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

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

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

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

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

Click here to view the course.

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

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

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

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

S3E6: Medicine Unmasked: Navigating the Politics of Healthcare

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list goes on.

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

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

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

Do No Harm Sues University of Washington School of Medicine

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

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

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

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

Click here to read the lawsuit.

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

Do No Harm Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Tennessee’s Ban on Biology-Denying Medical Interventions

,

On Tuesday, October 15, 2024, Do No Harm submitted an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in United States v. Skrmetti asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, which prohibits biology-denying transgender medical interventions on minors. These include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical procedures intended to make a child appear like the opposite sex.

The Department of Justice under President Joe Biden first sued Tennessee over the law in 2023, arguing it denied minors “medically necessary” care, and that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Specifically, the DOJ argued that the law “permits all other minors to access the same procedures and treatments” for conditions unrelated to gender dysphoria, but prevents “transgender” children from accessing the medical interventions to alter their appearance in accordance with their gender self-identification.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld Tennessee’s law, and the federal government appealed to the Supreme Court, which took up the case earlier this year.

Do No Harm’s amicus brief sets the record straight on the science underlying so-called “gender-affirming care,” and explains why the arguments against the ban are out of step with the weight of the evidence.

Do No Harm explains that:

  • Several entities have conducted systematic reviews of the use of cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers to treat gender dysphoria, and all have concluded that the evidence underlying medical interventions for gender dysphoria in minors is weak; zero have come out the other way.
  • There is no reliable evidence that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones reduce the risk of suicide.
  • The federal government is relying upon evidence that systematic reviews have concluded is unreliable
  • The federal government does not understand what evidence-based medicine truly is

In addition, a brief submitted by 56 physicians explains how Senate Bill 1’s prohibition on dangerous and unsupported medical procedures “accords with every conceivable notion of medical ethics.” Do No Harm funded the preparation and submission of that brief.

The brief also lays out how puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones pose health risks to child patients.

Read the full text of Do No Harm’s amicus brief here.

Read the full text of the amicus brief submitted by 56 physicians here.

‘Recreating Wakanda’: LSU’s Med School Directs Students to ‘Defund the Police’ Site, Calls for Racial Discrimination

When a prospective or current Louisiana State University (LSU) School of Medicine student visits their school’s website, they’re likely looking for information related to their studies. Resources that can help them become better healthcare professionals.

But instead, when students visit the School of Medicine Department of Physiology’s web page, they are immediately greeted with a massive banner including statements such as “BLACK LIVES matter,” “FEMINISM is for everyone,” and “IMMIGRANTS are welcome.”

Figure 1: Screenshot of the LSU School of Medicine Department of Physiology’s web page.

And underneath that banner is a link to the department’s “Fight Against Racism” page, which contains links to a bevy of radical political resources. Many of the links appear to be dated from the summer of 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests and riots.

For instance, one site, “Defund12.org,” provides visitors with the contact information of municipalities across the country and sample email text calling on them to defund their police departments.

“Email and mail government officials and council members to reallocate egregious police budgets towards education, social services, and dismantling racial injustice,” the site reads.

Another link directs to a podcast from The Intercept titled, “The Rebellion in Defense of Black Lives is Rooted in US History. So Too is Trump’s Authoritarian Rule.” The podcast is a critical take on the government’s attempts to crack down on the violent riots that swept the country following the killing of George Floyd.

“Police forces across the U.S. are functioning as violent militias equipped with military gear,” the description reads. “Operating like a violent counterinsurgency force, the government has used drones and is using other military and intelligence-grade surveillance systems on protesters.”

Why, one might ask, is a medical school of all places promoting this content? What does a debate about authoritarianism and use of force have to do with medical education? Why is the university’s priority to promote radical political activism instead of, you know, resources about medicine?

There are no good answers to these questions. LSU is, unfortunately, another example of an institution captured by identity politics that has abrogated its duty to honestly teach medicine in favor of DEI activism.

What’s more, the web page links to authors such as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, whose work each centers around implementing racially discriminatory policies and engendering racial paranoia among white and Asian individuals in the name of “anti-racism.”

Then there’s a link to an article published in Nature titled, “Recreating Wakanda by promoting Black excellence in ecology and evolution.”

The article is about what you’d expect; it invokes a comic book character to argue for racial discrimination in order to “elevate” black scholars.

