If You Pay for Gender Transitions, You Should Pay For De-Transitions Too

Who’s going to cover the cost of gender de-transitions – that is, treatments that reverse a gender transition? For that matter, who’s going to cover the cost of ongoing treatments to address the harmful physical and mental effects of gender transitions?

A new bill in Florida would require employers who cover gender transitions to pay for the rest of these treatments, as well. This policy makes sense: Businesses should think twice before pushing invasive and life-altering treatments that many if not most people will come to regret.

This bill reflects basic facts about transgenderism. To start, it is often a temporary phase. Yet gender-reassignment surgeries can have permanent effects, including serious physical complications and major mental health issues. And those who take gender altering hormones can develop significant medical complications and attendant costs, including treatments to deal with the loss of bone density as well as psychological issues. At Do No Harm, we work with many people who are paying, in money and regret, for the treatments they received earlier in life.

Many employers no doubt cover gender transitions in order to score points with radical activists pushing extreme ideology on society. If they do that, they can’t just be allowed to walk away from the lifelong consequences of this ideology for patients. Doing so is a disservice to their employees and to society itself. It is the essence of putting political point-scoring ahead of individual well-being.

At Do No Harm, we support efforts that hold radical gender activists to account. Florida State Rep. Blaise Ingoglia deserves credit for this creative approach to protecting patients. Here’s hoping the Sunshine State continues to put patients first.

Pfizer Reverses Course, Changes Race-Based Fellowship Following Do No Harm Lawsuit

Last fall, Do No Harm sued pharmaceutical giant Pfizer over its Breakthrough Fellowship Program, a highly prestigious and competitive program which illegally excluded White and Asian candidates from applying.

The program’s requirements explicitly stated that applicants must “meet the program’s goals of increasing the pipeline for Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic and Native Americans.” 

In short – Pfizer was picking winners and losers based on their skin color. 

After a federal judge dismissed the case, Do No Harm immediately appealed, and following that appeal Pfizer has quietly – without any public announcement or fanfare – updated the Breakthrough Fellowships’ criteria. 

The new FAQ states: “You are eligible to apply for the Breakthrough Fellowship Program regardless of whether you are of Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Native American descent.” 

“Do No Harm is pleased that Pfizer recognizes its blatant racial discrimination is unlawful and immoral,” said Dr. Stanley Goldfarm, MD, chairman of Do No Harm. “It is important to recognize that this significant change was made only after Do No Harm’s lawsuit, and only because Pfizer knows its fellowship is in jeopardy on appeal.”

Despite Pfizer’s under the radar change of course, Do No Harm will proceed with its lawsuit to ensure that Pfizer does not continue or resume its racial discrimination that has no place in society.  

About Do No Harm
Do No Harm is a diverse group of physicians, healthcare professionals, medical students, patients, and policymakers united by an ethical mission: Protect healthcare from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology. They believe in making healthcare better for all – not undermining it in pursuit of a political agenda. Learn more at www.donoharmmedicine.org.

Oklahoma Medical Schools Should Educate, Not Indoctrinate

, , ,

Are Oklahoma’s taxpayer-funded universities pushing divisive and even discriminatory ideas?

That’s what Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters asked all 25 state colleges and universities in a January letter. It’s a valid question, given the politicization of higher education, and the truth is essential to ensuring that Oklahoma’s higher education provides the best possible learning experience. Yet the superintendent – as well as Gov. Stitt and state lawmakers – may want to pay special attention to places hardly anyone expects: Oklahoma’s medical schools.

Superintendent Walters is seeking details on “every dollar” state schools are spending on “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” as well as how many staff are devoted to this issue. DEI, as it’s known, is part of the political narrative that society suffers from “systemic racism.” It demands a greater focus on people’s skin color instead of their character or individual characteristics. DEI has even been used to justify policies like preferential treatment by race, which is racial discrimination by another name.

Such toxic ideas have no place in higher education, much less anywhere else. That’s why it’s so concerning that Oklahoma medical schools have embraced this ideology so thoroughly. Put simply, it threatens the quality of education future physicians receive, and the quality of care they will provide to patients for the rest of their careers.

My organization has spent the past year investigating the extent to which education has been replaced by indoctrination at medical schools. Consider what’s happening at the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, which we’ve investigated using the state’s freedom of information law.

We found that the OU’s medical school has a department fully dedicated to advancing DEI within the institution, with frequent communication to faculty, staff, and students alike. There’s a permanent bureaucracy pushing divisive ideas on everyone, taking time and resources away from real medical education.

What’s more, the OU medical school now hires and promotes faculty based on their work on DEI. That’s a political litmus test that has nothing to do with medicine, and everything to do with forcing educators to toe the party line. Faculty should be hired based on their ability to teach and research at the highest level, not whether they hold specific views.

