Harvard,Medical,School,At,A,Distance

When Harvard Medical School Started To Go Wrong

This week, Do No Harm is launching a major advertising campaign around Harvard Medical School’s graduation. We’re shining a light on the school’s dangerous slide toward woke ideology. So it’s worth asking: When did America’s most prestigious medical school turn toward division and discrimination?

A big part of the answer can be found in the school’s “Task Force on Diversity and Inclusion Report.” Released in 2020, the document is breathtaking in its embrace of identity politics. The report lays out a comprehensive plan to make woke ideology central to the school’s work. That includes wholesale changes to student and faculty recruitment, the promotion of faculty and administrators, and the entire infrastructure of Harvard Medical School and its affiliated hospitals and research institutions. 

To start, the plan calls for a dramatic expansion of “the frequency, quality, impact, and reach of current unconscious bias training” for faculty. That includes “greater and regular re-engagement” to ensure that faculty are constantly forced to “discuss and learn about unconscious bias and microaggression.” It also calls for the school to “support efforts” focused specifically on “social justice,” while making race, not merit, a key consideration in the students it recruits. 

The plan also urges the school to create “protected time for diversity-related work” (meaning less time for medical education and research) as well as “financial support for programs that directly address diversity, inclusion and belonging strategic priorities.” It also demands “official groups and committees focused on monitoring diversity efforts” school-wide. Practically speaking, that means a vast bureaucracy charged with forcing ideology on students, faculty, and beyond.

The report even attacks Harvard Medical School’s home city. It says Boston is a “deterrent” to its diversity goals because the city “has had a history of being viewed as racist and noninclusive.” Boston residents may be interested to know what Harvard Medical School thinks about them – and how this flagship institution has a plan to let divisive political activism crowd out real medical education.

Harvard Medical School also has launched an “anti-racism initiative,” which embeds discriminatory ideology in student admissions, faculty advancement, and the school’s curricula. One of Harvard Medical School’s teaching hospitals, Brigham and Women’s, has announced it will use race as a factor in determining who receives access to certain medical care. Residency programs have deliberately lowered standards in the name of diversity. Professors have backed reparations as a form of “medical restitution.” Harvard has pushed “unconscious bias training” on employees and students. Numerous other examples of HMS’ embrace of divisive ideologies and practices can be found here. 

Watch our recent video that discusses why this is such an important issue:

Our campaign calls these actions what they really are: Unacceptable and dangerous. And it calls on graduates, faculty, employees, and affiliates to help us draw attention to what Harvard Medical School is doing.

If you’ve seen radical ideology corrupt Harvard Medical School – or any other medical school or teaching institution – let us know immediately. We want to hear your story and help you fight back.

DNH_ContentCards_PressRelease

Do No Harm Applauds Rep. Palmer’s Fight Against Anti-Racism Plans In Healthcare

Do No Harm, a diverse group of physicians, healthcare professionals, medical students, patients, and policymakers working to prevent the woke takeover of our healthcare system, praised Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL) for introducing today the Prevent Racism in Medicare Act. If passed, the bill would revoke the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)’s new policy of financially rewarding doctors who adopt “anti-racism plans” that discriminate against patients on the basis of their race.

This legislation follows a recent lawsuit filed by Dr. Ralph Alvarado and Dr. Amber Colville, supported by Do No Harm, against HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Chiquita Brooks-Lasureor. The suit accuses Becerra and Brooks-Lasureor of violating the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) by creating a financial rewards system that incentivizes doctors to engage in racial discrimination. 


Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman of Do No Harm, said:

“Congressman Palmer and his colleagues are protecting the American healthcare system. Their bill would stop the Biden administration’s dangerous effort to force divisive and discriminatory ideas into the doctor-patient relationship. The White House should be trying to make healthcare more accessible for all, not pushing doctors to prioritize some patients over others based on skin color. Identity politics has no place in medicine — and Congress has the right and the duty to protect us from these destructive policies.”

