Is medical school culture replacing academic rigor?

Medscape recently released a report entitled, “A Constant Evolution: The Unique Culture of Medical School: Medscape 2025 Report.” The report’s underlying premise is that a warm, welcoming, and supportive culture in medical school allows students to not only “survive” their training, but to truly “thrive” in their educational journey.

Yet, reading between the lines, this emphasis on “culture” and environment also poses a very different question: Has medical education subtly morphed into a consumer-driven enterprise, where feelings of belonging trump the rigorous mastery of knowledge and skills needed to produce competent physicians? With only one question focused on study time, the survey is otherwise absent any mention of academics or the learning that takes place. To that end, the report’s noted cultural “evolution” leaves unanswered what remains of the academic culture that should be at the heart of any medical school.

Read the full article at KevinMD.com.

The AAMC Does More Damage Control on DEI 

This week, Do No Harm reported on how the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) spent much of its annual meeting discussing ways to advance DEI priorities.

These sessions demonstrate that, despite the AAMC removing much of its DEI programming from its website, DEI is still integral to the organization’s institutional priorities. 

Nevertheless, the AAMC has continued to remove more of its overtly pro-DEI resources from its website.

Roughly one year ago, Do No Harm unveiled an exhaustive report examining the AAMC’s various DEI initiatives, many of which the AAMC openly advertised on its website.

Now, many of the DEI resources highlighted by Do No Harm have either been rebranded to include more innocuous language, altered to redirect to less-overt endorsements of DEI, or removed entirely.

For instance, the AAMC’s webpage titled “Investing in Healthier Communities” is no longer live; the website previously hosted a slew of DEI resources. These included endorsements of race-conscious admissions in medical schools, DEI initiatives in the federal health bureaucracy, and wide-scale DEI programming.

Figure 1. A screenshot of the AAMC’s archived Investing in Healthier Communities webpage.

Now, the webpage redirects to the AAMC’s advocacy webpage. 

No such full-throated endorsements of DEI remain.

Also redirecting to the AAMC’s advocacy webpage is the “Workforce Legislative Policy and Priorities” page.

That webpage also featured the AAMC’s political advocacy efforts, but was significantly more ideological and replete with DEI activism.

For instance, the page included:

  • Support for increased immigration on the grounds that immigrants “add diversity of culture and experience to our nation’s workforce.”
  • Support for programs that “invest in scholarship, loan repayment, and mentorship programs for future health care professionals from underrepresented minority, rural, and disadvantaged backgrounds.”

As another example, the AAMC’s “Medical Minority Applicant Registry” has been discontinued, according to the organization’s website.

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

The webpage of the program remains up, however, with the following disclaimer: “The AAMC is committed to a culture of excellence in academic medicine, where physicians from all backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences are welcomed and respected.”  

Additionally, one of the “affinity groups” formerly advertised on the AAMC website, the Group on Diversity and Inclusion or GDI, has been removed entirely from the AAMC’s website. 

There is now the Group on Collaboration, Engagement, and Community (GCEC), which per the AAMC “supports the efforts of AAMC-member institutions and academic medicine to foster an environment where people of all backgrounds and perspectives have an equal opportunity to thrive.”

And finally, the link to the AAMC’s “Advancing Health Equity” guide is no longer live. That guide was chock full of DEI resources and concepts.

It’s true that the AAMC’s decision to actually discontinue DEI programs is encouraging.

But, as recent events have demonstrated, the AAMC hasn’t ditched DEI wholesale just yet. It must publicly distance itself from DEI completely and recommit itself to excellence in medical education.

Do No Harm Applauds U.S. House of Representatives’ Passage of the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, Blocking Taxpayer Funding for Child Sex Change Interventions

RICHMOND, VA; December, 18, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm released a statement celebrating the U.S. House of Representatives passing the Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, which prohibits federal Medicaid funding from being used for child sex change interventions.

“We applaud our elected officials who took a critical step towards ending one of the worst medical scandals our country has ever seen,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “Pediatric sex-change interventions have no place in the American medical system, and it is outrageous that taxpayers have been forced to subsidize these procedures. Protecting children who cannot consent to such life-altering mutilative procedures is common sense and should have been a unanimous vote. The Senate should not delay in taking up and passing this important bill.”

