Emergency Medicine’s ‘Most Listened To’ Program Devolves Into DEI Activism

Emergency Medicine Reviews and Perspectives (EM:RAP) is a medical education program that provides instructional emergency medicine content and discussions through podcasts and videos.

The program bills itself as “the most listened to audio program in emergency medicine, with more listeners than the total number of emergency physicians in the United States.” 

During a July 2024 episode of the EM:RAP podcast, several emergency medicine practitioners discussed so-called “anti-DEI” legislation and offered their support of DEI efforts.

The focal point of the discussion was the EDUCATE Act, a bill introduced by Representative Greg Murphy (and recently reintroduced this spring) and endorsed by Do No Harm that would cut off federal funding to medical schools’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

The bill would defund programs that compel students or faculty to engage in racial discrimination, as well as block funding to medical schools that have DEI departments or functionally equivalent offices. The bill would also require accreditation agencies to remove DEI requirements while allowing instruction about ethnicity-related health issues.

A screenshot of a message Description automatically generated
Figure 1. A screenshot of the EM:RAP podcast episode summary.

The EM:RAP discussion featured faculty members, including Tiffany Mitchell, MD, Italo Brown, MD, and Alden Landry, MD. Predictably, the faculty members, who work at Mount Sinai, Stanford, and Beth Israel Deaconess hospitals respectively, opposed the bill, according to an episode summary that included various statements in opposition to the legislation and in support of DEI.

These statements included: “DEI efforts are integral to promoting innovation and advancing equitable patient care”; “Silencing discussions on diversity hinders progress in mitigating discrimination and improving healthcare equity”; and “Institutions must stand firm in supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts to ensure a fair and inclusive medical education system.”

During the episode itself, the first guest to address the legislation, Dr. Brown, erroneously argued that it would exclude physicians of certain backgrounds.

“This felt like … people who took the same oaths that I took … had automatically decided that people who come from diverse backgrounds no longer should be considered to be in our brotherhood/fraternity/family of physicians,” Brown said.

The idea that legislation intended to restrict discriminatory practices is itself discriminatory is obviously wrong; the EDUCATE Act does not prevent individuals of certain backgrounds from becoming physicians. In fact, it does the exact opposite.

But Brown continued, arguing that the proper response to the EDUCATE ACT should be even more DEI advocacy on the part of the medical community.

“This is why advocacy, now more than ever, just needs to come from us. That we need to rise with all of our physician voices,” Brown said.

But the endorsements of DEI didn’t end there.

Later in the episode, Dr. Landry discussed the role of DEI offices in medical schools, arguing that DEI must be present in every corner of medical school administrations.

“I do think that every office of student affairs on a medical school campus should champion DEI offices,” he said. “Every DEI office of faculty affairs should champion DEI efforts. I think every office of research should champion DEI efforts … it should be in every office in every institution.”

The discussion concluded with an endorsement of DEI advocacy from Dr. Mitchell, who succinctly summed up the EM:RAP faculty’s position.

“All of our institutions, all of our hospitals, and schools, and courthouses should be proud to proclaim a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Full stop.”

EM:RAP is woefully out of touch with the reality of DEI, and its faculty appear to misunderstand the subjects they are discussing.

DEI, by its nature, divides individuals on the basis of race and encourages racial discrimination to achieve “equitable” ends. 

Not only is DEI dangerous, it is antithetical to the ethical practice of medicine.

Psychological Association Pays the DEI Tax to Move Conference Out of Florida

The Association for Applied Sport Psychology (AASP), initially intended to host its annual conference for 2026 in Orlando, Florida.

But in 2023, the organization elected to move its conference out of the Sunshine State and to Minnesota instead. 

Why? 

Because, according to a November 2023 email from AASP leadership to the organization’s members, Florida’s laws restricting DEI and racial discrimination conflicted with AASP values.

“Over the 12 months following the E-Board’s decision to honor our contractual agreement for Orlando, additional legislation in the State of Florida was passed that stood in contrast to our stated organizational values related to ethics, diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and justice,” the email read.

“These events, along with hearing increasing concerns expressed by members, led the E-Board to decide it was necessary to re-evaluate our 2026 agreement,” the email continued.

Figure 1. A screenshot of the AASP’s email announcing it would move its conference out of Florida.

The email then stated that the AASP paid a cancellation penalty of a whopping $166,804 to do so!

That doesn’t sound like money well spent. Instead of supporting programs and educational initiatives to advance the field of sports psychology, those funds are instead spent signalling the AASP’s commitment to divisive and discriminatory ideology.

Figure 2. A screenshot of the AASP’s email announcing it would move its conference out of Florida.

Additionally, the AASP email stated that the AASP “will not return” to Florida “until the legislative climate is more supportive of inclusion and safety of our members and the state becomes more welcoming to all.”

As for its existing institutional commitments to DEI, the AASP maintains a diversity statement on its website.

Moreover, it operates several diversity-focused programs and groups, including a Diversity Committee and a Diversity & Inclusion Council.

These actions demonstrate the AASP is, very literally, putting DEI ideology over the interests of its members.

A professional association subverting the interests of the members that the organization claims to represent is antithetical to core, foundational ethical principles. 

Psychological Association Pays the DEI Tax to Move Conference Out of Florida

The Association for Applied Sport Psychology (AASP), initially intended to host its annual conference for 2026 in Orlando, Florida.

But in 2023, the organization elected to move its conference out of the Sunshine State and to Minnesota instead. 

Why? 

Because, according to a November 2023 email from AASP leadership to the organization’s members, Florida’s laws restricting DEI and racial discrimination conflicted with AASP values.

“Over the 12 months following the E-Board’s decision to honor our contractual agreement for Orlando, additional legislation in the State of Florida was passed that stood in contrast to our stated organizational values related to ethics, diversity, equity, inclusion, belonging, and justice,” the email read.

“These events, along with hearing increasing concerns expressed by members, led the E-Board to decide it was necessary to re-evaluate our 2026 agreement,” the email continued.

Figure 1. A screenshot of the AASP’s email announcing it would move its conference out of Florida.

The email then stated that the AASP paid a cancellation penalty of a whopping $166,804 to do so!

That doesn’t sound like money well spent. Instead of supporting programs and educational initiatives to advance the field of sports psychology, those funds are instead spent signalling the AASP’s commitment to divisive and discriminatory ideology.

Figure 2. A screenshot of the AASP’s email announcing it would move its conference out of Florida.

Additionally, the AASP email stated that the AASP “will not return” to Florida “until the legislative climate is more supportive of inclusion and safety of our members and the state becomes more welcoming to all.”

As for its existing institutional commitments to DEI, the AASP maintains a diversity statement on its website.