About Do No Harm:

Do No Harm is a non-partisan non-profit rallying physicians and patients to stop a radical, divisive takeover of healthcare. Do No Harm believes in medical fairness, equal access, and individualized treatment for every patient, without exception.

Hands,Of,A,Female,Doctor,Holding,A,Medical,Journal,In

Yes, Medical Journals Are Going Woke

Since Do No Harm launched in April, the biggest backers of woke healthcare have responded by denying their radical intentions – and even hiding their divisive and discriminatory actions. Now one of the most prominent medical journals, Health Affairs, is trying the same trick.

In April, our chairman, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, called out medical journals for being “complicit in the crusade” to embed identity politics and other woke ideas into healthcare. On May 15th, Health Affairs’ editor-in-chief emailed the following to Dr. Goldfarb:

Dear Dr. Goldfarb:

I read your WSJ editorial of April 18, 2022, with interest. In it, after referencing Health Affairs, you make the following statement: “They’re also bringing race and other nonacademic factors into the peer-review process, threatening the scientific analysis on which physician practice and patient health depend.” I wonder if you could provide me with any evidence to support this claim.

Sincerely,
Alan Weil
Health Affairs
Editor-in-Chief
he/him

This email is remarkable. It completely ignores a recent Health Affairs article authored by the editor-in-chief himself: “Tracking Author Demographics to Increase Equitable Participation.” Dr. Goldfarb reminded Mr. Weil of his piece in an email response.

The article states that Health Affairs now “require[s] authors and reviewers to respond to questions about their race, ethnicity, and gender.” It will use this information to, among other things, select “peer reviewers for certain papers and ensur[e] diversity in specific activities, including commissioned writing, events, content planning, and fellowship opportunities.”

Using race, ethnicity, and gender to commission writing, select peer reviewers, and offer fellowships is the definition of “bringing race and other nonacademic factors into the peer-review process.” Furthermore, it detracts from medical journals’ mission of publishing the best research, which is becoming a secondary goal after “diversity.” 

Physicians and patients alike will suffer from the ideological corruption of medical journals. It’s disturbing that Health Affairs’ leadership has either forgotten what it’s doing or doesn’t want to admit it.

DNH_IU4

Do No Harm Is Fighting This Medical School’s Woke Mandate

The Indiana University School of Medicine is planning to force professors to prove how woke they are. It recently proposed “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Standards” that will determine who gets promoted or tenure on the school’s faculty. These standards have nothing to do with medicine and everything to do with radical ideology.

On May 14th, Do No Harm submitted an official comment letter to IUSM’s Faculty Steering Committee, which is pushing this mandate. In the letter, our chairman, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, describes the damage this policy would do to the faculty:

“Forcing candidates to declare their support for DEI when so many of them undoubtedly oppose it would compel dishonesty. Forcing candidates to show a track record of involvement in DEI would compel participation in and allegiance to a belief system. All of this is deeply illiberal and violates IUSM’s own professed commitment to academic freedom.“

He also points out this policy will lead to discrimination at IUSM:

“Additionally, the standards will incentivize faculty to engage in racial discrimination in who they hire, promote, mentor, and to whom they provide scholarships and grants. Similar standards at other institutions have directly led to discrimination.”

Dr. Goldfarb concludes:

“If you proceed with these standards, the IU School of Medicine will suffer. You will harm IUSM’s reputation for apolitical excellence. You will stifle your faculty’s ability to teach and research at the highest level. Most disturbingly, you will worsen the education on which your students depend, hurting their careers and the patients they will soon serve.”

“I am sure the people of Indiana, whose tax dollars fund the IU School of Medicine, and their elected representatives would not support the ideological corruption of the state’s leading medical school.”

Are you a professor or student at a medical school with a similarly divisive policy? Let us know and we’ll help you fight back.