Key Points:

  • The bill, introduced by Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), amends the Social Security Act to prohibit federal Medicaid funding for sex change procedures for minors.
  • Prohibited procedures under this legislation would include surgeries, cross-sex hormone therapies, and puberty blockers.
  • The bill also preserves funding for medically necessary treatments for conditions such as precocious puberty, genetic disorders, or life-threatening illnesses.

See the full text of the bill here.

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

Do No Harm Applauds HHS Rule Barring Hospitals That Perform Transgender Procedures on Minors from Receiving Federal Funds 

RICHMOND, VA; December 18, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm, a medical watchdog group dedicated to removing identity politics from medicine, issued a statement supporting the Department of Health and Human Services’ latest efforts to protect children from gender ideology. These include a proposed rule to bar hospitals from performing transgender procedures on minors as a condition of participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

“President Trump and HHS are taking another critical step to protect children from harmful gender ideology. The proposed rule – banning hospitals from performing sex change interventions on minors as a condition for Medicare and Medicaid participation – is common sense, evidence-based, and morally imperative,” said Do No Harm Chairman Stanley Goldfarb, MD. “Many so-called gender clinics have already begun to close as the truth about the risks and long-term harms about these drugs and surgeries on minors have been exposed. Now, hospitals that receive taxpayer funds from these federal programs must follow suit. Do No Harm will continue to be a source for sound science and expertise to support this rule-making process and ensure American taxpayer dollars do not fund sex-change operations on minors. This is just the beginning, but it marks a major step toward delivering a crippling blow to the child transgender industry.” 

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

Do No Harm Co-Signs Citizen Petition Asking the FDA to Take Action on the Off-Label Use of Estrogen in Males

RICHMOND, VA; December 18, 2025 – This week, Do No Harm proudly signed onto a citizen petition sent to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requesting it address the risks and scientific uncertainty of widespread off-label prescription of estrogen to males in gender medicine.

Filed Wednesday evening, the citizen petition reflects growing concern among clinicians, researchers, affected individuals, and public health stakeholders about increased off-label estrogen use and regulatory gaps concerning its harmful and irreversible effects. 

“The evidence makes clear that off-label use of cross-sex hormones for males is extremely high risk. The FDA has a duty to protect Americans from harm and safeguard their health by ensuring patients and their doctors have the most accurate, science-based information about these medications,” said Kurt Miceli, MD, Medical Director for Do No Harm. “By implementing the recommended changes, the FDA would be taking significant steps to protect Americans from a harmful ideology that has promoted the use of estrogen in male patients with incomplete information and little consideration for the associated risks. This administration has taken extraordinary steps to end the gender medicine scandal, and we urge them to continue their track record of common-sense patient protections by adopting these recommendations.”

The petition urges the FDA to take two immediate actions: open a dedicated docket to evaluate the safety and potential effectiveness of off-label estrogen use, and convene a Part 15 public hearing to gather expert and patient testimonies on its risks and benefits.

The coalition of petition signers urges the FDA to also consider the following recommendations to protect public health and spread awareness to patients:

  • Mandate a boxed warning on all relevant estrogen-containing products detailing the severe risks associated with their off-label use in males. 
  • Conduct a comprehensive safety review and implement robust Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies to ensure any potential benefits outweigh the risks.
  • Mandate enhanced adverse event reporting to establish post-market surveillance of the use of off-label estrogen and guide clinicians to report any serious adverse events the drug creates for patients.

The petition goes on to share substantial evidence confirming the serious and growing risks associated with the use of estrogen in males. This includes a 10-fold increase in the risk of stroke after six years, an annual incidence of testicular cancer that is more than 26 times higher than the general population, and an 80% increased risk in the standardized mortality ratio.

The petition was signed by fifteen organizations representing a politically diverse group of advocacy and clinical organizations, as well as more than 220 individuals, including over 60 health care professionals, five men who are former patients of gender medicine, and numerous concerned citizens. Co-signing the petition is a continuation of Do No Harm’s work to support clinicians and patients who deserve adequate warning of these irreversible harms. 

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

The AAMC’s Annual Meeting Shows That DEI Is Still Alive and Well

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has in recent months attempted to rebrand its initiatives to scrub mentions of DEI and racially discriminatory policies, removing statements and program descriptions that include references to these practices.

But, as Do No Harm previously revealed, these efforts have largely been cosmetic.

And, as multiple sessions at the AAMC’s November Learn, Serve, Lead annual meeting further demonstrate, the organization has yet to distance itself from DEI in any substantive capacity.