Moreover, it operates several diversity-focused programs and groups, including a Diversity Committee and a Diversity & Inclusion Council.

These actions demonstrate the AASP is, very literally, putting DEI ideology over the interests of its members.

A professional association subverting the interests of the members that the organization claims to represent is antithetical to core, foundational ethical principles. 

A Massive Victory for Children Everywhere: The Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Law Restricting Child Sex Change Interventions

, ,

Today, the Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law banning child sex change interventions including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical procedures.

Specifically, the Court held that Tennessee’s law is constitutional and does not discriminate based on sex or transgender status. This means that laws like Tennessee’s are legitimate and lawful, opening the door for other states to enact similar protections for children.

“Today the Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that governments can enact commonsense policies that protect children from dangerous medical procedures,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “The decision should end the debate over laws like Tennessee’s, and it could have important ramifications for other commonsense policies that resist radical gender ideology.” 

“The Supreme Court’s strong decision today is a massive win in the fight to protect children from harmful gender ideology. Transgender treatments for minors are experimental medicine not backed by reliable evidence,” said Kristina Rasmussen, Executive Director, Do No Harm. “Do No Harm is proud to have been in the fight to expose this ideology over the last several years and support Tennessee in this case. We will continue to work nationally and in other states to protect children from the harms of sex change treatments.”

Tennessee’s law bans procedures enabling “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to address “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”

The law reflects the fact that child sex change interventions are dangerous, carry unknown long-term risks, and are supported by weak, dubious, and error-filled evidence.

However, in April 2023, the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued Tennessee to block enforcement of SB 1, arguing that the law violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.

That same month, the Department of Justice intervened in the case and filed its own complaint against Tennessee, also arguing that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The core of the plaintiffs’ argument is that Tennessee’s law discriminates on the basis of sex.

Laws that discriminate based on sex are subject to “intermediate scrutiny,” a heightened standard of review that requires states to demonstrate that the laws further an important government interest – and do so by means that are substantially related to that interest.

This standard of review is substantially more difficult to meet.

The Court held that Tennessee’s law did not discriminate on the basis of sex, nor did it discriminate on the basis of transgender status.

This is a massive victory for children in Tennessee and across the country. By upholding Tennessee’s law, the Court has provided a green light for states to enact laws protecting minors from harmful sex change procedures.

The Court’s ruling could potentially embolden more states to enact restrictions on these interventions, or encourage states with existing restrictions to strengthen their protections. Additionally, this ruling is a major blow to gender ideologues and activists intent on pushing sex change interventions on children.

The Court’s ruling that bans on child sex change interventions do not discriminate on the basis of sex could undermine future constitutional challenges to similar laws.

The AAMC is Scrubbing Evidence of Its DEI Infatuation – But It’s Still There

In December 2024, Do No Harm released a comprehensive report exposing the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) for injecting DEI into medical education. The report provides an in-depth examination of the AAMC’s DEI policies, advocacy, and agenda, identifying various resources either on the AAMC website or linked to the AAMC that promote “diversity” initiatives.

Following our report, President Trump issued an executive order tackling DEI in the private sector and enforcing compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling that race-based university admissions are illegal.

The executive order explicitly mentions “medical associations” and “institutions of higher education” with endowments over $1 billion, thereby covering many of the most prolific advocates of DEI and racial discrimination in the medical field.

In the months since our report was published, the AAMC has taken steps to remove dozens of the more explicit and overt endorsements of DEI from its website. These include resources on the AAMC’s own DEI programs, such as grant programs and training modules, as well as commitments to diversity in medical school admissions and hiring/recruiting.

However, these steps have largely been cosmetic; many of the AAMC’s DEI resources remain, and webpages are still active for DEI programs, including ones that discriminate on the basis of race. 

Additionally, the AAMC has yet to distance itself from its long history of DEI activism and its promotion of racial discrimination in its public statements.

One example of the AAMC scrubbing or altering resources is the AAMC’s webpage on “Diversity in Medical School Admissions.”

The page, among other things, included links to resources critical of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which found race-conscious admissions to be unconstitutional, as well as various statements expounding on the value of racial diversity in medical admissions.

“Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in medical education and the physician workforce is critical for everyone’s health,” the page stated. “Incorporating DEI programs into medical education is about helping future doctors better understand the specific issues that each patient is facing to provide better medical care.”

That page now redirects to a webpage titled “Equal Opportunity in Medical School Admissions.”

That webpage includes a statement explaining the AAMC’s position regarding compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“A workforce or classroom benefiting from a diversity of experiences and backgrounds continues to be a worthwhile goal, but pursuit of that goal must be fair and free from any unlawful discrimination,” the statement says.

Additionally, the AAMC removed a general resource page dedicated to the AAMC’s various DEI initiatives, statements, and programs.

That page, as evidenced in the screenshots below, included links to recent AAMC activity on the DEI front and new resources regarding equity, diversity, and race. 

Figure 1. A screenshot of the AAMC’s former “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” webpage.
Figure 2. A screenshot of the webpage for the AAMC’s “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Initiatives.”

The webpage for one of the resources, “Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion Initiatives” now redirects to a webpage titled “Initiatives to Cultivate Excellence in Academic Medicine.” 

Several of the “initiatives” included in both lists are effectively the same programs, but in the latter list the more offensive programs have been largely rebranded to remove overt DEI language or removed altogether.

For instance, as mentioned previously, the “Diversity in Medical School Admissions” initiative page is now the “Equal Opportunity in Medical School Admissions” initiative page. Both pages contain a list of resources related to the Supreme Court’s SFFA decision, but resources more overtly related to DEI are absent from the latest version.

As another example, the AAMC’s webpage for its IDEAS education series remains active. IDEAS stands for “Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, [and] Anti-racism” and features presentations and courses intended to advance DEI in medicine. According to a previous version of the IDEAS homepage, “improving inclusion, diversity, equity, and anti-racism is a critical priority for the academic medicine community.” That language is no longer present.

The AAMC’s webpage titled Advancing Gender Equity in Academic Medicine also remains active, and is largely unchanged from previous iterations.

Additionally, the webpage for the AAMC’s anti-racism resources no longer works. The website included a host of links to various articles, both internal and external, on the theory of “anti-racism,” including an article by Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the leading scholars of critical race theory.

“Anti-racism,” according to its most prominent advocate, Ibram X. Kendi, is built on the idea that racial discrimination is essential and even praiseworthy, since it’s supposed to right past wrongs.

An older version of that webpage redirects to a webpage titled “Excellence in Academic Medicine.”

Figure 3. A screenshot of the AAMC’s “Anti-racism Resources” webpage.

Perhaps most interestingly, the webpage for the AAMC’s definition of “underrepresented in medicine” is no longer live.