Other medical schools are offensive, too. OU’s Tulsa School of Community Medicine offers a course and stipend that are only available to students of particular races – and whites aren’t allowed. That’s racial discrimination, which is why we’ve filed a civil rights complaint with the federal government. We’ve also asked the feds to investigate 12 schools – including Oklahoma State University and the University of Tulsa – that participate in a recruitment program based solely on race. Federal authorities are already investigating such discriminatory practices in other states, for good reason.

Taxpayers – and just as important, patients – have every right to be worried. In other states, DEI has been used to justify ongoing indoctrination in medical schools, taking precious time away from helping students learn how to provide the best care. And we’ve even seen university teaching hospitals announce plans to give minority patients preferential access to care – an overt example of racial discrimination that will lead to worse health outcomes for countless patients.

Oklahomans deserve to know exactly how far the state’s medical schools have gone down this radical road. This issue goes well beyond the quality of the education they provide. Ultimately, it affects the health and well-being of everyone who will one day be treated by the physicians these institutions teach. Here’s hoping Oklahoma can cure this corruption of medical schools, along with the rest of higher education.

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a former associate dean of curriculum at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, is chairman of Do No Harm.

S1E8: Standing Up Against Woke Ideology

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb and Benita Cotton-Orr share best practices for standing up against the woke ideology that is infiltrating health care. From helping professors push back against DEI requirements for promotions to supporting physicians who reject ‘implicit bias’ training as a requirement for license renewal, the Do No Harm team is here to provide support and resources to fight back. And it doesn’t stop there.

Professional Development in Healthcare is Succumbing to Wokeness – and ACEHP is Leading the Way

,

The Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions (ACEHP) is an organization for healthcare educators, offering support and resources for their professional development offerings and activities, including continuing medical education (CME). However, ACEHP is doing its part to drag the delivery of healthcare continuing education into the endless abyss of DEI and anti-racism.

As it demonstrated during its recent annual conference (sponsored in part by CME providers such as Talem Health, Healio, and CME Institute), ACEHP’s idea of best practices includes a “DEI Showcase” of woke topics.

‘Emerging’ at the Alliance 2023 Annual Conference (ACEHP Almanac, February 7, 2023).

Examples of the February 7, 2023, sessions include:

  • Are We Committed to DEI Progress or Are We Committed to DEI Notoriety? Dr. Russell Ledet urged attendees to learn how medical conditions appear “in people of color as opposed to white people,” and discussed how DEI progress appears versus “what is just for clout.” To “make DEI progress from a CME perspective,” Dr. Ledet recommended Harriet Washington’s book on Medical Apartheid (which says that experiments within certain black populations is “a tradition that continues today”) and The 1619 Project (which claims America’s founding was not in 1776, but based on the year slaves arrived in Virginia) as helpful resources.
  • Infusing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Anti-racism [DEIA] Concepts Into the Fabric of Continuing Education. As the institution that “is leading the important conversations on DEIA,” the University of North Texas Health Science Center at Fort Worth presented a “learning lab” for incorporating DEIA concepts into the planning, delivery, and evaluation phases of continuing medical education. The session aimed to “foster the critical thinking and self-awareness of the participants” with case studies that encourage the application of DEIA principles into mission statements, planning committees, and CME program operations.   
  • Panel Discussion on Education that Improves Inclusive Healthcare: Lessons From a Program Focused on Cancer Screening and Care for Transgender Individuals. The presentation included “examples of DEI education that changes “healthcare professional] behavior.” In addition to a Q&A with the panel, this session presented clips from the documentary “Trans Dudes With Lady Cancer.”
  • Learning Collaborative – Driving Equity Through Awareness: Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Disparities in Care in Medical Education. Panelists advised attendees on methods to incorporate health equity information into their continuing education offerings, and how to discuss “challenging” topics with patients so they “feel more comfortable and trust their healthcare professionals.”

Policy & Medicine, a website that reviews and writes about healthcare-related regulatory and compliance issues, endorsed the conference, particularly the day dedicated to health equity. While praising the objectives of the sessions, their coverage included a curious reflection. “We must know more than that there is an issue and develop a plan,” the author said, “to ensure everyone is treated with dignity and respect and deliver the care patients deserve.”

Yet this is not the message of DEI activists, who push an ideology that declares the healthcare industry is systemically racist and certain groups of practitioners must be trained to recognize and mitigate their implicit biases. ACEHP and its members need to apply the standards of dignity, respect, and competent patient care delivery to the field of continuing professional development instead of redefining the meaning of best practices and creating discord in the healthcare industry.

Is your professional healthcare organization promoting divisive ideologies instead of adhering to the mission of providing competent patient care? Do No Harm wants to hear from you, and you may remain anonymous if you wish.