For instance, several sessions discussed ways in which the medical education field could promote tenets of DEI, such as through ideological trainings as well as initiatives to increase diversity in medical education.

Perhaps most explicit of these was the AAMC’s session on holistic review, which refers to admissions practices that emphasize factors unrelated to objective metrics of academic achievement.

The AAMC has outright admitted that the practice of considering these non-merit-based factors in admissions is a means of achieving greater racial diversity among medical students.

The session included an anecdote discussing UConn Health’s efforts to “recruit residents for its health equity track” using a tool called Thalamus Cortex, which is designed to facilitate the holistic review process. 

“Programs can selectively blind application data to reduce conscious and unconscious bias while promoting a diverse screening process, taking applicants’ entire profiles and accomplishments into account,” the tool’s website states.

Another session, called “Centering Narratives and Framing Opportunity: How Black Men Charted Their Pathways in Medicine,” discussed efforts to boost the number black male physicians in the medical field, such as the AAMC’s Action Collaborative for Black Men in Medicine.

The details on how these efforts would or will work in practice are scarce, but the session description made clear that such efforts would include “financial support for medical school applications, individualized advising, mentorship networks, and fostering inclusive environment.”

“Attendees were encouraged to engage with the Action Collaborative initiatives and contribute to ongoing efforts to create equitable pathways for Black men in medicine,” the session description stated.

The “Promising Practices for Leadership in a Changing Landscape” session included a discussion “about navigating Texas laws restricting diversity, equity, and inclusion work while previously participating in the AAMC’s HEDIC program.”

The session refers to the now-paused Health Executive Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion Certificate (HEDIC) program that was explicitly aimed at “organizing and implementing equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives and strategies within healthcare institutions and communities.”

Other examples included sessions dedicated to: recognizing “leaders advancing equity in medicine”; an AI tool designed to “flag potential bias” in medical education evaluations; and diversity initiatives in graduate and continuing medical education.

Beyond DEI, the sessions also included discussion of political topics such as support for increasing immigration and climate change.

Indeed, one session, titled, “How U.S. Medical Schools are Integrating Climate Change in their Medical Student Curricula,” urged medical education to play a “critical role” in addressing climate change. This apparently includes “the role of student advocacy in driving curricular change, the importance of culturally sensitive planetary health diet counseling, and the role of medical legal partnerships in enhancing adaptive capacity.”

If this seems like an attempt to twist the mission of medical education toward outright political advocacy, that’s because it is.

In short, if the AAMC’s annual meeting is any reflection of the organization’s institutional priorities, it’s clear that DEI still has a substantial foothold.

The AAMC must publicly reject divisive, discriminatory ideology and remove the pervasive influence of radical identity politics if it wishes to live up to its mission to promote the best possible medical education.

How AAIM’s Equity-Based Grading Reforms Threaten Merit and Competency in Medical Education

The Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine (AAIM) states that it “promotes the advancement and professional development of its members,” who are involved in educating future internal medicine (IM) physicians. 

Considering that IM specialists are experts in diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of patients with complex medical conditions, it’s vital for the most qualified candidates to enter this field.

Yet, AAIM appears to be more interested in achieving “equity” over merit in undergraduate medical education (UME). The August 2025 edition of AAIM’s “Diversity Now” newsletter references an October 14 webinar on “Enhancing Equity in Assessment within the UME Grading Process – A Data Driven Approach.” 

It turns out that AAIM has addressed this topic before; indeed, it maintains a resource on its website titled “Recommendations to Reduce Bias in Grading.” 

This document outlines desired changes for the assessment of IM clerkship participants so that “no one is disadvantaged from achieving [their full learning] potential because of structural or social barriers.” 

Faculty must complete training in “implicit bias” and “microaggressions” on an ongoing basis to “mitigate against potential effects of the individual bias of those responsible for assigning grades.”

But that isn’t enough to achieve equity, according to the AAIM:

If standardized exams are used in clerkship grading, limit the weight that standardized exam scores, including National Board of Medical Examiner’s subject or shelf exams, have in determining a student’s grade. Differences between population group outcomes in standardized examinations likely reflect unequal opportunities afforded to underrepresented in medicine (UIM) students. In addition, deemphasizing exam scores might allow students to shift their attention to other important patient skills that they need to develop.

This is a remarkable statement. Essentially, AAIM is arguing that merit and achievement should be devalued, because focusing on these objective metrics of competency might disadvantage certain racial groups.