“Underrepresented in medicine means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population,” the definition read.

Figure 4. A screenshot of the AAMC’s “Underrepresented in Medicine Definition” webpage.

However, the AAMC still maintains a definition of “underrepresented in medicine” on its FACTS webpage.

Even the AAMC’s news articles haven’t been safe; the AAMC removed an article titled “Do Black patients fare better with Black doctors?” that dealt with the notion that racial concordance, in which patients are treated by physicians of the same race, improves health outcomes.

That article featured prominently a discussion surrounding a now-debunked study that purported to show that black infants enjoy higher survival rates when treated by black doctors.

As Do No Harm covered in a recent report, the study in question spread like wildfire throughout the medical community, despite its findings being invalid.

Additionally, the AAMC has removed reports on its DEI competencies in medical education.

The AAMC’s report, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Competencies Across the Learning Continuum, now redirects to the Excellence in Academic Medicine landing page.

Figure 5. A screenshot of the AAMC’s DEI competencies webpage.

The AAMC has also taken down all ten of the “Action Plan” elements of its “Strategic Plan” that included, among other things, pledges for the AAMC to take steps to increase diversity in medical education and medicine more broadly.

Action Plan item three, “Equip medical schools and teaching hospitals and health systems to become more inclusive, equitable organizations,” is no longer available on the AAMC website.

Figure 6. A screenshot of the AAMC’s Action Plan item three webpage.

Similarly, Action Plan item four, “Increase the diversity of medical school applicants and matriculants,” has been removed. 

The item was active as of March 2025.

“By galvanizing the expertise of its member institutions and developing strategic partnerships, this action plan endeavors to make the pathway to the health professions more accessible, equitable, attainable, and desirable for underrepresented populations and historically marginalized communities,” the item read. “The AAMC is uniquely positioned to drive this initiative because of its robust repository of aspirant applicant and enrollment data, extensive analysis of trends in the physician workforce, relationships with experts in higher education, health care, and policy, and proven success with facilitating critical and crucial conversations.”

“Continue working with subject matter experts from our member institutions to identify and build out systems-based resources to implement holistic review with fidelity, to discuss impact of SCOTUS decisions, and to support and graduate a diverse cohort in an equitable manner,” one vow from the now-defunct page read.

Yet while these overt endorsements of DEI may be removed, many of the AAMC’s DEI initiatives remain. 

For instance, the AAMC’s Action Collaborative for Black Men in Medicine, which is explicitly designed to “increase the representation of Black men in medicine,” remains active.

Additionally, the AAMC’s “Medical Minority Applicant Registry” is also still accessible on the organization’s website.

This tool is explicitly designed to get students from “historically underrepresented” into medical school; the eligibility criteria state that students must either be “economically disadvantaged” or members of underrepresented racial groups such as “African-American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.”

“If you choose to participate in Med-MAR, your basic biographical information and your MCAT® scores will be distributed to the minority affairs and admission offices of AAMC-member schools and to select health-related agencies whose mission is to increase opportunities for students historically underrepresented in medicine,” the description of the tool reads.

While the AAMC removed the Action Plan item that created its Center for Health Justice, led by Dr. Philip Alberti, the center itself appears to still be operational. 

Dr. Alberti made several incendiary comments on a recent podcast, such as blaming problems with American healthcare on “isms” like “cisgenderism.” Additionally, the Center for Health Justice put out a language guide titled “Advancing Health Equity” intended to instruct healthcare professionals on the correct nomenclature to use to advance DEI ideals.

Additionally, the AAMC has left up its webpage an article titled “6 common myths about diversity in medical education.” The resource is a full-throated defense of DEI in medical education and uses misleading arguments to advance the DEI agenda.
Do No Harm debunked the AAMC’s reasoning in a blog post last year.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include additional context surrounding the AAMC’s definition of “underrepresented in medicine.”

The AAMC is Scrubbing Evidence of Its DEI Infatuation – But It’s Still There

In December 2024, Do No Harm released a comprehensive report exposing the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) for injecting DEI into medical education. The report provides an in-depth examination of the AAMC’s DEI policies, advocacy, and agenda, identifying various resources either on the AAMC website or linked to the AAMC that promote “diversity” initiatives.

Following our report, President Trump issued an executive order tackling DEI in the private sector and enforcing compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling that race-based university admissions are illegal.

The executive order explicitly mentions “medical associations” and “institutions of higher education” with endowments over $1 billion, thereby covering many of the most prolific advocates of DEI and racial discrimination in the medical field.

In the months since our report was published, the AAMC has taken steps to remove dozens of the more explicit and overt endorsements of DEI from its website. These include resources on the AAMC’s own DEI programs, such as grant programs and training modules, as well as commitments to diversity in medical school admissions and hiring/recruiting.

However, these steps have largely been cosmetic; many of the AAMC’s DEI resources remain, and webpages are still active for DEI programs, including ones that discriminate on the basis of race. 

Additionally, the AAMC has yet to distance itself from its long history of DEI activism and its promotion of racial discrimination in its public statements.

One example of the AAMC scrubbing or altering resources is the AAMC’s webpage on “Diversity in Medical School Admissions.”

The page, among other things, included links to resources critical of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which found race-conscious admissions to be unconstitutional, as well as various statements expounding on the value of racial diversity in medical admissions.

“Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in medical education and the physician workforce is critical for everyone’s health,” the page stated. “Incorporating DEI programs into medical education is about helping future doctors better understand the specific issues that each patient is facing to provide better medical care.”

That page now redirects to a webpage titled “Equal Opportunity in Medical School Admissions.”

That webpage includes a statement explaining the AAMC’s position regarding compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“A workforce or classroom benefiting from a diversity of experiences and backgrounds continues to be a worthwhile goal, but pursuit of that goal must be fair and free from any unlawful discrimination,” the statement says.

Additionally, the AAMC removed a general resource page dedicated to the AAMC’s various DEI initiatives, statements, and programs.

That page, as evidenced in the screenshots below, included links to recent AAMC activity on the DEI front and new resources regarding equity, diversity, and race. 

Figure 1. A screenshot of the AAMC’s former “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion” webpage.
Figure 2. A screenshot of the webpage for the AAMC’s “Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Initiatives.”

The webpage for one of the resources, “Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion Initiatives” now redirects to a webpage titled “Initiatives to Cultivate Excellence in Academic Medicine.” 

Several of the “initiatives” included in both lists are effectively the same programs, but in the latter list the more offensive programs have been largely rebranded to remove overt DEI language or removed altogether.

For instance, as mentioned previously, the “Diversity in Medical School Admissions” initiative page is now the “Equal Opportunity in Medical School Admissions” initiative page. Both pages contain a list of resources related to the Supreme Court’s SFFA decision, but resources more overtly related to DEI are absent from the latest version.

