United,States,Supreme,Court,Pillars,Of,Justice,And,Law,With

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.

Man,With,Defund,The,Police,Sign

‘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.

Do No Harm Podcast S3 EP4 MICHELLE HAVRILLA

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.

Medical,Mask,With,The,Flag,Of,Tennessee,In,The,Hands

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.

DNH_ContentCards_PressRelease

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.

Beaumont,Tower,,Michigan,State

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.

TH Do No Harm Podcast S3 EP2 DR IVAN ABDOUCH (1)

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.

Civil,Rights,And,Gavel,On,A,Table.,Law,And,Legal

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.

TH Do No Harm Podcast S3 EP2 DR IVAN ABDOUCH

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.

Medical,Law,Concept.,Gavel,,Stethoscope,,Blue,Light.,Place,For,Text.

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.

Teen,Problem,Family,Issues,Gender,Confusion,In,Teenager.,A,Teen

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.

U.s.,Capitol,(washington,Dc,,Usa)

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.,Sad,Woman,Sitting,Near,Scale,And,Measuring,Tape

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. 

Surgical,Room,In,Hospital,With,Medical,Team,Of,Surgeons,Doing

DEI By Another Name? American College of Surgeons Touts ‘Inclusive Excellence’

In recent years, the public has become more and more aware of the harmful and insidious nature of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), particularly in the fields of medicine and higher education. In response to this backlash as well as anti-DEI legislation, medical schools, medical associations, and other healthcare institutions have rolled back or rebranded their DEI initiatives – sometimes sincerely, and sometimes not.

The American College of Surgeons (ACS) seems to be doing a DEI bait-and-switch by rebranding its Office of DEI to the “Office of Inclusive Excellence.” As of earlier this month, the ACS’s page on its Office of DEI now redirects to its page on the Office of Inclusive Excellence.

The goals of both offices are virtually identical, and each contain ample references to advancing the DEI agenda throughout the ACS’s various activities. 

These include goals to “develop an overall strategic plan for diversity, equity, inclusion, and antiracism efforts in the College and with its partners to maximize the benefits of our collective work”; to “build a trauma-informed approach into all diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts without causing unintentional harm in addressing diversity, equity, inclusion, and antiracism”; and to “align DEI programmatic and curricular content to be consistent with common diversity, equity, and inclusion tenets according to subject matter expertise.”

Similarly, the ACS’s DEI Toolkit is now the “ACS Inclusive Excellence Resource and Implementation Toolkit.”

A cursory glance through ACS’s website shows the organization still has up its myriad endorsements of DEI and associated concepts, but these have been placed behind the “Inclusive Excellence” brand. For instance, its “commitment to Inclusive Excellence” simply links back to its “Commitment to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”

“The ACS underscores this commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion by ensuring that meaningful positions of leadership are held by Fellows from all constituent groups,” the statement reads.

And more importantly, the Inclusive Excellence toolkit’s resource library makes implicit repeated references to the notion that physician-patient racial concordance will improve health outcomes.

As Do No Harm has shown, this argument lacks evidence. Four out of five systematic reviews of racial concordance have shown no positive impact on health outcomes.

The toolkit also references a debunked 2020 study purporting to show lower infant mortality rates for black newborns that are treated by black physicians.

“The value of diversity in health care specifically as it pertains to patient outcomes is an increasing focus of study. While much of the literature to date is centered on adverse health

outcomes among patients from underrepresented populations, fewer studies have specifically addressed how increased diversity among healthcare providers improves patient care outcomes. One such example is the lower mortality rate for Black newborns when cared for by Black physicians (Greenwood et al, 2020).”

In a commentary published Monday, researchers examined the same data set used in the 2020 study but controlled for low infant birth weight; this made the ostensible racial concordance effect disappear, debunking the study’s findings.

It’s clear that the ACS is attempting to put some distance between itself and DEI as more and more people realize how harmful that radical ideology truly is.

But at the same time, their core DEI commitments and policies appear unchanged. Instead, it seems like the ACS wants to have it both ways; they want to appeal to the ideals of medical excellence exalted in traditional medicine, while maintaining the tenets of woke ideology. 

If the ACS truly wishes to ditch DEI, they need to do more than change a few names.

Aerial,View,Of,Columbus,Ohio

Ohio State Hosts Lecture Urging Doctors to Become Pro-DEI Activists

One might think the purpose of medical schools is to teach students how to practice medicine, and that medical professionals should focus on the practice of medicine.