This naturally compromises the quality of medicine to advance perverse ideological goals, and drives everyone – of all races – to mediocrity.

And, although the original work for these recommendations was published in 2021, AAIM continues to host the material on its website.

AAIM’s proposed grading reforms represent more than procedural adjustments. They signal a willingness to subordinate merit-based assessment to identity-based considerations in the name of equity. 

The question is straightforward: Should medical students be evaluated primarily on their clinical competency and medical knowledge, or should assessment systems incorporate identity-based considerations to achieve predetermined demographic outcomes? The answer has profound implications for the future of IM education and, ultimately, the quality of patient care.

CMS Takes a Crucial Step Toward Ridding Medical Education of DEI

Recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) incorporated proposals by Do No Harm and Defending Education in a final rule establishing additional protections to keep unlawful discrimination out of medical residency programs for graduate medical education.

These protections are aimed at preventing graduate medical education accreditors, like the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and others, from requiring or otherwise encouraging or promoting hospitals to implement discriminatory criteria in their medical residency programs.

Under the final rule, hospitals may continue to receive federal payments for direct and indirect graduate medical education costs for accredited medical residency programs. 

However, for payment purposes, CMS will only deem an accredited program “approved” where the accreditation organization “does not use accreditation criteria that promote or encourage discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, or religion, including the use of those characteristics or intentional proxies for those characteristics as a selection criterion for employment, program participation, resource allocation, or similar activities, opportunities, or benefits.”

In practice, this means that accreditors continuing to force discriminatory standards in accreditation requirements for graduate medical education will place accredited hospital programs at risk by imposing potentially significant financial burdens to hospitals, who may not be able to recoup costly graduate medical education expenses.

The final rule’s implementation of these anti-discrimination provisions directly reflects the language Do No Harm and Defending Education proposed in a comment to the agency earlier this fall. 

In September, Do No Harm submitted a responsive comment to CMS’s proposed rule, warning the agency that the rule’s anti-discrimination protections may be susceptible to circumvention in which accreditors “engag[e] in word play to circumvent the proposed rule’s reach.”

Given various, ongoing circumvention efforts, our comment laid out the very real possibility that accreditors might easily evade the rule through word gaming and cosmetic changes that merely cloak the continued practice of DEI.

As Do No Harm has documented in our “Zombie DEI” report and elsewhere, many institutions simply rebrand their DEI programs and initiatives while continuing to engage in racially discriminatory practices and promote radical identity politics.

CMS took our concerns seriously.

Indeed, in issuing the final rule, CMS explicitly credited these concerns as motivating its decision to revise the final language.

The agency further stated that it “agree[s] that the regulations should more explicitly specify the types of practices that will be prohibited under [the] finalized policy,” confirming that CMS would “add language to the regulations that would prevent accreditors from engaging in word play as a means of circumventing the proposed policy.”

Do No Harm applauds CMS for taking action to address this urgent problem in medical education.

The role of accreditors in injecting racially discriminatory policies and practices not just in graduate medical education, but throughout medical and healthcare education, is often overlooked. But accreditors, due to the immense power they wield, can effectively extort these programs into implementing DEI policies as a condition of accreditation.

Do No Harm’s March report on medical and healthcare education accreditors highlighted this dynamic. 

We examined ten such accreditors, including the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), the Council on Podiatric Medical Education (CPME), and the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA), and found that each of them imposed various DEI mandates upon professional healthcare degree programs.

These ranged from explicit requirements to maintain DEI offices and programs to more indirect encouragement of efforts to achieve certain diversity-related outcomes. 

And in April, the Trump administration took notice of this problem; President Trump issued an executive order directly targeting discriminatory accreditation standards in medical education. 

The order specifically directed the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and the Department of Health and Human Services to “investigate and take appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American medical schools or graduate medical education entities that is advanced by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or other accreditors of graduate medical education, including unlawful ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ requirements under the guise of accreditation standards.”

Following the executive order, many of the accreditors began to ditch overt language in their accreditation standards that required medical and healthcare education programs to implement DEI policies and/or engage in racial discrimination.

For instance, in May, the LCME voted to eliminate Element 3.3, a requirement that forced medical schools to have in place “programs and/or partnerships” aimed at achieving diversity.

And in September, the ACGME not only eliminated DEI requirements from its accreditation standards, but closed its DEI department. 

CPME, another accreditor of graduate medical education, suspended diversity requirements for podiatric medical colleges and residency programs following the executive order.