As another example, the AAMC’s webpage for its IDEAS education series remains active. IDEAS stands for “Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, [and] Anti-racism” and features presentations and courses intended to advance DEI in medicine. According to a previous version of the IDEAS homepage, “improving inclusion, diversity, equity, and anti-racism is a critical priority for the academic medicine community.” That language is no longer present.

The AAMC’s webpage titled Advancing Gender Equity in Academic Medicine also remains active, and is largely unchanged from previous iterations.

Additionally, the webpage for the AAMC’s anti-racism resources no longer works. The website included a host of links to various articles, both internal and external, on the theory of “anti-racism,” including an article by Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the leading scholars of critical race theory.

“Anti-racism,” according to its most prominent advocate, Ibram X. Kendi, is built on the idea that racial discrimination is essential and even praiseworthy, since it’s supposed to right past wrongs.

An older version of that webpage redirects to a webpage titled “Excellence in Academic Medicine.”

Figure 3. A screenshot of the AAMC’s “Anti-racism Resources” webpage.

Perhaps most interestingly, the webpage for the AAMC’s definition of “underrepresented in medicine” is no longer live.

“Underrepresented in medicine means those racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population,” the definition read.

Figure 4. A screenshot of the AAMC’s “Underrepresented in Medicine Definition” webpage.

However, the AAMC still maintains a definition of “underrepresented in medicine” on its FACTS webpage.

Even the AAMC’s news articles haven’t been safe; the AAMC removed an article titled “Do Black patients fare better with Black doctors?” that dealt with the notion that racial concordance, in which patients are treated by physicians of the same race, improves health outcomes.

That article featured prominently a discussion surrounding a now-debunked study that purported to show that black infants enjoy higher survival rates when treated by black doctors.

As Do No Harm covered in a recent report, the study in question spread like wildfire throughout the medical community, despite its findings being invalid.

Additionally, the AAMC has removed reports on its DEI competencies in medical education.

The AAMC’s report, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Competencies Across the Learning Continuum, now redirects to the Excellence in Academic Medicine landing page.

Figure 5. A screenshot of the AAMC’s DEI competencies webpage.

The AAMC has also taken down all ten of the “Action Plan” elements of its “Strategic Plan” that included, among other things, pledges for the AAMC to take steps to increase diversity in medical education and medicine more broadly.

Action Plan item three, “Equip medical schools and teaching hospitals and health systems to become more inclusive, equitable organizations,” is no longer available on the AAMC website.

Figure 6. A screenshot of the AAMC’s Action Plan item three webpage.

Similarly, Action Plan item four, “Increase the diversity of medical school applicants and matriculants,” has been removed. 

The item was active as of March 2025.

“By galvanizing the expertise of its member institutions and developing strategic partnerships, this action plan endeavors to make the pathway to the health professions more accessible, equitable, attainable, and desirable for underrepresented populations and historically marginalized communities,” the item read. “The AAMC is uniquely positioned to drive this initiative because of its robust repository of aspirant applicant and enrollment data, extensive analysis of trends in the physician workforce, relationships with experts in higher education, health care, and policy, and proven success with facilitating critical and crucial conversations.”

“Continue working with subject matter experts from our member institutions to identify and build out systems-based resources to implement holistic review with fidelity, to discuss impact of SCOTUS decisions, and to support and graduate a diverse cohort in an equitable manner,” one vow from the now-defunct page read.

Yet while these overt endorsements of DEI may be removed, many of the AAMC’s DEI initiatives remain. 

For instance, the AAMC’s Action Collaborative for Black Men in Medicine, which is explicitly designed to “increase the representation of Black men in medicine,” remains active.

Additionally, the AAMC’s “Medical Minority Applicant Registry” is also still accessible on the organization’s website.

This tool is explicitly designed to get students from “historically underrepresented” into medical school; the eligibility criteria state that students must either be “economically disadvantaged” or members of underrepresented racial groups such as “African-American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.”

“If you choose to participate in Med-MAR, your basic biographical information and your MCAT® scores will be distributed to the minority affairs and admission offices of AAMC-member schools and to select health-related agencies whose mission is to increase opportunities for students historically underrepresented in medicine,” the description of the tool reads.

While the AAMC removed the Action Plan item that created its Center for Health Justice, led by Dr. Philip Alberti, the center itself appears to still be operational. 

Dr. Alberti made several incendiary comments on a recent podcast, such as blaming problems with American healthcare on “isms” like “cisgenderism.” Additionally, the Center for Health Justice put out a language guide titled “Advancing Health Equity” intended to instruct healthcare professionals on the correct nomenclature to use to advance DEI ideals.

Additionally, the AAMC has left up its webpage an article titled “6 common myths about diversity in medical education.” The resource is a full-throated defense of DEI in medical education and uses misleading arguments to advance the DEI agenda.
Do No Harm debunked the AAMC’s reasoning in a blog post last year.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include additional context surrounding the AAMC’s definition of “underrepresented in medicine.”

Florida Budget Prevents Tax Dollars From Funding DEI

The Sunshine State just took another major step toward eliminating DEI.

Florida lawmakers approved a budget Monday that takes major steps to prevent taxpayer dollars from subsidizing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

Legislation implementing the budget includes a provision ensuring state funds are spent in accordance with principles of individual freedom. 

These include items such as the principle that no person should be discriminated against on the basis of their race, that no person is inherently racist or sexist (whether consciously or unconsciously), and that a person should not be instructed to feel guilt for actions committed by members of the same race.

These statements are antithetical to the DEI ideology, which posits that racial discrimination is often necessary to achieve equity, equalize outcomes, and remediate past wrongs.

Additionally, the budget includes language enabling Governor Ron DeSantis to investigate local governments for spending state dollars on DEI programs.

Ensuring taxpayer dollars aren’t bankrolling discriminatory and divisive ideologies is important to ensure the integrity of publicly-funded medical education.

And it’s all the more important in Florida; as Do No Harm revealed through leaked audio recordings Dr. Haywood Brown, a former official and professor at the University of South Florida, delivered his advice on how to skirt the state’s anti-DEI laws at a Virginia Commonwealth University medical school grand rounds session.

It’s simple: taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize initiatives and programs that foment division and encourage racial discrimination.

Do No Harm Submits Amicus Brief in ‘Secret Transition’ Lawsuit Against School District

,

This week, Do No Harm filed an amicus brief in support of Jennifer Vitsaxaki’s lawsuit against her daughter’s school district for “secretly transitioning” her daughter without Vitsaxaki’s consent.

The case, Vitsaxaki v. Skaneateles Central School District, concerns Vitsaxaki’s fundamental parental rights under the Constitution.