DNH-IU-letterDownload HERE
DNH_ContentCards_PressRelease

The Vast Majority Of Americans Are Not In Favor Of Woke Takeover Of Medicine

Few Believe in the Efficacy of Social Justice Policies in Healthcare

A Do No Harm poll, conducted by Marist, found most Americans do not believe reducing reliance on medical entrance exams for medical school would improve care. Most believe woke hospital policies designed to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion will not improve their healthcare. 

The highlights of the poll were: 

  • Only 27% think reducing the importance of medical entrance exams for medical schools would improve health care.
  • Only 33% believe that having Medicare pay more to medical professionals who provide race-based healthcare would improve healthcare. 
  • Only 28% believe elevating race or ethnicity as a more significant risk factor over medical history in determining the type of treatment prescribed for patients would improve healthcare. 

“Americans reject the radical, divisive and discriminatory ideology injected into the medical profession,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chairman, Do No Harm. “Physicians and patients will suffer if they are force-fed such extremism. Let’s call this what it is: dangerous and un-American.” 

For more information and future updates about Do No Harm, visit their website at www.donoharmmedicine.org and follow them on Twitter.

ABOUT DO NO HARM: 

Do No Harm is a non-partisan non-profit rallying physicians and patients to stop a radical, divisive takeover of healthcare. Do No Harm believes in medical fairness, equal access, and individualized treatment for every patient, without exception.

Do No Harm National Survey, April 2022

This survey of 1,377 adults was conducted April 19th through April 26th, 2022 by the Marist Poll sponsored on behalf of Do No Harm. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the United States were contacted on landline or mobile numbers and interviewed by telephone using live interviewers. Survey questions were available in English or Spanish. Mobile telephone numbers were randomly selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation from Dynata. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. Mobile phones are treated as individual devices. After validation of age, personal ownership, and non-business use of the mobile phone, interviews are typically conducted with the person answering the phone. To increase coverage, this mobile sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of landline phone numbers. Within each landline household, a single respondent is selected through a random selection process to increase the representativeness of traditionally under-covered survey populations. The samples were then combined and balanced to reflect the 2019 American Community Survey 1-year estimates for age, gender, income, race, and region. Assistance was provided by Luce Research for data collection. Results are statistically significant within ±3.4 percentage points. There are 1,162 registered voters. The results for this subset are statistically significant within ±3.7 percentage points. Tables include results for subgroups to only display crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. It should be noted that although you may not see results listed for a certain group, it does not mean interviews were not completed with those individuals. It simply means the sample size is too small to report. The error margin was adjusted for sample weights and increases for cross-tabulations.

taylor-brandon-5T2Lz9bYRCU-unsplash

Utah Knew Its Race-Based COVID Care Was Illegal

The more we learn about state plans to ration medical care based on race, the more concerning it gets. A case in point is Utah. New reports prove the state knew that race-based COVID care was illegal under federal law, but it moved ahead with this discriminatory policy anyway.

Utah started heading toward race-based care after November 2020. That’s when the state’s Department of Health and Human Services tasked a “Crisis Standards of Care” workgroup with developing a plan to dole out limited supplies of COVID treatments. By February of 2021, the workgroup urged the state to make race a potentially decisive factor in determining who would get monoclonal antibodies. Under the plan, non-white patients would get extra points toward qualifying for access to these treatments.

This proposal immediately raised concerns from legal experts consulted by the state. Newly-unearthed emails show a local law professor warning the workgroup that “the use of non-white race really set off alarm bells” in light of “anti-discrimination law.” Another local law professor said the “consensus among legal academics… seems to be that it does violate federal law.”

Remarkably, the state pressed on with implementing race-based COVID care. The good news is that the threat of a lawsuit in January of this year finally caused Utah to drop the idea. But the bad news is that it ever considered discriminatory care to begin with – and stuck with the idea despite repeated and clear warnings that it was illegal. Apparently not even federal law will stop woke activists from demanding their way in healthcare.