The CMS final rule implements crucial protections to cleanse graduate medical education of unlawful DEI mandates, including shutting down surreptitious discrimination in accreditation standards advanced by entities like the ACGME and CPME. Such a rule is necessary given these institutions’ long histories of DEI activism.

The ACGME has been particularly vocal in its endorsements of DEI: back in 2024, the ACGME’s then-DEI officer bemoaned efforts to disband DEI programs as “insane.”

And at its 2023 annual education conference, the ACGME hosted no fewer than 11 sessions dedicated to advancing DEI in medical education. 

These examples underscore the need for strong federal action to ensure that DEI is removed from medical and healthcare education.

In summary, the CMS rule is a crucial step forward toward ridding graduate medical education of harmful racial discrimination.

University of Maryland’s Med School Has a Strategic Plan: Go All In on ‘Health Equity’ and Anti-Racism.

Last year, the University of Maryland School of Medicine (UMSOM) unveiled its new strategic plan for 2025-2030.

But unfortunately, the plan is replete with commitments to promote identity politics in medical education.

Goal 4 of the school’s “Community” sub-plan is for the school to “[l]ead the city, state, and national conversation on mitigating health disparities and improving health equity.”

Perhaps in a vacuum, to a person unfamiliar with the “equity” jargon employed in medicine and medical education, this goal might not seem so troubling. But as Do No Harm has demonstrated, “health equity” is often interchangeable with efforts that seek to equalize outcomes between racial groups through discrimination.

Indeed, when the plan provides more granular detail on how UMSOM will achieve this goal, it’s clear that these efforts will encompass ideological indoctrination. 

For instance, the school aims to “[i]ntegrate concepts of health equity, anti-racism, population health, community care, and social determinants of health into curricula”; additionally, it will “[d]eliver training modules on antiracism, health equity, and social determinants of health to educate any UMB faculty, student, or staff member involved in a community project.”

To highlight just a few issues with these goals, “anti-racism” as understood by its most prolific proponent, Ibram X. Kendi, essentially seeks to address systemic racism in society through racial discrimination.

Social determinants of health, meanwhile, refer to the pseudoscientific concept that differences in social and economic conditions cause disparities in health outcomes between certain groups. Although there is certainly a correlation between these conditions and health outcomes, the “social determinants of health” theory is at best oversimplified and ignores other factors such as individual agency and health decisions that contribute to health outcomes.

If these goals seem like mere distractions that don’t reflect UMSOM’s core institutional commitments, think again.

Elsewhere in the strategic plan, UMSOM pledges to “[c]ommit resources to become a national leader in health equity research” and to “[e]xamine all current and emergent generational health challenges through the lens of health equity.”

UMSOM is about as clear as it can be that identity politics is the primary means by which it understands its role in medical education.

Additionally, UMSOM aims to engage in what can only be described as quasi-political activism.

For instance, the strategic plan includes pledges to “[e]ngage with community leaders, Baltimore City Fire Department, and the UMB Community Engagement Office to identify community priorities and barriers to care”; “[c]reate documentaries, educational videos, and media toolboxes in partnership with Baltimore’s emergent Black film makers to highlight the needs and successes, as well as to amplify the voices of the West Baltimore community”; and “[f]oster and grow a cohort of students, faculty, and staff committed to restorative justice and motivated to ensure health equity.” 

It intends to recruit students in these efforts as well; one pledge is to “[i]nvolve students in purposeful community outreach, clinical care, and partnered programs.”

Ethical considerations aside, this is simply not the role of a medical school; UMSOM’s goal should be to train the best physicians possible, not delve into local politics.

In summary, this strategic plan reveals a profound, institutional infatuation with identity politics and a willingness to inject these ideas into students’ learning experiences.

UMSOM should ditch these goals at once and affirm its commitment to providing the best medical education possible.

Is Accountability Finally Coming for the Child Transgender Industry?

For years, Do No Harm has sounded the alarm over the false and misleading claims promoted  by the child transgender industry and echoed by major medical associations.

Too often, these organizations refuse to meaningfully engage with study after study finding a lack of credible evidence to support sex-denying medical interventions for minors. 

And too often, these organizations gloss over the harms and consequences of life-altering medical procedures, instead falsely downplaying their severity.

Now, it seems like for some organizations, their history of promoting dangerous and misleading statements may be catching up with them.

Earlier this week, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced a lawsuit against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the Endocrine Society, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, accusing them of violating Florida law prohibiting unfair and deceptive trade practices.