Employees at Vitsaxaki’s daughter’s school, acting under Skaneateles Central School District official policy, had been secretly referring to her 12-year-old daughter as a boy, such as through the use of a masculine name. 

This so-called “social transition” was done without Vitsaxaki’s knowledge or consent; employees allegedly concealed this behavior from Vitsaxaki and continued doing it without her consent.

Vitsaxaki sued the school district, arguing that the school district’s policy violated her parental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The district court granted the school district’s motion to dismiss the case, and Vitsaxaki appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Do No Harm’s amicus brief urges the Second Circuit to reverse the district court’s decision, arguing that because Vitsaxaki alleged a violation of her fundamental constitutional rights that are “deeply rooted in our history and tradition,” the “strict scrutiny” standard should apply. This means that the school district’s policy must further a compelling state interest in order to be permissible. 

Moreover, social transition invariably increases the risk of medical harm.

The natural conclusion of affirming a child’s self-professed “gender” is to place children onto the transgender medicalization pathway, in which they undergo invasive medical interventions to alter their body in accordance with their self-identified “gender.”

Protecting children from their parents thoughtlessly and automatically affirming their gender dysphoria is an important first step to prevent further harmful medicalization.

Read the full amicus brief here.

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Will Stop Performing Child Sex Change Interventions 

Welcome news for parents and children in Southern California: Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), one of the chief providers of child sex change services, is shuttering its program providing so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors, according to The Los Angeles Times.

The decision is due to a number of actions taken by the Trump administration to crack down on federal funding of dangerous and experimental gender procedures. 

“These threats are no longer theoretical,” hospital executives said in an email to patients. “Taken together, the Attorney General memo, HHS review, and the recent solicitation of tips from the FBI to report hospitals and providers of GAC strongly signal this Administration’s intent to take swift and decisive action, both criminal and civil, against any entity it views as being in violation of the executive order.”

The email refers to the recent Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report which reviewed the ethics and evidence behind “gender-affirming care” and found that the “affirmation” approach to pediatric gender medicine “lacked sufficient scientific and ethical justification.”

CHLA’s pediatric gender clinic, The Center for Transyouth Health and Development, is helmed by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy.

Last year, The New York Times reported that Olson-Kennedy had initially refused to publish the results of a multi-million dollar, federally-funded study that found that “puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements” in children; Olson-Kennedy’s decision was due to fears that the results could undermine the argument for “gender-affirming care.” 

The results of the study were finally released earlier this month, finding that children’s depression symptoms and emotional health “did not change significantly over 24 months” of being on puberty blockers. 

Olson-Kennedy was also sued for medical negligence by a woman who alleged that Olson-Kennedy’s clinic put her on puberty blockers when she was 12 and performed a double mastectomy on her at 14.

CHLA is one of the most prolific and prominent providers of so-called “gender-affirming care” in the country.

According to insurance claims data compiled in Do Harm’s Stop the Harm Database, between 2019 and 2023 CHLA performed surgical procedures on over 160 patients under the age of 18. 

And according to The Los Angeles Times, CHLA’s pediatric gender clinic provides services to nearly 3,000 patient families. 

Michigan’s Licensing Department Grills Drug Providers on Race, DEI Policies

Why does a state regulatory agency care about a physician’s opinions on the role of “implicit bias” in health outcomes?

Well, according to Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), physicians’ opinions on this topic must be of some importance.

LARA sent out surveys to physicians, giving them gift cards in exchange for rating their level of agreement with a series of statements ostensibly related to LARA’s rule changes governing the prescribing of buprenorphine.

Buprenorphine is a medication that works as a partial-opioid agonist and is used to treat individuals suffering from addiction to opioids such as fentanyl, heroin, or oxycontin.

The statements in the survey appeared to portray racial minorities as having worse drug treatment outcomes due to systemic factors or implicit bias.

For instance, the survey included statements such as: “Black and Hispanic/Latino patients are less likely than patients of other racial groups to have successful treatment outcomes due to implicit bias”; “Black patients are at a higher risk for opioid overdose compared to patients of other racial groups”; “White patients receive medication for opioid use disorder more frequently than Black and Hispanic/Latino patients”; and “Communities that service a higher volume of Black Patients have more access to methadone programs which are subject to stricter regulatory requirements than white communities.”

Figure 1. A screenshot of the LARA survey sent to physicians.

Additionally, LARA asked physicians to provide information on whether their healthcare facility provides “training” to address the “diverse needs” of patients.

“My facility offers training to better address the diverse needs of patients from various cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds, as well as the LGBTQIA+ community,” the survey asked.

Figure 2. A screenshot of the LARA survey sent to physicians.

Why this information is at all relevant to LARA is unclear, but it’s disturbing nonetheless that a regulatory agency is intent on grilling physicians regarding their adherence to DEI ideology.

Yet this is par for the course for LARA and the Michigan executive branch. In 2022, pursuant to a 2020 executive order issued by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, LARA mandated physicians to take a continuing education course on “implicit bias.”

The implicit bias training program must include strategies to reduce disparities in access to and delivery of healthcare services, and discuss, among other topics, current research on implicit bias in the access to and delivery of healthcare services.

As a result, Do No Harm set up our implicit bias course, meeting LARA’s requirements, while dispelling myths of systemic racism by providing factual, evidence-based information on the topic.

There is no solid evidence finding a causal link between unconscious bias/implicit bias (which is itself a dubious concept at best) and racial disparities in health outcomes, with the tests used to evaluate or identify implicit bias found to be “poor predictors” of real-world bias and discrimination. 

Each year, opioids claim the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, with over 80,000 Americans dying from opioids in 2022 alone. LARA should not attempt to play ideological games with people’s lives and taxpayer dollars. Instead, it should ensure that physicians provide the best treatment possible for everyone.

Michigan’s Licensing Department Grills Drug Providers on Race, DEI Policies

Why does a state regulatory agency care about a physician’s opinions on the role of “implicit bias” in health outcomes?

Well, according to Michigan’s Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), physicians’ opinions on this topic must be of some importance.

LARA sent out surveys to physicians, giving them gift cards in exchange for rating their level of agreement with a series of statements ostensibly related to LARA’s rule changes governing the prescribing of buprenorphine.

Buprenorphine is a medication that works as a partial-opioid agonist and is used to treat individuals suffering from addiction to opioids such as fentanyl, heroin, or oxycontin.

The statements in the survey appeared to portray racial minorities as having worse drug treatment outcomes due to systemic factors or implicit bias.

For instance, the survey included statements such as: “Black and Hispanic/Latino patients are less likely than patients of other racial groups to have successful treatment outcomes due to implicit bias”; “Black patients are at a higher risk for opioid overdose compared to patients of other racial groups”; “White patients receive medication for opioid use disorder more frequently than Black and Hispanic/Latino patients”; and “Communities that service a higher volume of Black Patients have more access to methadone programs which are subject to stricter regulatory requirements than white communities.”