Magnifying,Glass,On,Charts,Graphs,Paper.,Financial,Development,,Banking,Account,

More biased medical research into “medical racism”

A paper ominously titled “Structural racism is a mediator of disparities in acute myeloid leukemia outcomes” appeared in the April 7, 2022 edition of the prestigious medical journal, Blood. There are several approaches to putting a title on a medical article. The preferred path is a title that merely describes the study. This one could have been titled, “Mediators of outcome in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.” But that would not have attracted the same attention nor would it have shown the authors’ bias.

They examined the outcome of leukemia in patients from 6 medical centers between 2012 and 2018. They compared the outcomes for black, white, and Hispanic patients. Black patients had between a 50% greater risk of dying over a 3-year period than white patients. Since black patients lived in poorer neighborhoods as judged by census information, and since the authors defined racism as living in poor neighborhoods, they concluded that the racism was responsible for the disparate outcomes compared to the White patients. Hence the title.

But whenever one compares the outcomes of two groups of patients with a disease based on their skin color, the question must always be asked whether other characteristics could play an influence. In this case, there were very important differences in the nature of the disease between the two groups. Fifty percent of black patients developed their leukemia after receiving chemotherapy for a previous malignancy. For white patients, the number was 30%. Moreover, when the genetic characteristics of the leukemic cells were examined, the black patients had a higher frequency of genetic markers known to result in poor outcomes. This means the authors were comparing two very different groups of patients, beyond the patients’ race. 

The authors dismiss the leukemia characteristics as not important, yet they are well known to be important. As Granfeldt Østgård et al wrote in the journal Clinical Oncology in 2015, “we find tAML (post chemotherapy leukemia) to be independently associated with increased risk of death.” The study authors ignore this reality in order to claim racism is the real cause of different outcomes.

Improving the outcomes of black patients with leukemia should be based on sound scientific and medical analysis, not unscientific and politicized claims. The real solution is more effective clinical therapeutics applied to each individual patient. Sensationalized studies such as this one do not advance the standard of medical care. All they do is advance a divisive ideology that sees racism in every aspect of American life.

DNH_MediaHitGold_WSJ

The Woke Establishment Reacts To Do No Harm

Do No Harm has been busy calling out the major medical institutions pushing a woke takeover of healthcare. Two of them – Harvard’s teaching hospital and the Association of American Medical Colleges – have taken offense. Now they’re trying to defend their divisive actions.

Both groups recently wrote letters to the Wall Street Journal. In response, our chairman, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, published his own letter in the Journal pointing out what these institutions aren’t telling the American people.

Regarding Harvard’s teaching hospital, Stan writes:

“Brigham and Women’s Sunil Eappen and Mallika Mendu claim, ‘We are not moving toward preferential care for any group.’ Yet last year their hospital announced a pilot initiative cast in exactly those terms: a ‘preferential admission option for Black and Latinx heart failure patients.’ It’s a sign of things to come. Race-based care is a fundamental demand of the activist set.

Regarding the Association of American Medical Colleges, Stan writes:

“[They] should have discussed their organization’s forthcoming competencies on diversity, equity and inclusion. The latest version calls for physicians to be trained in identifying ‘a patient’s multiple identities and how each identity may present varied and multiple forms of oppression or privilege.’ It wants medical educators to be ‘role models’ who teach ‘how systems of power, privilege, and oppression’ inform healthcare. Another section focuses on ‘colonization’ and ‘white supremacy.’ This is not educating medical students about ‘environmental, social and economic factors that affect a patient’s health.’ It is indoctrination.

Stan ultimately concludes:

“These letters prove that a radical, divisive and discriminatory ideology has captured the commanding heights of the medical profession… Let’s call this what it is: dangerous and un-American.”

aaron-birch-yIcP-Zyt350-unsplash

The Corruption of Continuing Medical Education

Doctors who want to keep their medical licenses must take ongoing coursework known as “Continuing Medical Education.” Yet woke activists are increasingly seeking to embed their divisive ideas in this key element of the medical community. Case in point is a new effort by the Gold Foundation and NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

The organizations have developed a series of webinars on “advancing health equity.” Doctors can obtain a Continuing Medical Education (CME) credit for each episode they watch. The whole series is steeped in activist jargon, boasting that it “uses critical humanities scholarship to educate physicians about racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice.”