Here are a few choice excerpts:

“In the Marvel comic series Black Panther, a universe is imagined in which the intellectual, cultural, social and scientific contributions of Black scholars are celebrated. In this fictional nation of Wakanda, the contributions of Black scholars are elevated, emphasizing that global scientific and technological advancements are realized in a world welcoming of Black excellence. To fully realize the beauty and power of Wakanda in our own universe, we must employ anti-racist policies and actions.”

Figure 2: Screenshot of a chart from “Recreating Wakanda by promoting Black excellence in ecology and evolution.”

“Most importantly, institutional policies must be married with individual interrogation of biases and privileges, placing accountability at the core of authentically practicing anti-racism pedagogy and doctrine.”

Since Do No Harm began, we’ve cataloged our fair share of medical schools endorsing woke identity politics.

But these examples are especially egregious. There is not even the pretense that they relate to medical education. Rather, LSU is content with its medical school becoming a vehicle for political activism.

If LSU wants to show its sincerity to medical education, it should remove this page and clarify its mission to impact medical knowledge to future practitioners.

S3E4: Stop the Harm Database: Exposing the Child Trans Industry in America

In this eye-opening episode of the Do No Harm Podcast, hosts Ian Kingsbury and Scott Centorino welcome Michelle Havrilla, Director of Programs at Do No Harm and a dedicated oncology and palliative care nurse practitioner. Michelle introduces the groundbreaking Stop the Harm Database, a first-of-its kind project that brings to light the politicization of healthcare and the increasing prevalence of sex-based interventions on children. The discussion delves into the alarming statistics and financial incentives driving these practices, challenging the narrative that such procedures are rare or benign. Listen as Michelle shares her journey to Do No Harm and her efforts to prioritize patient care over ideological agendas.

To learn more about the database, visit www.StopTheHarmDatabase.com.

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

A Tennessee Medical Student’s View on How Their School Is Handling Anti-DEI Laws

In 2022, Tennessee enacted a law preventing public universities, including medical schools, from teaching “divisive concepts” such as racial stereotyping, the notion that some racial groups are inherently racist, and so on. The law was intended in part to crack down on universities teaching tenets of the DEI agenda that encourage racial discrimination in the name of “equity.”

The next year, the state enacted a law rolling back or banning a number of DEI initiatives at public universities, and preventing public universities from spending funds on DEI.

However, predictably, there appears to be some resistance to these changes.

One Tennessee medical student got in touch with us and shared details of the school’s newly-implemented 2023 course that contained ample references to concepts that fit snugly into the DEI panoply, such as implicit bias and “environmental racism.” 

We spoke with them again last month on how their medical school is grappling with the anti-DEI laws. Here’s what they had to say:

There have been some changes since the end of last year. The new course curriculum was discontinued. A rationale given for this decision was that test averages had fallen and there were multiple complaints regarding the time commitment required of the course meetings and activities. 

However, I think the administration could sense the disapproval of the topics being taught and perhaps foresaw the possibility of legal ramifications, given that the new course curriculum violated the state law enacted in 2023. (It’s also interesting to note that some offices have retracted words or language that signify “divisive concepts” from their titles).

While it’s encouraging that the school is rolling back its DEI curriculum, that’s not all.

As a trade off, there are now a small number of separate lectures that discuss the social and environmental factors affecting a person’s health and healthcare disparities. Fundamentally, these deal with understanding various lived realities a patient may experience that can lead to certain health outcomes, which is certainly beneficial for doctors to ask about and often medically relevant. There are aspects of these lectures that certainly everyone agrees with, such as finding ways to increase access to healthcare for people without it. However, politicized themes of racial, ethnic and class disparities in healthcare continue to come up. 

Most medical students in the United States pursue medicine because they want to be good doctors and care for patients the best they can. They are not politically motivated nor wish to implement activist agendas into their training. Nonetheless, there seems to be an increasing level of motivation on behalf of some (administrators, students, etc.) to increase the amount of medical student involvement in sociopolitical causes. Individuals, of course, have the right to participate freely in whatever causes they may choose. But certainly, most Americans would agree that any and all political ideology should be kept from assimilating into medical education and healthcare more broadly. 

The student’s account sheds light on the reality of attempts to crack down on DEI in universities. Often, the ideology is so institutionally ingrained that schools will look for ways to circumvent good-faith laws cracking down on these discriminatory concepts.