The lawsuit points to the organizations’ promotion of sex-denying medical interventions for children, which lack credible evidence to support their use.

The lawsuit highlighted the claim that puberty blockers are “reversible” as an example of a deceptive statement.

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.” Artificially preventing a child from going into puberty is inherently experimental.

Moreover, research shows that nearly all children subjected to puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones, which carry long-term risks of infertility and impaired sexual function.

“The years-long coordinated campaign by WPATH and other medical organizations to disregard the serious health risks of sex change interventions on minors will go down as the most egregious medical scandal in modern history,” said Do No Harm Medical Director Kurt Miceli, MD.

“These groups have obfuscated risk and misrepresented the low quality of evidence to support puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and surgeries for children—interventions that can cause lasting harm,” said Dr. Miceli. “It is encouraging to see our elected officials hold these organizations accountable for spreading misinformation.” 

Accountability is a critical step to restoring public trust in medicine.

Do No Harm Medical Director Issues Statement in Response to Texas Health Record Lawsuit

RICHMOND, VA; December 11, 2025 –Today, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced a lawsuit against electronic healh record company Epic for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices that restrict parental access to their children’s medical records.

The lawsuit follows a report from Do No Harm earlier this year explaining how hospitals and electronic health record companies have worked to undermine parents’ access to their children’s medical information. According to the Texas Attorney General’s announcement, Epic automatically hides certain information about a child’s medical history from parents when the child turns twelve years old.

Do No Harm Medical Director Kurt Miceli, MD, issued the the following statement in response:

“A recent report by Do No Harm revealed how woke electronic health record vendors like Epic are limiting parents’ ‘proxy’ access to their children’s medical records. It is encouraging to see Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton hold Epic accountable for placing children directly in harm’s way by removing parental protections, allowing activist physicians to funnel minors into the gender cult without parental knowledge or consent. This lawsuit is a critical step to restoring lawful parental access to their children’s medical records during their child’s developmental years.”

Do No Harm’s full report on parental access to their children’s medical records is available here.

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

The Perry Initiative Ditches Discriminatory Criteria in Its Medical Programming Following Federal Civil Rights Complaints by Do No Harm

The Perry Initiative, an organization that previously promoted women-only talent development programs in the field of orthopedics, has now opened its programs to all.

The Perry Initiative has two main programs: the Perry Outreach Program, intended for high school students, and the Medical Student Outreach Program, intended for medical students. 

The Perry Outreach Program offers students the chance to engage with “hands-on mock orthopaedic surgeries, biomechanical engineering experiments, and interactive talks from prominent engineers and surgeons.” The Medical Student Outreach Program provides students with the opportunity to “hear from residents and attending surgeons, discuss pathways into orthopaedic surgery, and participate in hands-on surgical skills sessions.”

However, the programs previously required applicants to identify as “female or non-binary” to be eligible for the program. Indeed, the initiative’s motto previously was: “Building the Pipeline for Women in Engineering and Medicine.”

This is, of course, blatant and illegal discrimination on the basis of sex.

So, back in 2023, Do No Harm submitted a federal civil rights complaint against 12 medical schools that partnered with The Perry Initiative to advertise, promote, and/or host the programming.

Do No Harm’s complaint, filed with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, pointed out that universities promoting these programs were violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which forbids federally-funded institutions of higher education from engaging in sex-based discrimination.

The schools named in the complaint are as follows:

  • Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics
  • Yale University
  • Wake Forest University
  • New York University
  • University of New Mexico
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Duke University
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine
  • University of Arizona
  • University of Iowa
  • Oregon Health and Science University
  • University of Virginia

Later the same year, Do No Harm also filed complaints against the University of Minnesota, Indiana University, and the University of Delaware after similar programs were announced on their campuses. The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights responded by opening federal investigations into many of the schools we flagged.

Now, following our complaints and the ensuing federal investigations, it appears The Perry Initiative has rethought its commitment to sex-based discrimination. 

The information pages for The Perry Initiative programs make clear that these programs are now open to all, whereas before, it was clear that the programs were restricted to women.

Moreover, the Perry Initiative’s mission now states that it aims to build “the talent pipeline in the fields of orthopaedic surgery and engineering.”

All told, it’s an encouraging sign that The Perry Initiative is opening its programs to all. Following the efforts of Do No Harm, The Perry Initiative and its academic partners appear to have a better understanding that Title IX isn’t optional, and compliance isn’t voluntary: it’s legally mandated.