Take the most recent episode, from late April, entitled “Abolition Medicine: Re-Imagining the Role of Social Justice in Healthcare.” It’s described as having “the express objective of building an anti-racist future,” while also touching on “the pandemic and police brutality.” Upcoming episodes include “Race and Racism in U.S. Medical Education” and “Drowning: Film and the Challenges of Migrant Health Ethics.” 

What’s more, the project is explicitly meant to turn doctors into activists. Its creators brag about how the webinars will “promote the key function of ‘social advocacy’ in medical education.” They also say the courses will enable doctors “to similarly educate the learners whom they teach.”

This isn’t continuing medical education. It’s divisive political indoctrination. As doctors take courses to keep their licenses current, they should be learning things that help them provide better care to individual patients. The Gold-NYU collaboration does nothing of the kind.

DNH_ContentCards_PressRelease

Do No Harm Helps Doctors with Lawsuit against CMS, HHS over Medicare “anti-racism” plans

Jackson, MS, May 5, 2022 – Today, Dr. Amber Colville from Ocean Springs, Mississippi, and Dr. Ralph Alvarado from Winchester, Kentucky, with the support of Do No Harm, filed a civil rights lawsuit against Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Xavier Becerra and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Chiquita Brooks-Lasure challenging the final rule released by CMS and HHS that enables higher compensation for doctors who adopt an “anti-racism” plan.  Joining the suit are the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri and Montana.  

“This is another example of a discriminatory and illegal policy advocated by the likes of Ibram X. Kendi being imposed on our health care system,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm. “These ‘anti-racism plans’ erode trust in medical professionals and will undermine the health and wellbeing of all patients.”

The lawsuit argues that the new rule violates the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) by encouraging doctors to consider race as the primary factor in care over individualized medical treatment.  

As detailed in the lawsuit, Drs. Colville and Alvardo believe that racial discrimination of any kind has no place in medicine. They oppose the concepts of “anti-racism” and “equity” because they inject race-based decision making into our health care system without any medical justification. The rule penalizes them for refusing to submit one of these plans.

The case is filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Gulfport Division. Cameron T. Norris Consovoy McCarthy PLLC is lead counsel for this case.  

For more information and future updates about Do No Harm, visit their website at www.donoharmmedicine.org and follow them on Twitter. 

ABOUT DO NO HARM: 

Do No Harm is a non-partisan non-profit rallying physicians and patients to stop a radical, divisive takeover of healthcare. Do No Harm believes in medical fairness, equal access, and individualized treatment for every patient, without exception. 

DNH_MediaHitGold_WSJ

Readers Respond to Do No Harm’s Launch

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb’s recent Wall Street Journal op-ed led to an outpouring of support for our mission. Many readers responded to the piece, entitled “Keep Politics Out Of The Doctor’s Office,” by pointing out important facts about the woke takeover of healthcare.

Devorah Goldman, a visiting fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told the Wall Street Journal that people should also be aware of what’s happening to medical testing. She drew special attention to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ (AAMC) “sweeping changes to the Medical College Admissions Test” (MCAT):

“The revised MCAT includes a new section that screens for adherence to progressive orthodoxies; for example, a practice question… asks whether the ‘lack of minorities such as African Americans or Latinos/Latinas among university faculty members’ is due to symbolic racism, institutional racism, hidden racism or personal bias. The answer is supposed to be institutional racism.”

She continued:

“The AAMC also recently introduced a new exam meant to complement the MCAT by testing softer skills such as ‘cultural competence.’ An AAMC staff writer explains that it was designed with the goal of eliminating ‘group differences in mean scores for African American and Hispanic test-takers compared to White and Asian examinees.’ Dr. Goldfarb notes that ‘medical schools and residencies are lowering admissions standards.’ This is by design.”