To combat this, more stringent enforcement is required.

Do No Harm Launches First National Database Exposing the Child Trans Industry

,

RICHMOND, VA; October 8, 2024 – Today, Do No Harm launched a first-of-its-kind national database of hospitals and medical facilities administering irreversible sex change interventions on children in the United States.

The Stop the Harm Database can be found at StopTheHarmDatabase.com and catalogs pediatric sex change-related services, including surgeries, cross-sex hormones, and puberty blockers, at U.S.-based medical facilities between 2019 and 2023. The data is searchable by state and facility.

Now, parents, policymakers, and concerned citizens alike can search for their local children’s hospital and find out whether they are performing harmful medical procedures on minors.

“With the launch of the Stop the Harm Database, Do No Harm is building on our mission to expose the dangers of experimental pediatric gender medicine and bring the practice to an end,” said Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “This first-of-its-kind project provides patients, families, and policymakers with a resource that reveals the pervasiveness of irreversible sex-change treatments for minors in America. While this data represents the tip of the iceberg, this is the first step in holding the medical establishment accountable for participating in, and often times promoting, predatory and unscientific medical interventions for vulnerable children.”

“This new project from Do No Harm proves the lies from the medical establishment and radical politicians who argue that cases like mine are rare,” said Do No Harm Senior Fellow and Patient Advocate Chloe Cole. “The stats in this database represent thousands of kids who are being treated like Guinea pigs for unproven, and sometimes dangerous, medical experiments. I hope politicians and parents alike use this database to see where these treatments are happening and protect their children from being rushed into irreversible, life-altering treatments.”

Key National Findings (2019 to 2023):

  • 13,994 children received sex change related treatments 
  • 5,747 sex change surgeries performed on children
  • 62,682 hormone and puberty blockers prescriptions written for 8,579 pediatric patients.
  • At least $119,791,202 made from sex change treatments performed on minors

These numbers are just scratching the surface of how widespread these practices truly are.

Additionally, the Stop the Harm Database profiles the most prolific institutions and providers engaged in these dangerous and unsupported interventions. These hospitals, the “Dirty Dozen,” represent the 12 worst-offending children’s hospitals promoting sex change treatments for minors:

  • The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
  • Connecticut Children’s Medical Center
  • Children’s Minnesota
  • Seattle Children’s
  • Children’s Hospital Los Angeles
  • Boston Children’s Hospital
  • Rady Children’s Hospital
  • Children’s National Medical Center
  • UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland
  • Children’s Hospital Colorado
  • UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh
  • Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center

Click here to find a detailed description of Do No Harm’s methodology for the database.

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

Three More Med Schools Ditch Discriminatory Programs After Do No Harm Civil Rights Complaints

, , , , ,

October has only just started, and already we’ve notched a few major wins.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) informed Do No Harm this week that three medical schools have discontinued racially discriminatory practices after Do No Harm complaints alleging they violated federal civil rights law.

These are huge victories, and the latest in a spree of good news: last month, the University of Maryland School of Medicine and Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine rolled back their racially discriminatory programs following our civil rights complaints. Similarly, the Department of Health and Human Services’ OCR is now investigating the Cleveland Clinic for two of its minority health programs thanks to Do No Harm’s complaints.

“These three successful challenges of illegal discrimination demonstrate and reinforce that Do No Harm definitively has federal civil rights laws on our side,” said Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark J. Perry. “Title VI and Title IX clearly state that it is unlawful for medical schools to discriminate based on race or sex when they offer or promote scholarships, clerkships, fellowships, or academic programs.”

Here are the schools in question:

Michigan State University

Michigan State University (MSU) medical school promoted the American Society of Hematology Minority Medical Student Award Program on its website. The program offered medical students a stipend to participate in research projects, in which they would receive mentorship and access to other networking opportunities.

There was just one catch: only certain races could apply. The program description contained the following disclaimer:

“At the time of application, the applicant must identify as a minority; applicants are asked to  self-identify, and participants for the MMSAP are drawn from this pool. For the purposes of this program, minority is defined as a group of people from racial and ethnic groups that have been shown to be underrepresented in health-related sciences in the United States and Canada. This includes Indigenous American Indians or Alaska Natives, Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, African Canadians, Inuit, and First Nation Peoples.”