But according to Dr. Quinn Capers, doctors should also become activists.

“I would say to you that doctors, physicians, we must now be activists,” Capers said, speaking in a recent lecture at Ohio State University. In fact, Capers mentioned the importance of being “activists” and promoting “activism” roughly 20 times during his lecture.

What does this activism look like? Well, according to Capers, it’s taking “a knee against police brutality” and marching “to have racism declared a public health issue.”

But Capers also has a more political activity in mind: voter registration. He applauded students at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center for registering people to vote, and even appeared to call one’s voter registration status a “social determinant of health.”

Capers also insisted that physicians should educate the public on health disparities and inequities.

“Teach about disparities and inequities, and you got to talk about solutions, please,” Capers said. “But teach even when the topic is uncomfortable; be an activist … as a medical educator.”

The solution to these disparities is, predictably, more diversity in the medical profession.

And how can medical schools work to forward diversity in healthcare? Well, per Capers, one way is implicit bias training to eliminate so-called unconscious biases he says disadvantage minority students.

Capers argues admissions committees should take implicit bias tests and undergo implicit bias trainings to address this issue.

The problem is that implicit bias tests do not track with real-world bias and discrimination. The tests don’t meet accepted standards of reliability.

Interestingly, Capers failed to mention explicit bias in medical school admissions, in which medical schools explicitly discriminate against applicants based on their race. That explicit discrimination, however, disadvantages white and Asian students.

A look at 2013-2016 admissions data analyzed by the American Enterprise Institute shows that black and Hispanic students were accepted at far higher rates than their white and Asian counterparts with similar grades and Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) scores.

If Capers is concerned about racial discrimination, he may be looking in the wrong places.

Additionally, implicit within Capers’ arguments is the claim that diversifying the medical profession will reduce health disparities. Capers has previously advocated for the notion that racial concordance, in which patients are treated by physicians of the same race, improves health outcomes among minority groups.

There is simply no evidence for this. Do No Harm released a report last year showing that four out of five systematic reviews of racial concordance have shown no positive impact on health outcomes.

Thankfully, more and more states are taking steps to ensure ideas like Capers’ are rejected in medical curricula. But in the meantime, the students at these schools deserve better.

Doctoral,Dissertation.,A,Medical,Student,For,Textbooks.,The,Study,Of

New Research Debunks Key Study Used to Support Discriminatory Med School Admissions

One of the most influential studies used to support the notion that racial concordance – in which patients are treated by physicians of the same race – produces positive health outcomes has been debunked, according to new research published Monday. When the proper controls are applied, the study’s findings basically disappear.

Proponents of DEI and race-conscious admissions in medical schools have frequently cited the 2020 study, “Physician–patient racial concordance and disparities in birthing mortality for newborns,” to argue that medical schools should prioritize race in admissions in order to increase diversity among physicians and thereby improve care for minority patients.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson even cited an amicus brief referring to the study’s findings in her dissent in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

However, it turns out that the study had serious methodological flaws.

The 2020 study examined Florida infant mortality data and purported to show that the elevated infant mortality rate among black babies was partially reduced when black babies had black doctors rather than white doctors.

But a commentary published Monday, in the same journal, examined the same data and found that, when controlling for low birth weights, the racial concordance effect becomes statistically insignificant. 

This completely debunks the central finding of the 2020 study. 

Do No Harm previously highlighted the fact that the 2020 study failed to adequately control for the severity of comorbidities, like low birth weight, in our report examining the evidence, or lack thereof, supporting the racial concordance effect in medicine. The 2024 research confirms our suspicions that the purported effect would become insignificant once researchers controlled for low birth weight.

The 2024 commentary, “Physician–patient racial concordance and newborn mortality,” found that “the estimated effect is near zero and statistically insignificant in the expanded specifications that control for very low birth weight and include hospital and physician fixed effects.”

This research is just the latest piece of evidence undercutting the academic foundation of DEI and racial discrimination in the country’s medical institutions. Much of this research is too often a pretext for politically motivated academics to smuggle their beliefs into the public discourse through shoddy work. 

As it so happens, one of the co-authors of the 2020 study is a fan of Cuba’s health system which she characterized as a “more responsive, humanistic model of health care.”

But ultimately, the facts are on our side.

Do No Harm’s report on racial concordance highlighted the fact that four out of five systematic reviews found no evidence to support the claim that racial concordance produces positive health outcomes.