Another reader, Dr. Jonathan Stolz, praised Stan’s courage in speaking out:

“Dr. Goldfarb writes what many physicians think but we’re afraid to say, for fear of being labeled a racist.”

One thing’s certain: Do No Harm will continue to speak out. And we’ll continue to rally doctors to defend healthcare from being destroyed by woke ideology.

Medical,Student,Textbooks,With,Pencil,And,Multicolor,Bookmarks,And,Stethoscope

This Anti-Racist Healthcare Policy Benefits the Elite and Hurts Patients

Competition for the most prestigious post-graduate medical residency programs is fierce, with a proven track record of elevating the best physicians. Yet anti-racist ideology is now corrupting the residency evaluation process. Not only will patient care suffer, but the most elite and privileged physicians stand to gain the most.

The United States Medical Licensing Examination is the test that future physicians take before being assigned to a residency. Earlier this year, it ditched a numerical grading score in its first section. Instead of receiving a numerical grade, future physicians would instead get a “pass” or a “fail.” Driven by woke activists, the organizations behind the exam argued that a pass/fail system would lead to a more diverse group of physicians chosen on a “holistic” basis. This fits with the anti-racist claim that meritocracy is merely a manifestation of systemic racism.

But a growing body of evidence proves the foolishness of this decision. Previously, the first part of the USMLE test gave residency evaluators the best gauge of a candidate’s abilities. Now, without any objective criteria for choosing residents, students are increasingly selected based on the ranking of their medical schools. This hurts minority applicants from the lower ranked medical schools, including those affiliated with historically black colleges and universities. It also hurts other outstanding students from other less prestigious medical schools.

What’s more, the pass/fail system discourages medical excellence by incentivizing medical students not to study hard, as various specialties have pointed out. Residency directors are also frustrated that it’s now much harder to ensure that they’re picking the best candidates who will provide the best care. In both cases, the result is worse patient care over time, driven by a decline in the quality of residency participants.

Even woke residency program directors are frustrated. A new study at the National Library of Medicine concludes that, given the failure of the new pass/fail system, “further changes are needed to promote equity.” Here’s an idea: Go back to the proven system of evaluating medical students, which is the best way to find talented physicians who provide the best care.

20220504_DNH_Becerra_CREDIT

HHS Secretary Lies About His Own Anti-Racism Policy

Why isn’t the Biden administration being honest about its anti-racism healthcare policies? That’s the question after Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra testified to Congress last week. 

Sec. Becerra said there’s no policy that bribes doctors to implement divisive and potentially discriminatory anti-racism plans. But there is. As Do No Harm has documented, HHS is offering higher Medicare reimbursement rates to physicians who embrace such plans. Anti-racism requires treating patients differently based on skin color, which means providing preferential care for some while deprioritizing care for others.

Kudos to Alabama Rep. Gary Palmer and Missouri Rep. Jason Smith for pressing Sec. Becerra on the issue. Yet in response to their questions, the Biden administration’s top healthcare official said the existence of his own policy is “misinformation.”

Do No Harm immediately responded, pointing directly to the federal regulations that detail this policy. Our Chairman, Dr. Stan Goldfarb, made clear:

“Secretary Becerra should level with the public about what his agency is doing. If he thinks paying doctors more as a reward for compliance with woke policies is a good idea, he should say so. And if he was unaware that this is what his agency is doing, he needs to withdraw the policy immediately. The only misinformation we heard today came from Secretary Becerra.”

Americans deserve to know that radical ideology is sweeping over healthcare. And they deserve to know that the Biden administration is behind the push to put division and discrimination in the doctor’s office – even if the HHS Sec. Becerra refuses to admit it.

Midsection,Of,Doctor,Holding,Clipboard,While,Standing,With,Colleagues

Radical Activism Will Ruin Medical Residencies

The medical residency is an essential part of physician education, yet it’s now being targeted by radical activists. Harvard University’s teaching hospital is leading the charge, and as its actions show, medical excellence and individual health will only go backwards as a result. 