Thankfully, the university has delisted the program after Do No Harm filed a complaint alleging the university’s promotion of the program violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“The University notified OCR that it had since removed the listing of this program from its website,” OCR said in a letter to Do No Harm earlier this week. “OCR searched the University’s website and confirmed that it no longer included any listing for this program.”

Tufts University Medical Center

Similarly, Tufts University’s Medical Center’s Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine operated an anesthesiology-focused summer visiting clerkship at Tufts for students deemed to be “underrepresented” in medicine.

The eligibility requirements stipulated that students must self-identify as Underrepresented in Medicine (URIM)  which the University specifically defined as: “Black/African American, Alaskan/Hawaiian Native, Native American and Hispanic American/Latinx.”

Do No Harm filed a civil rights complaint against Tufts over the program in July 2022, and in February 2024 OCR opened a federal civil rights investigation.

Then, this week, OCR told Do No Harm in a determination letter that Tufts had discontinued the program.

“The University informed OCR that the Clerkship was offered one time in the summer of 2022 and has been discontinued,” the letter read.

Better late than never!

Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science

Do No Harm also filed a civil rights complaint against the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science for its physician assistant program targeted exclusively toward black men, Empowerment, Diversity, Growth, and Excellence in Physician Assistant Education (EDGE-PA).  

“This unique initiative recruits Black men who are on the precipice of acceptance into a PA program but just need that extra boost to get in,” a press release on the program read.

In response to  our civil rights complaint, the university has since updated the program  eligibility to instead target “underserved groups, including individuals from medically underserved groups, those committed to serving underserved populations, and those who have overcome significant barriers in their lives.”

It’s a small step, but ending overt racial preferencing is always a good outcome.

“When Do No Harm exposed and challenged the illegal discrimination at Michigan State, Tufts, and Charles R. Drew with federal civil rights complaints, the Office for Civil Rights once again ruled in our favor and forced the three schools to end their race-based and sex-based discrimination,” Perry said.

Medical schools should be on notice: Do No Harm is watching, and we will make sure you are held accountable for any attempts to unlawfully discriminate in violation of your legal obligation to actively enforce all federal civil rights laws including Title VI and Title IX.
Have you been unfairly affected by discriminatory scholarships or programs at your institution, or are you aware of any discrimination at a U.S. medical school? If you or others did not apply because you thought you were ineligible, please let us know – anonymously and securely.

S3E3: Unmasking Anti-Semitism in Medicine: The DEI Dilemma

In this eye-opening episode of the Do No Harm podcast, hosts Ian Kingsbury and Scott Centorino sit down with Dr. Jay Greene, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and senior fellow at Do No Harm, to tackle the pressing issue of anti-Semitism within the realm of medical institutions. The discussion centers on how Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives might inadvertently fuel anti-Semitic sentiments, impacting Jewish communities in both academia and healthcare. Through a detailed exploration, they reveal the complexities of DEI frameworks and their unintended consequences, advocating for an approach that truly respects diversity while ensuring equity. Join us as we delve into these critical challenges and strive to foster a more inclusive medical environment.

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

Do No Harm Grills Medical Schools on Treatment of Jewish Student Groups

,

Do No Harm, in coordination with the National Jewish Advocacy Center (NJAC), sent letters to medical schools across the country warning them that mistreatment of Jewish student groups is a violation of civil rights law.

The letters come in response to an August decision by the International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA), a collective of over 100 medical student associations from all over the globe, which suspended the Israeli medical students’ association (FIMS) for two years. 

“Although the IFMSA rationalized its decision as a punishment for behavior by FIMS, reporting reflects this reasoning was a facade, and the decision was instead based on blatantly  antisemitic factors,” the letters read, referencing reporting from YNet and other sources. 

These factors include “false accusations of ‘genocide’ denial; the fact that members of the Israeli medical students’ organization serve in the Israeli military; the presence of students from a Jewish university; alleged threats against medical students, online harassment, and hate speech; threats against the Palestinian medical students’ organization; and the overall struggle of the Palestinian medical students’ organization.”

Do No Harm and NJAC are ensuring that medical schools do not carry out similar actions against Israeli students and groups, warning them that doing so would violate civil rights law.

“Medical schools must not help IFMSA perpetrate this antisemitic injustice against Israeli students,” said Do No Harm Chairman Dr. Stanley Goldfarb. “Any school doing this will be in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and will be held accountable.”

