly admitting that it’s doing exactly that:

Screen all patients with gender dysphoria for eating disorders and vice versa

Further, every patient you talk to who has gender dysphoria should be screened for eating disorders. Every patient you see for an eating disorder should be asked about gender dysphoria.

An example of a question that you might consider asking would be, “From head to toe, what do you like/not like about your gender?”

For the record, screening for co-morbid psychiatric disorders and conditions is perfectly acceptable. Pushing gender ideology onto children through that process is not.

As if that were not enough to be appalled at the actions of ERC, it gets worse. In the section on the same page titled “Family-based treatment for trans youth with eating disorders,” ERC informs readers:

Here at Eating Recovery Center, we believe, and research has indicated, that the core tenets of family-based treatment (FBT) are essential to helping people recover from eating disorders. When it comes to trans youth, however, we must be cautious. We cannot assume that trans teens are fully supported by their family. We cannot assume that families will affirm their child’s preferred gender, name, and pronouns. If the trans patient does not feel affirmed, respected, and seen, they may struggle to do hard work with their family of origin in a family therapy setting and eating disorder recovery may stall.

Creating a warm and accepting environment in treatment is an essential component to support recovery.

For FBT and Emotion-Focused Family Therapy (EFFT) to work, the family must be in a place where healing can occur. Keep the options open for trans patients to work with a “family of choice” if their “family of origin” is not affirming because, while we do put some individual life activities on hold during treatment, we don’t want to put a patient’s gender development on hold [emphasis ours].

This comes across as painting the family of the patient as a potential enemy – or just plain ignorant. ERC is sending a message here that starts with an assumption that many parents are not acting in their children’s best interests.

Is ERC suggesting that it is better equipped to serve as a parent than the actual parents themselves? Does ERC truly believe that a child’s family should effectively be “replaced” simply because the parents question immediate “affirmation?”

By this model, it is de facto decided before you even arrive that if you question ERC, you are harming your own child.

This isn’t treatment based in science. It’s more akin to the power of suggestion used at an illusionist’s show, except in this case, the audience is the minds of our youth. 

Rather than relying on fleeting social trends or unproven theories, ERC should stop promoting gender ideology on kids when the evidence simply isn’t there. Children struggling with legitimate problems deserve better. 

Texas health system faces racial discrimination civil rights complaint

,

Medical group Do No Harm filed a federal civil rights complaint against a Texas healthcare system for using “racially discriminatory criteria” when selecting its vendors, some stipulations being that a vendor must be minority- or woman-owned.

Do No Harm’s medical director Kurt Miceli told The Center Square: “By using racially discriminatory criteria to select vendors, JPS Health Network is depriving well-deserving businesses of a fair opportunity to contract with the health system.”

“Such unjust criteria damage the integrity of the medical field and promote a culture of mediocrity in this critical industry,” Miceli said.

Read the full story at The Center Square.