Figure 1. A screenshot of the LARA survey sent to physicians.

Additionally, LARA asked physicians to provide information on whether their healthcare facility provides “training” to address the “diverse needs” of patients.

“My facility offers training to better address the diverse needs of patients from various cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds, as well as the LGBTQIA+ community,” the survey asked.

Figure 2. A screenshot of the LARA survey sent to physicians.

Why this information is at all relevant to LARA is unclear, but it’s disturbing nonetheless that a regulatory agency is intent on grilling physicians regarding their adherence to DEI ideology.

Yet this is par for the course for LARA and the Michigan executive branch. In 2022, pursuant to a 2020 executive order issued by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, LARA mandated physicians to take a continuing education course on “implicit bias.”

The implicit bias training program must include strategies to reduce disparities in access to and delivery of healthcare services, and discuss, among other topics, current research on implicit bias in the access to and delivery of healthcare services.

As a result, Do No Harm set up our implicit bias course, meeting LARA’s requirements, while dispelling myths of systemic racism by providing factual, evidence-based information on the topic.

There is no solid evidence finding a causal link between unconscious bias/implicit bias (which is itself a dubious concept at best) and racial disparities in health outcomes, with the tests used to evaluate or identify implicit bias found to be “poor predictors” of real-world bias and discrimination. 

Each year, opioids claim the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, with over 80,000 Americans dying from opioids in 2022 alone. LARA should not attempt to play ideological games with people’s lives and taxpayer dollars. Instead, it should ensure that physicians provide the best treatment possible for everyone.

‘None of Our Values Have Changed’: DEI Doesn’t Die Easy at UVA

On March 7, the University of Virginia Board of Visitors passed a resolution to dissolve the school’s Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Community Partnerships and take steps to ensure that all programs do not discriminate in violation of federal law. 

And following that resolution, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent a letter April 28 to UVA asking the school to produce evidence that it has dismantled its DEI apparatus. 

But according to internal discussions between UVA and UVA Health officials, DEI, especially in the medical and health departments, may not be going anywhere anytime soon.

Instead, officials equivocated on actual tangible steps that would be taken to address DEI initiatives.

During a UVA Faculty Senate meeting on March 22, several weeks before the DOJ letter, officials discussed how UVA would treat its DEI initiatives going forward. These discussions revealed a deep institutional commitment to DEI, as succinctly expressed by Mitchell Rosner, MD, Interim Executive Vice President for Health Affairs at the University of Virginia.

“None of our values have changed,” Rosner said in reference to DEI, while acknowledging that UVA Health must be in compliance. “None of what we’re going to do changes.”

Next, Rosner discussed how DEI has pervaded UVA Health and how it will be difficult to extricate it from UVA Health’s mission.

“We also have to focus on health outcomes,” Rosner said.

“Everybody in the health system is passionate to ensure that health outcomes in our community are equalized and everybody has access to healthcare,” Rosner continued.

The notion that health outcomes should be “equalized” flies in the face of foundational principles of medical ethics. Medical professionals should strive to provide the best care possible to individuals regardless of race, not ensure that different racial groups have equal health outcomes.

Rosner made clear that programs aimed at equalizing health outcomes will likely remain in place.

“We don’t intend really to back away from any of those programs,” Rosner said, while noting that “we have to do it with the eye on being compliant.”

However, in the context of this DEI discussion, Rosner did mention a “value statement” that was used for promotion decisions.

“We have an issue around a particular value statement that’s part of the health system mission that was included, for example, in promotion and tenure reviews,” Rosner said.

It’s not clear exactly which document Rosner was referring to, though it’s worth noting that UVA has in the past required applicants for several of its positions to submit diversity statements. 

Additionally, Rosner, in response to a question about the status of so-called “gender-affirming care” provided by UVA Health, said that “we will be compliant with the law” while failing to commit to any policy changes. UVA Health has continued to provide child sex change procedures despite President Trump’s executive order targeting providers of such interventions.

Since the March meeting took place, UVA has been in the center of a legal and political firestorm surrounding its DEI proclivities.

First, UVA’s Board of Visitors passed a second resolution in April which formally rescinded portions of the September 2020 resolution entitled “Board of Visitors Support for Racial Equity Initiatives”; the 2020 resolution had effectively endorsed a racial quota system. 

Then, the DOJ opened a civil rights investigation into UVA last month, alleging that UVA engages in discriminatory behaviors in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Rosner’s comments, and the larger goings-on at UVA, indicate the broader trend in medical education: DEI isn’t going away overnight. Do No Harm documented this phenomenon in a recent report, explaining how DEI has persisted in higher education despite state laws ostensibly prohibiting it.

Further oversight and action will be needed to truly restore merit and fairness to medical education.

Reassessing Pediatric Gender Care: Evidence, Transparency, and the Path Forward

, ,

The prevailing consensus from organized medicine currently favors pediatric medical transition (PMT). This comes in contrast to mainstream America where 71% of respondents to a New York Times/Ipsos poll earlier this year agreed that “no one under age 18 should have access” to puberty-blocking medications or hormone therapy. Similarly, lawmakers in 27 states have enacted laws – of varying degrees – banning PMT. The difference between the medical establishment and the American public on the care of minors with gender dysphoria is real.

This divide was only further highlighted by the response to the recently published report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria – Review of Evidence and Best Practice.” The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), on the same day as the report’s release, chided the authors for not consulting the organization and “[misrepresenting] the current medical consensus.” Also on that same day, five additional physician groups, along with the AAP, issued a joint statement echoing their collective support for the “full spectrum of evidence-based health care.”

Interestingly, the HHS report does just that – assess the evidence. It offers an umbrella review, thereby evaluating systematic reviews themselves. To conduct the overview, the report’s authors followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The risk of bias for each systematic review was assessed using a standard tool. Then, for each outcome, the authors used a standard methodology to determine the certainty or quality of the evidence. After assessing 286 studies for eligibility, seventeen systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, of which ten were determined to have a low risk of bias.

Yet, the AAP argues the HHS report “must consider the totality of available data.” A series of questions naturally follows: What data might the HHS review have omitted that the AAP would have included? At the risk of lowering the quality of evidence, should the HHS have incorporated select, individual studies beyond systematic reviews? And, of the systematic reviews deemed eligible, should those focused primarily on adults have been included?