The letters ask medical schools to confirm that they have not suspended any programs or denied any opportunities to Jewish and Israeli students.

“In particular, we seek confirmation that no programs, research, collaborations, conferences, fellowship opportunities, scholarships, publications or any other function of the [medical school] will be limited, curtailed, suspended or otherwise impacted for Jewish students, Israeli students, or anyone affiliated with Israeli medical institutions,” the letters read. 

Read the story in the Daily Caller here.

S3E2: Unveiling the Realities of Gender-Affirming Care

In this enlightening episode of the “Do No Harm Podcast,” we sit down with Dr. Ivan Abdouch, a seasoned practitioner who has extensive experience in treating transgender patients. Our guest shares his personal journey, detailing the pivotal moments that led him to question the practices of pediatric gender medicine. Together, we unravel the often glamorized perceptions of hormone therapy and sex change surgery, offering a candid look at what these interventions truly involve.

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

This video contains graphic medical content that some viewers may find disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised.

Attorneys General Warn American Academy of Pediatrics It May Be Breaking the Law With Child Gender Statements

Twenty attorneys general signed a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Tuesday warning the medical association that its statements supporting gender medical interventions for children are “deceptive” and may violate states’ consumer protection laws.

The letter, led by Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, asks the AAP to substantiate its claims that puberty blockers are reversible and to provide information on its communications surrounding its gender medicine guidance.

“Amid a fracturing consensus among the medical establishment on sex change surgeries and drugs for minors, the American Academy of Pediatrics has refused to reevaluate their recommendations,” said Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Jared Ross. “We applaud Attorney General Labrador and all the other attorneys general who are holding the AAP accountable for endorsing unscientific, experimental, and potentially harmful treatments.”

The letter pointed to the AAP’s 2018 policy statement – that the organization reaffirmed in August 2023 – that characterized puberty blockers as “reversible.”

“The 2018 AAP policy statement itself demonstrates that the ‘reversible’ claim is  misleading and deceptive,” the letter states. “It acknowledges that ‘[r]esearch on long-term risks, particularly in terms of bone metabolism and fertility, is currently limited and provides varied results.’ The AAP has no basis to assure parents that giving their children puberty blockers can be fully reversed. It just isn’t true.”

Puberty blockers can cause diminished bone density in minors, with research showing that they negatively affect “bone mineral density, especially at the lumbar spine, which is only partially restored after sex steroid administration.” 

Moreover, artificially preventing a child from going through puberty is inherently experimental, and there are long-term risks such as cognitive impairment, greater risk of infertility, and permanently impaired adult sexual function. Additionally, nearly all children put on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones.

“The application of these laws to the AAP’s claim is straightforward,” the letter states. “First, statements made by medical trade associations, like the AAP, are subject to state consumer protection laws. Second, misleading and deceptive statements of medical trade associations are connected to commerce and reach consumers.”

The letter asks the AAP for records of communications with the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) related to WPATH’s recommended age minimums for gender medical interventions. Court records show the AAP warned it would not endorse WPATH’s standards of care for gender medicine if the age minimums were put in place.

Read the full letter here.

Do No Harm Releases Guide Exposing Faulty Studies Behind So-Called ‘Gender-Affirming Care’

Slowly but surely, the world is coming around to the conclusion that so-called “gender-affirming care” for minors lacks evidence and carries unknown dangers and long-term effects.

The United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland have each restricted gender medical interventions for children, with the Cass Review examining youth gender treatments within the United Kingdom and determining that the evidence for such procedures is of “poor quality.”

But the United States lags behind; many of our major medical associations still endorse gender medical interventions such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for children despite continued lack of evidence.

In response, Do No Harm is releasing a guide exposing several of the most influential studies used to support the medical transitioning of children. This guide will equip the public with the facts and help them understand just how shoddy the supposed “evidence” behind these procedures really is.

For instance, several studies use data collected by transgender advocacy organizations or from self-reported questionnaires that contain obvious falsities. 

Other studies have conspicuously short follow-up times to avoid measuring any inconvenient long-term effects of the treatments in question.

You can read the full guide here.

Earlier this month, we released our guide exposing several of the more commonly cited studies used to support the DEI agenda. You can read that guide here.

House Passes Bill Taking Aim at DEI in Higher Education

, ,

Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Accreditation for College Excellence Act, a key step in reining in the influence of DEI in higher education.