Sex-based discrimination has no place in healthcare training and education, and the field is best served when medical programs are open to all students and selection is based on merit.

Do No Harm Welcomes Jay Greene as New Director of Research

,

RICHMOND, VA; December 10, 2025 – This week, Jay Greene joins Do No Harm as the new Director of Research after serving as a senior fellow with Do No Harm for several years. In his new role, Jay will continue to support the fight against DEI and gender ideology as he oversees research projects that expose political agendas and harmful ideologies in the medical field.  

Jay brings to Do No Harm an accomplished record of academic research that has had significant influence over public policy. Jay previously founded, led, and served as Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. He has edited or authored five books and more than 40 peer-reviewed articles on a wide-range of topics.

“It is a privilege to take on this role with Do No Harm and work alongside its members as they fight against the harmful embrace of DEI in medicine and gender-affirming care interventions on minors,” said Greene. “Since first joining Do No Harm as a senior fellow, I have watched the organization lead the fight to restore merit and scientific rigor to the practice of medicine to regain the public and patients’ trust in medical schools, institutions, professional societies, and providers. I look forward to working alongside Ian Kingsbury and the entire Do No Harm team as we conduct thoughtful and credible research to reverse the corruption of the American medical field by political agendas.”

Much of Jay’s work over the years involved the pressing issue of antisemitism within medical institutions, and how DEI practices are often linked to antisemitic sentiments. Jay has also worked in concert with many of Do No Harm’s initiatives, co-authoring reports that debunk the racial concordance theory, contributing to podcasts calling out antisemitism in medicine, and revealing the deep bias and unreliable research conducted by major medical institutions.

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

The Indiana University Medical School Hasn’t Ditched Wokeness Yet

,

DEI and wokeness in healthcare are a danger to medicine and lives. There’s no clearer case of this than the woke doctors who removed racial differences in kidney function, a move that messed up transplant lists and bumped critically ill patients down the waitlist behind less sick patients. Such wokeness is integrated into medical schools across the country, including UCLA, Wake Forest, and others. At UCLA, the woke standards mean students don’t know how to test for serious conditions like sepsis.

Now we can report that the same woke ideology is alive and well at the Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM). In documents obtained by Do No Harm and shared with Townhall, it’s clear the school is teaching identity politics and pseudoscience instead of actual medicine.

Read the full article at Townhall.

Utah Lawmakers Are Getting ‘Terribly Flawed’ Information On Transgender Procedures, Watchdog Warns

Utah lawmakers will soon decide whether to keep laws in place protecting kids from transgender procedures. Their decision will be based in a large part on a report the Utah legislature commissioned — a report one watchdog says is “terribly flawed.”

Do No Harm on Tuesday released a memo highlighting the problems with a report commissioned by the Utah legislature on transgender procedures on kids. The memo, first shared with The Daily Wire, says that the report significantly misrepresents the scientific record and glosses over the danger of transgender procedures.

Read the full article at The Daily Wire.

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb Discusses Dangers of Identity Politics on ‘Giving Ventures’ Podcast

,

This month, Do No Harm Chairman Stanley Goldfarb, MD, joined the latest episode of the DonorsTrust Giving Ventures podcast to discuss the threats posed by identity politics to medicine and medical education.

Dr. Goldfarb explained how medical schools have de-emphasized traditional metrics of aptitude and achievement, such as grades and MCAT scores, in favor of DEI-related traits such as race and ideology. Increasingly, schools have shifted their focus toward advancing political agendas over educating the best possible physicians — to the detriment of patients everywhere.

Additionally, Dr. Goldfarb discussed the rise of the child transgender industry, diving into how, through a heavily-politicized process, medical providers are proposing dangerous medical interventions that lack credible evidence.

The discussion also covered Do No Harm’s various efforts, including policy work and litigation, to protect children and get identity politics out of medicine.

You can listen to the full episode here, and watch the discussion on YouTube as well.

Do No Harm Report Debunks Utah Study on So-Called ‘Gender-Affirming Care’

,

RICHMOND, VA; December 9, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm released a report titled “Debunking the Utah Department of Health and Human Services’ Defense of Pediatric Medical Transition,” which exposes the errors in a report which seemingly aims to persuade the Utah State Legislature to allow hormonal interventions for minors with gender dysphoria. The Utah Report is filled with falsehoods and serves as an aid to push harmful medical interventions as the answer to minors’ confusion, all while blatantly ignoring the associated risks. 