One such excluded review was from Dr. Kellan Baker and colleagues, which has been cited 305 times according to Google Scholar and was conducted to inform the World Professional Association for Transgender Health’s (WPATH’s) Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8 (SOC-8). Yet, any definitive conclusions related to the care of minors should be taken with caution. For example, Baker included just one trial of 50 adolescents which showed “no difference in [quality of life] scores after a year of endocrine interventions.” Furthermore, while less than a handful of studies on depression showed some improvement, the risk of bias was determined to be either “moderate” or “serious.” The abstract itself noted a “high risk of bias in study designs, small sample sizes, and confounding with other interventions.” The study’s authors “could not draw any conclusions about death by suicide.”

The dearth of high-quality evidence unfortunately extends throughout this area of medicine. HHS’s review confirmed what our colleagues overseas had previously reported. Simply, HHS’s report noted, “the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects of any intervention on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long-term health, is very low.” Studies related to PMT are often of low quality given small sample sizes, significant attrition of enrollees, and relatively short follow up periods. Selection bias, uncontrolled confounding, and lack of a comparison group also weigh heavily on many of these trials. All of this leads to low quality evidence in the face of life altering interventions.

Moreover, data has not always been published in a timely manner. This past fall The New York Times reported that Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy’s “long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs” remained unpublished. This study began nearly a decade ago as part of a National Institutes of Health grant. As per the Times’ article, Olson-Kennedy’s study of 95 children did not find improvements in mental health from puberty blockers. After many years of waiting a preprint was posted last month confirming this to be the case. Similarly, findings from England’s youth gender clinic in 2011 showed that puberty blockers had “not changed volunteers’ well-being, including rates of self harm.” It was not until 2020 that those results were made public.

Within this climate, unwavering transparency, critical engagement, and intellectual rigor are needed now more than ever from both individual physicians and organized medicine. Physicians – particularly those caring for youth with gender dysphoria – must come to read and understand the HHS report. The duty to be informed is paramount, especially when the well-being of America’s children is at stake and irreversible interventions are in question.

Similarly, medical societies like the AAP and the Endocrine Society must review their clinical practice guidelines for PMT independent of external influence. Uncritically accepting WPATH’s recommendations, for example, will not serve this purpose, particularly when WPATH itself suppressed its own evidence reviews and allowed political pressures to influence its standards of care. Fortunately, the AAP opened the door to a new direction when its Board of Directors nearly two years ago called for a “systematic review of the evidence.” Now is the time to deliver on this directive.

As part of any reevaluation, American medicine must place a renewed focus on psychosocial support and psychotherapy as a legitimate and essential modality of care – one that carries no physical harms and prioritizes long-term well-being. Medicine in general, and pediatrics in particular, needs to move past the consumerist model, where minors – who are not of age to give informed consent – direct their own medical treatment absent valued clinical input. We cannot neglect our duty as physicians. In each clinical encounter patients and parents look to us as highly educated and well-trained professionals who must offer more than technical prowess. Physicians bear great moral responsibility, making it imperative that we act as thoughtful practitioners who weigh the totality of evidence along with our ethical duty to more than just blind allegiance to patient autonomy and little else. Ultimately, we must first do no harm.

To that end, the American Medical Association (AMA) must act, recognizing its unique role as America’s largest medical association with representation from numerous specialty societies at its House of Delegates. The AMA should ensure coordination of efforts among America’s medical societies to increase transparency, promote open debate, and ensure rigorous scientific scrutiny in the reevaluation of clinical practice guidelines related to pediatric gender medicine. The broader medical community, rather than a select group of individuals, must be involved. This entails reading and understanding the HHS’s review, as well as engaging with its contributors once the post-publication peer review process is complete.

The time has come for the medical community to have an honest conversation about PMT. It is of the utmost importance for the health and wellbeing of our nation’s youth that we, as physicians, have this dialogue and take the necessary appropriate steps. It is also critical to the integrity of our profession if we are to maintain the trust of the American people. The public is watching, and our actions must speak louder than the words we have thus far offered.

Get Racial Preferences Out of Orthopedic Surgery

In the medical field, opportunities should be awarded to individuals on the basis of merit, talent, and achievement. 

This encourages the best and brightest physicians and, by extension, promotes excellence in medicine.

But the Mid Atlantic Shoulder and Elbow Society (MASES) appears to think otherwise.

To support attendance to its annual meeting in September, MASES is offering “Education Scholarships” to students interested in orthopedic surgery. These scholarships cover the cost of the meeting registration.

Yet there’s a catch.

“Preference will be given to underrepresented minorities and women considering the field of orthopedic surgery,” the scholarship description states, while qualifying this preference with the line that “all applicants will be considered.”

This qualification doesn’t change the fact that MASES is still engaging in discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics. 

A prospective physician is no more or less deserving of an opportunity due to their race or sex. It’s hard to see why these qualities should matter at all for the field of orthopedic surgery.

MASES should drop its racial preferences at once, and make clear that race or sex will not be factors in its consideration.

What Does Indiana University Have to Hide?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Yet the Indiana University (IU) Simon Cancer Center is doing its best to prevent oversight of its discriminatory program.

In 2024, Do No Harm submitted public records requests about the IU Simon Cancer Center’s Educational Pathways for Cancer Research (EPCR) summer program that appeared to be restricted to “underrepresented” students. The center advertised the program as recently as January 14, 2025, but removed the program’s webpage at some point after. 

The since-removed program description stated that it was “designed to serve students from populations underrepresented in biomedical and clinical research,” linking to the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) diversity webpage.

The NIH previously defined “underrepresented” groups as “Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders.” The NIH has since deleted that definition from its public guidance.

Additionally, the EPRC program provided opportunities to high school teachers, enabling them to “participate in four weeks of laboratory research experience and curriculum development activities that integrate cancer-related topics into the state curriculum.”

According to an archived version of the teacher application form, applicants were required to submit information on their race.

Yet, at some point, IU scrubbed the program from its website.

And then, IU denied Do No Harm’s public records request for more information on the program.

If IU is no longer operating the EPRC program, it should let the world know. And if it feels that the program is lawful and does not discriminate on the basis of race, then it shouldn’t have anything to worry about.

It’s worth noting that since IU last advertised the program, President Trump issued an executive order cracking down on DEI in higher education.

Additionally, Indiana passed a law that, among other things, prohibits public educational institutions or employers from taking actions based on an individual’s “personal characteristic[s]” such as their race, religion, color, sex, national origin, or ancestry.

While IU has previously been a hub for DEI activities in the Hoosier State, it has since removed much of its DEI material following the passage of the law.

If IU didn’t do anything wrong, it should have nothing to hide.

UpToDate is Out-of-Date on Child Sex Change Interventions

UpToDate is the leading clinical resource, providing comprehensive summaries and detailed health information on a broad array of medical topics to clinicians around the world. UpToDate’s parent company boasts that over three million clinicians use the resource “to make the best care decisions.”