The bill would effectively prevent accrediting organizations from requiring colleges and universities to adhere to and/or advance the DEI agenda as a condition of their accreditation.

It passed 213-201, with four Democratic members of Congress voting in favor of the legislation. 

Specifically, the bill ensures that accreditors don’t force higher education institutions to support or oppose specific political positions, and prevents accreditors from requiring colleges to endorse the “disparate treatment of any individual or group.”

Do No Harm helped educate members of Congress on examples of DEI in medical education across the country in advance of the bill’s consideration. This legislation, if passed, would deal a significant blow to the DEI ideology that is pervading pedagogical institutions.

“For too long, activist accreditors have used political tests to threaten funding for colleges and universities that do not conform to far-left ideology,” Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), who introduced the bill, said last week. “The result is an environment that mandates DEI and CRT programs, setting students apart based on skin color rather than merit. Today’s vote is a victory for academic freedom, the Constitution, and the future of American higher education.”

Do No Harm has also endorsed the EDUCATE Act, which would similarly prevent accreditors from forcing medical schools to adhere to particular political positions. Moreover, the bill would defund DEI programs at medical schools.

Eating Disorder Center Tells Clinicians to Hide Kids’ Gender Identity From Parents

The Renfrew Center, a national eating disorder treatment program, ran a training presentation telling clinicians to hide children’s gender identity from their parents.

In a rejection of sound research and evidence-based practice, the center practices a so-called “gender affirmation” approach to adolescent patients in their care.

The center offers outpatient programs throughout the country, as well as residential facilities in Pennsylvania and Florida. They admit and treat “cisgender adolescent girls and women, transgender adolescents and adults, and gender non-binary adolescents and adults.”

Figure 1. “Who We Treat” from The Renfrew Center website.

In a May 2023 presentation offered by Renfrew Center staff and rebroadcast in June 2024, Renfrew clinical assessor Alexandra Poole advises clinicians to withhold information about adolescent patients when speaking to their parents. “Before you disclose a patient’s pronouns or [trans] identity with parents, check in first to see what name and pronouns the family members use and what the patient is comfortable with having shared,” Poole states. “This can be a safety issue if we are outing people to family. We don’t know what internal bias they have and it can actually lead to a really abusive home environment.”

Additionally, she advises clinicians that attending to basic care needs of patients may include referrals for medical intervention including top or bottom surgery, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones. A patient may also need to obtain “gender affirming clothing,” such as binders.

The Renfrew Center presentation cites statistics from the Trevor Project, claiming that “minority stress and gender dysphoria are the leading cause of eating disorders in trans and non-binary youth.” Eating disorders have a much higher incidence in transgender or nonbinary boys and girls than in non-trans identifying youth. The presentation claims, without evidence or citation, that body dysmorphia does not respond to bodily changes, but body dysphoria does. Therefore, clinicians are urged to constantly affirm the self-perception of a youth who identifies as the opposite sex.

Figure 2. “Care Needs” for transgender population at The Renfrew Center.
Figure 3. Body dysmorphia vs. body dysphoria differences.

The Renfrew Center has high “accessibility” scores with the Fed Up Collective. This initiative requires a rooming policy that “prioritizes the safety of transgender people” (see figures 4 and 5). This rooming policy seems to leave open the possibility that a biological boy identifying as a girl may share a living space with biological girls.

Figure 4. Explanation of FedUp Collective “Accessible ED Treatment” Scorecard.
Figure 5. Renfrew Center scores on “Accessible ED Treatment” scorecard.

Current research indicates that affirmation for one’s trans identity does not lead to lower incidence of mental health problems, and often increases psychological challenges. The presenter uses the example of a “transgender boy” who is engaging in restrictive eating to lose her menstrual cycle, so that she can feel more like a boy. Affirming this child’s chosen gender identity will not remove the motivation for the eating disorder, which is to be more similar to a boy. Despite this incongruence, the Renfrew Center, whose primary mission is to treat eating disorders, continues to engage in trans activism over sound eating disorder treatment.

Misaligned treatment priorities are a hallmark of medical institutions that have been captured by woke ideology. The Renfrew Center undermines its own mission in service to a political agenda. Do No Harm calls on all clinical practices to return to an evidence-based treatment modality that centers patient needs over ideology.