Do No Harm lays out five key areas where the Utah Report falls short: 

  • The Utah Report fails to meet the basic requirements for being considered a systematic review.  
  • While the report references a large volume of data, it fails to acknowledge the data’s low quality.
  • The Utah Report accepts so-called guidelines for so-called “gender-affirming care” from major medical organizations at face value without scrutinizing them, even though previous systematic reviews had debunked these “guidelines.” 
  • The report neglects significant adverse side effects associated with “gender-affirming hormone therapy,” such as infertility, sterility, and sexual dysfunction. 
  • The Utah Report required the Utah Department of Health and Human Services (UDHSS) to consult with “advisors” who promoted so-called “gender-affirming care” and failed to disclose their biases. 

“This Utah Report is unreliable, unscientific, and fails to meet the standards of a systematic review,” said Michelle Havrilla, CRNP, Director of Programs – Gender Ideology for Do No Harm. “The Report’s inaccuracies and bias diminish its credibility and allow left-wing activists to weaponize it for their political machinations. Utah legislators must not rely on a report that clearly undermines the safety and well-being of minors.” 

The UDHHS conducted the Utah Report in response to S.B. 16 Transgender Medical Treatments and Procedures Amendments, signed into law in January of 2023. Although the Utah Report spans more than 1,000 pages of academic and technical language, it relies on sheer volume rather than on the quality of the evidence.  

Click here to read Do No Harm’s report. 

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

Duke’s DEI Rebrand Leaves Something to be Desired

Earlier this year, Duke University Health System and Duke University School of Medicine were under the magnifying glass for a host of discriminatory DEI programs and policies.

First, in March, Do No Harm submitted a federal civil rights complaint against Duke Health for racially discriminatory practices in its admissions and scholarship decisions. Duke Health’s diversity plan had explicitly called for adapting admissions processes to increase acceptance of underrepresented minority applicants, even pairing prospective minority candidates with current minority students during the admissions process.

What’s more, the Washington Free Beacon reported in July that the School of Medicine had adopted promotion guidelines designed to “foster a diverse pipeline of potential learners from BIPOC and other marginalized groups” and “measurably increase the number of BIPOC learners.”

Next, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon demanded Duke Health end its discriminatory practices and implement measures to ensure merit is prioritized.

However, throughout 2025, Duke has undertaken something of a public-facing rebrand regarding DEI, scrubbing or moderating much of its more overt endorsements of race-based programming and identity politics.

For instance, Duke ditched its “anti-racism pledge” that featured attestations including a recognition of “our own implicit biases,” an affirmation “that excellent research and health care cannot happen without equity,” and a promise to “actively engag[e] members of diverse populations to guide and lead our research.”

And according to The Duke Chronicle, the School of Medicine shuttered DEI programs, including its “Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Advancement and Leadership in the Sciences” or IDEALS office, in September.

Additionally, the school’s Department of Medicine rebranded its Equity, Diversity and Inclusion program to the Culture, Engagement, and Community program; the website of the former now redirects to the latter.

The medical school also maintains the Office for Culture, Engagement, and Impact, which appears to be distinct from the Culture, Engagement, and Community program, despite similarities in name.

However, much objectionable programming remains within the Office for Culture, Engagement, and Impact.

The school’s “ME² Black Employee Resource Group,” for example, aims “to foster a community focused on networking, professional development, and leadership opportunities for Black staff.” Its webpage does include a disclaimer stating that all are welcome to attend its meetings, but a group focused on the professional development of a specific racial group is disturbing nonetheless.

Likewise, the school maintains the “Duke Advancing Latiné/Hispanic Excellence Employee Resource Group,” which serves “university-wide employees who identify as Latino/a/x/é and/or Hispanic.” The school also operates the “Sexual and Gender Diversity Advisory Council,” which it describes as a “think tank and hub to support the LGBTQ+ community at Duke.”

Additionally, the school maintains an awards program that recognizes contributions to “equity” and “inclusion.”

Given Duke’s long history of overt racial discrimination and the fact that much racialized programming remains, it’s hard to believe that these changes aren’t closer to cosmetic attempts at damage control rather than substantive, institutional shifts in the school’s priorities.

Duke should make clear, publicly and proudly, that it will no longer engage in any radical identity politics, and end its DEI programming for good.