To understand what’s happening, you first have to understand the residency process. Every year, thousands of medical students apply to various hospitals to continue their training with hands-on experience. The residency lasts three to seven years, and historically, medical students get accepted or rejected based largely on their test scores. The whole point is to uphold the highest standards of medical care and train the best possible physicians.

But high standards don’t mix with “anti-racist” ideology. At Harvard’s teaching hospital, Brigham and Women’s, the residency program has deliberately lowered standards in the name of diversity. Specifically, it has de-emphasized test scores in favor of “holistic reviews of all applicants.” Never mind that test scores are generally the best indicator of a physician’s ability to provide the best care to patients.

It gets worse. Harvard’s hospital has also forced the faculty and experts who pick residents to undergo “unconscious bias training.” That’s code for pushing them to focus on skin color, not academic expertise or individual excellence. 

Driving these changes is the activist view that more minority physicians will lead to better healthcare and outcomes for minority patients. Yet studies have found no evidence supporting this claim. If residency participants are chosen by race and not strictly on academic performance, the result will not be better care for some, but worse care for all. Lower standards for medical residencies mean lower standards for patient care.

What Harvard’s hospital is doing is a direct threat to patient health – and this same trend is already spreading nationwide. For the sake of physicians and patients alike, it must be stopped.

michael-baccin-6Tce6SB0Apg-unsplash

Massachusetts Mandates Ideology for Doctors

Massachusetts doctors are being force-fed radical and divisive ideology. That’s the reality of a new mandate from the state Board of Registration in Medicine. 

Beginning June 1, 2022, any doctors applying for or renewing a medical license must complete courses on “implicit bias in healthcare.” When this mandate goes into effect, doctors will be pressured into focusing on their patients’ skin color and making care decisions based on racial groups, not individual medical needs. It also completely ignores that doctors already have a code of ethics that spurs them to treat their patients with the personalized care they deserve.

Here are the details. Massachusetts is demanding that current or future doctors take two credits of continuing medical education grounded in activist ideas. The board provides three approved courses that doctors can choose from, two of which are necessary to fulfilling the requirement. The list includes courses entitled “Unconscious Bias in Medicine” and “Reflecting on Health Disparities and Moving Towards Anti-Racism in Medicine.” 

The former course, offered by Stanford, has no basis in medical science. It promises to help doctors discover their “unconscious bias in everyday interactions with patients, students, colleagues, and team members.” It also recommends the Implicit Bias Test, a Harvard tool that has been discredited and even criticized by its creators.

The latter course is no better. It is focused on helping doctors “provide care that is more consciously equitable,” yet in practice, that means making care decisions based on race. The name for that is discrimination, which anti-racism explicitly demands.

Massachusetts is wrong to force these dangerous and disproven ideas on doctors. The state’s doctors should learn about better ways to care for patients, not how to become radical activists.

national-cancer-institute-BxXgTQEw1M4-unsplash

How States Are Forcing Ideology Into Healthcare

, ,

Is your state pushing divisive and discriminatory policies onto healthcare? It’s a question every patient should ask. At least three states made race a factor in determining who gets access to potentially lifesaving COVID treatments. Activists won’t rest until every state takes the same path, and not just on COVID.

Take New York. The Empire State recently issued guidelines for healthcare providers regarding monoclonal antibodies and oral antivirals – two popular yet often scarce forms of treatment amid the pandemic. The guidelines state that people with certain risk factors get priority access, and shockingly, one of the factors is being “non-White race.” Why, you ask? Because of “longstanding systemic health and social inequities.” That’s radical ideology talking, not medical science.

It’s a similar story in Minnesota. There, patients were given access to certain COVID treatments if they had enough points in a scoring system. Simply being non-White counted for two points – half the number needed. Utah also assigned two points to minority patients. The name for that is racial preferences, and it’s the opposite of the personalized medical care that every patient deserves.