Moreover, Do No Harm has extensively chronicled the serious flaws in the body of research most often cited by DEI proponents; last week, we released a guide picking apart the methodologies of these studies.

As we apply proper scrutiny to pro-DEI research, the findings almost invariably tend to vanish.

Do No Harm Podcast Social Graphic Style Ep1 Part 2 updated

S3E1: Navigating the Voter Pulse on Pediatric Gender Medicine and DEI Part 2

,

Guests: Aaron Sibarium & Leor Sapir

In Season 3, Episode 1 of the Do No Harm Podcast, we delve into the critical issues of so called gender affirming care and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and their significance to the electorate. How do these issues resonate with voters, and what sentiments do they evoke? We dissect the official positions of political campaigns, examining the messaging strategies they employ to justify their stances. 

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

The views expressed by guests on this podcast are the opinions of those guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of Do No Harm.

A,Doctor’s,Lab,Coat,And,Stethoscope,On,Hanger,Against,A

Do No Harm Notches Key Victories in Fight Against Medical Schools’ Racial Discrimination

, ,

Two medical schools, the University of Maryland School of Medicine and Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine, have each ceased racially discriminatory practices following Do No Harm civil rights complaints.

The University of Maryland School of Medicine is no longer offering a scholarship program that discriminated against applicants based on their race. The medical school ditched the scholarship after the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened a federal civil rights investigation into the scholarship due to a Do No Harm complaint.

In 2022, Do No Harm discovered that the school’s Department of Psychiatry was previously offered a $1,500 scholarship for “visiting students underrepresented in medicine”; however, the scholarship’s eligibility criteria limited the opportunity to students of certain races.

“‘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 criteria read. “This lens currently includes students who identify as African Americans and/or Black, Hispanic/Latino, Native American (American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), Pacific Islander, and mainland Puerto Rican.”

In other words, the scholarship specifically excluded students who were white, Asian, Middle Eastern, and other unfavored racial groups.

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark J. Perry filed a federal civil rights complaint against the University of Maryland in 2022, alleging the program discriminates “on the basis of race, color, or national origin,” which is prohibited under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. OCR opened an investigation into the school later that year.

OCR then notified Do No Harm on September 11, 2024, that the University of Maryland was no longer offering the scholarship.

“On August 26, 2024, the University notified OCR that the Scholarship is no longer offered by the University and it is no longer listed on its website,” the notice read. “Based on this information, OCR has determined that the allegation is resolved, and we are dismissing it […].”

“This is another solid victory for Do No Harm’s efforts to expose and successfully challenge race-based discrimination in US medical schools,” Perry said. “OCR’s ruling demonstrates that Do No Harm has the law on our side as it agreed with our claim that Maryland’s discrimination was an unlawful violation of Title VI and it closed its investigation only after the school agreed to terminate its discriminatory scholarship.”

Distributing financial awards to students based on their race is not only immoral but illegal. Denying white and Asian students access to funding simply because they happened to be born in the wrong ethnic group is not in line with any medical school’s pedagogical mission and will only harm the medical field. Do No Harm applauds this result and urges all U.S. medical schools to abandon their racially discriminatory programs that violate their legal obligation to actively enforce Title VI.

But that’s not our only victory this month. 

Temple University’s Lewis Katz School of Medicine recently promoted its annual “Black Men in Medicine” event scheduled for October 24, which it restricted only to black males.

“This event aims to provide a supportive environment that prioritizes the experiences, voices, needs, and safety of those who identify as Black males working in or studying in the health professions,” the event description read. “If you do not self-identify as part of this demographic, we ask that you contact us at OHEDI@temple.edu for other opportunities for engagement and support.”

Perry filed a civil rights complaint against the school on September 5 alleging the event violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and shared a courtesy copy of the complaint with Temple University’s leadership including its University Counsel and president

Just a few days later, the medical school changed its event description, saying now that “all are welcome.” Furthermore, the University removed the sentence about those who “do not self-identify as part of this demographic.” 

Medical schools should be on notice: Do No Harm is watching, and we will make sure you are held accountable for any attempts to racially discriminate in violation of your legal obligation to actively enforce all federal civil rights laws including Title VI. There are no “unless you have good intentions” exceptions to Title VI, and all discrimination based on race is unlawful even if it advantages medical students of the “right” races for the “right” reasons.

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.