Yet on the subject of so-called “gender-affirming care,” UpToDate is woefully inadequate.

Instead, its “resources” on the topic are misleading and are intended more to advance the “gender affirmation” approach to the treatment of gender dysphoria than to provide anything approaching an accurate summary of pediatric gender medicine literature.

Before diving into the substance, it’s crucial to note that one of the authors of the resource, Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, is not only a prominent advocate for and provider of so-called “gender-affirming care,” but is at the center of multiple controversies.

For one, The New York Times reported that Olson-Kennedy had initially refused to publish the results of a multi-million dollar, federally-funded study that found that “puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements” in children; Olson-Kennedy’s decision was due to fears that the results could undermine the argument for “gender-affirming care.” The results of the study were finally released earlier this month, finding that children’s depression symptoms and emotional health “did not change significantly over 24 months” of being on puberty blockers. 

Then, Clementine Breen, a now 20-year-old college student, sued Olson-Kennedy for medical negligence, alleging that Olson-Kennedy’s clinic put her on puberty blockers when she was 12 and performed a double mastectomy on her at 14. 

The other author of the resources, gender activist and child sex change practitioner Dr. Michelle Forcier, was also named in a lawsuit. Forcier allegedly recommended that the child plaintiff take testosterone injections after only one meeting.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the resources authored by Olson-Kennedy and Forcier fail to properly follow the evidence.

Any serious discussion of pediatric gender medicine must reckon with the ever-increasing body of literature showing that child sex change interventions lack sufficient evidentiary support.

Rather than take this into account and grapple with the ethical question of whether children should be subjected to sex change interventions, the UpToDate resources simply assume clinicians provide these procedures to “affirm” their patients’ gender.

As one resource, “Gender development and clinical presentation of gender diversity in children and adolescents,” makes clear, the authors envision the role of the clinician as that of a cheerleader encouraging the child to pursue their “asserted gender identity.” 

“Given the potential mental and physical health consequences of gender diversity in an unaccepting environment, it is important for health care providers to be nonjudgmental and to support their patients in their asserted gender identity,” the clinical summary states.

In other words, the resource suggests that medical providers should operate from the premise that the patient’s asserted identity must be affirmed; transgender medicalization inevitably follows from this position. The very idea of so-called “gender diversity” regressively enforces rigid sex stereotypes, relegating children who do not conform to a lifelong course of experimental body modification.

The authors simply refuse to engage with the wealth of evidence on the harms of child sex change interventions and the corresponding lack of evidence supporting the procedures’ effectiveness.

Neither resource even mentions the Cass Review, the comprehensive review of gender medical services in the United Kingdom that found the evidence supporting the “affirming” approach to be very weak. This is despite the fact that one of the resources, “Management of transgender and gender-diverse children and adolescents,” was last updated in March of 2025, a full eleven months after the publication of the Cass Review. 

That the most authoritative and comprehensive review of the evidence behind pediatric gender medicine would simply be absent from a resource on the topic is indefensible.

Moreover, despite UpToDate being available in over 190 countries, the authors fail to deal with the fact that many countries are moving away from the “affirmation” approach to gender dysphoria.

Health authorities within a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, Sweden, Brazil, and Finland, have restricted child sex change interventions as more and more evidence against these procedures comes to light.

Next, the authors outright mislead the audience on key facts about pediatric gender services.

Specifically, they claim that puberty blockers are “completely reversible.”

This statement simply cannot be made with confidence. 

Artificially preventing a child from going through puberty is inherently experimental, and the true impact on neurocognitive development, which includes executive function, regulation of emotions, and social cognition, is unknown. Not to mention the greater risk of permanent infertility and impaired adult sexual function, particularly if cross-sex hormones are started thereafter.

Sex steroid hormones are critical for bone mineralization and skeletal development. Puberty blockers disrupt this natural process, leading to diminished bone mineral density and concerns about increased fracture risk later in life. Research has shown that these drugs negatively affect bone density, with only partial recovery after sex steroid administration.

Additionally, nearly all children put on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones, which themselves contribute to infertility and are associated with increased risks of serious health conditions, including heart attack and stroke.

In sum, these resources paint a misleading and distorted picture about the evidence behind – and harms of – so-called “gender-affirming care,” and do so in service of a particular agenda.

Unfortunately, this is not the first instance of UpToDate prioritizing ideology over best practices. Do No Harm’s chairman, Stanley Goldfarb, MD, previously served as editor-in-chief of the kidney section of UpToDate. But when he began questioning the DEI dogma and the malign influence of identity politics on the medical profession, UpToDate’s leadership decided it would be best to part ways. 

UpToDate should take a hatchet to these resources and ensure that they accurately reflect the existing evidence, rather than simply reiterating the maxims of activists.

Harvard Medical School Rebrands Diversity Office After Years of DEI Activism

Harvard Medical School (HMS) is doing some reputation damage control.

HMS has rebranded its DEI office as the Office for Culture and Community Engagement (OCCE), Dean George Q. Daley announced earlier this week.

“First, our HMS Office for Diversity Inclusion and Community Partnership has adopted a new name — the Office for Culture and Community Engagement (OCCE) — to better reflect its work going forward,” Daley announced. “Under the continued visionary leadership of Dr. Joan Reede, OCCE will continue with two main focus areas: 1) providing opportunity and access to help individuals thrive and 2) collaboration and community-building.”

Daley’s statement suggests this is more of a cosmetic change than a real shift in HMS’s ideological commitment to DEI.

Conspicuously absent from Daley’s statement is any mention of significant policy or personnel changes related to DEI.

HMS should make it clear that it will end all divisive and discriminatory practices in which it engages, and that its DEI efforts will be discontinued rather than simply rebranded.

In addition to this rebrand, the school has taken steps to deemphasize language stressing the importance of diversity in its public statements.

According to The Harvard Crimson, HMS removed its diversity statement which included commitments to health equity and DEI, as well as pledges to “challenge discrimination,” “address disparities and inequities,” and “actively promote social justice.”

Additionally, the website for HMS’s DEI office now directs to the OCCE website, as do many DEI resource pages.

But HMS can’t rewrite history.

The school has long been a proponent of DEI and has promoted divisive and discriminatory practices and policies.

For instance, HMS maintained a racially-segregated affinity group that was the subject of a Do No Harm civil rights complaint in 2023. 

And in 2022, Do No Harm launched an advertising campaign highlighting HMS’s“Task Force on Diversity and Inclusion Report,” released in 2020, which laid out a comprehensive plan to make DEI ideology central to the school’s work. That plan now links back to the OCCE website.

We’re not content with a facelift. If HMS truly wishes to change its way and ditch its DEI practices, then it should make that clear.