The good news is that Utah and Minnesota backed down after the broader public caught wind. They promptly ditched discriminatory, race-based rankings. Sadly, New York persisted in making racial discrimination an official state policy – with the support of the American Medical Association, no less!

The bad news is that this is a sign of what’s to come across all of healthcare and every type of illness. Recognizing that reality is essential to stopping such discrimination in your state.

DNH_ContentCards_PressRelease

Do No Harm Will Lead the Fight Against Divisive Ideology Hurting Healthcare

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

WASHINGTON, April 19, 2022 – Today is the launch of Do No Harm, a national nonprofit dedicated to protecting patients and physicians from woke healthcare. (Learn more at donoharmmedicine.org.)

Do No Harm will empower patients, medical professionals, and a diversity of Americans to promote medical fairness and equal access to care, while opposing the division and discrimination that result from identity politics and threaten the health and well-being of every American.

“I’m confident that most physicians oppose what’s happening to our profession and want to see a course correction,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of Do No Harm. “We created Do No Harm to protect those individuals who are concerned that speaking out will damage their careers and risk harassment for their views. We want to stop this infiltration of politics in the healthcare system and particularly into medical education before it impacts quality and access to care.”

The new non-profit is made up of medical professionals, practitioners, and advocates who believe the patient is more important than political ideology when recommending and providing care. By providing a voice to concerned medical professionals afraid of speaking out, Do No Harm will take on the racially divisive ideology that threatens the quality of care in America.

“Replacing rigorous, science-based medical care with ideologically driven demands of activists is dangerous. We know that woke medical education and research are already impacting healthcare providers, and now federal and state policymakers are forcing woke policies into medicine,” said Kristina Rasmussen, executive director of Do No Harm. “Woke discrimination hurts the people it claims to help, and we’re focused on making healthcare better, fairer, and more accessible for all.”

According to Rasmussen, Do No Harm will shine a light on the divisive policies and practices that are increasingly evident across healthcare. It will do so through lawsuits, advocacy, original research, and aggressive communications at the national and state levels.

“We can’t wait. Radical ideology and identity politics are gaining ground by the day,” said Goldfarb. “The sooner we help people realize this, the sooner we can rally a movement to roll back woke healthcare and promote the high-quality care that every American deserves.”


For more information and future updates about Do No Harm, visit their website at www.donoharmmedicine.org and follow them on Twitter [@donoharm].

ABOUT DO NO HARM: 

Do No Harm is a non-partisan non-profit that rallies physicians and patients to stop a radical, divisive takeover of healthcare. Do No Harm believes in medical fairness, equal access, and individualized treatment for every patient, without exception.

Doctor,Or,Medical,Student,Concentrate,Reading,Anatomy,Textbook,For,Medical

A Case Study In Faulty Woke Studies

The National Library of Medicine records over 2,700 published studies on “racism and medicine.” As our Chairman, Dr. Stan Goldfarb, has pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, these studies tend to be “shoddily designed, ignore critical factors, or reach pre-determined and sensationalized conclusions.” Real Clear Investigations recently asked Dr. Goldfarb to review one study in particular – and that criticism rings true.

The study comes from a recent edition of the prominent medical journal Health Affairs, which devoted its February issue to medicine and race, generally from the perspective of Critical Race Theory. Authored by researchers from Duke University and Florida State University, the study claims to show that “that racialized disenfranchisement” – as in, blocking felons from voting – “affects health.” 

The authors admit they can’t prove this claim, yet they make the case for it anyway, on the grounds that there is a “theoretical basis.” Dr. Goldberg skewers this lazy approach to scholarly research:

“This approach just drives me crazy. It’s basically finding associations and claiming it proves causality. They are going to find evidence for their theory because they are trying to do everything they can to prove their theory.”

Sadly, such substandard and unscientific studies are increasingly par for the course across America’s most respected medical journals. Let’s be clear: This isn’t medical research, it’s anti-racist propaganda. And while it claims to move healthcare forward, it will only hold back medical progress and patient health.