Lies, damn lies, and statisticians: A transgender paper that fails the test

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Economist Ronald Coase observed that “if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” A paper recently published in PLOS One devised some particularly creative means for extracting a confession.

The authors of “Anti-transgender rights legislation and internet searches pertaining to depression and suicide” claim to observe “that the passage of a single [anti-trans] bill led to around a 13 to 17 percent increase in the volume of searchers for the word ‘suicide’ within that state.” Moreover, they said “that for every anti-transgender bill passed in a week, there was about a five percent increase in searches for the word ‘depression.’” They assert that the increased interest in these terms reflects increased mental health distress, brought on by legislation.

The researchers derive their conclusion from multiple regression analysis, a technique used to observe the relationship between a dependent variable (searches for “suicide” and “depression”) and multiple independent variables (the status and timing of “anti-trans” bills). Google searches constantly fluctuate for a variety of reasons, so simply observing whether searches increase or decrease in the wake of new legislation would not sufficiently address the researchers’ question. Indeed, sophisticated analysis is required to attempt to isolate the potential effect of new legislation on internet searches.

While sophisticated quantitative methods are useful tools for serious scholars who pursue truth, they can also be used by activist scholars to create the aura of “science.” It is easy to deceive readers who are uninitiated to the nuances of quantitative methods. And sure enough, a technical deep dive of the PLOS One paper reveals that its methods are flawed on their merits, rendering the conclusion invalid.

Only a limited number of health policy scholars have the statistical skillset required to interrogate the paper’s approach, including, perhaps the peer reviewers and editors at PLOS One. But even reviewers or editors not well-versed in statistical methods should assess whether a research paper passes a face validity test. The extent to which this new paper fails that test is staggering, which makes its publication particularly disconcerting.

The relationship between two phenomena (i.e., the timing of “anti-trans” bills and Google searches for “suicide” and “depression”) can only be observed to the extent that the items vary. It would be impossible, for example, to estimate the effect of sunlight on plant growth if it was cloudy or sunny 100% of the time. Herein lies a major issue with their dataset: Only two “anti-trans” bills were passed within their study time horizon, and both were in Idaho on the week of March 22, 2020. Given this limitation, face validity demands strong evidence that the bills in Idaho were in fact associated with an increase in searches for “suicide” and “depression.” At the very least, unsophisticated examination should track with their conclusion to verify that it isn’t simply derived from tortured data. Instead, Google Trends indicates that the adjusted number of searches in Idaho that week for the word “suicide” (derived by taking the frequency of a specific search term, dividing it by the total number of Google searches and then normalizing the results relative to a peak of 100) was below average for Idaho compared to the year overall, and aligned with national trends.

Figure 1: Adjusted volume of Google searches for “suicide” in Idaho (blue) and the United States (red) in 2020.

Searches for “depression” in Idaho were also consistent with national data, and just slightly above the state average for the year.

Figure 2: Adjusted volume of Google searches for “depression” in Idaho (blue) and the United States (red) in 2020.

Put simply, the single data point that allows the researchers to make an inferential analysis tells a different story from the conclusion they attempt to torture from it.

It’s bad enough that the variables don’t have the relationship the authors try to impose upon them. But it should also be noted that the timing of the Idaho bills’ passage casts serious doubt about the wisdom of empirical analysis. The week of March 22, 2020 coincided with the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, which dominated news headlines and disrupted nearly all facets of life. “Anti-trans” bills can only provoke feelings of suicide or depression if individuals are aware of and thinking about such bills. Amidst a historic, spiraling public health emergency, would legislation that prohibits gender changes on birth certificates or forbids biological men from competing in girls’ sports have wide resonance with Idahoans? One should be skeptical.

Finally, even if the legislation was associated with an increase in searches for the terms “suicide” and depression” (it wasn’t), and even if Idahoans were in fact mindful of the new legislation (a questionable proposition), there’s another problem. Someone who prioritizes empirical rigor might wonder whether the search results are, in fact, a proxy for mental health distress, or whether they are an artifact of media coverage of the legislation. Transgender activists and their allies in the academy and media repeatedly make the erroneous claim that their policy objectives would curtail the high incidence of depression and suicide in trans-identifying youth. Consequently, it’s plausible that Google searches for “suicide” and “depression” increase in response to media-driven interest in the topic, not mental health distress. The authors never address this possibility nor attempt to disentangle it in their analysis.

Whether this paper was produced out of sloppiness or an attempt to advance a cultural objective is unknown, but the effect is all the same: More junk science obfuscates rather than informs debates around gender topics.

UMass T.H. Chan School of Medicine Scores 70.8% on its DICE Inventory – And is Promoting a Discriminatory Summer Internship

Just how woke is the University of Massachusetts (UMass) T.H. Chan Medical School? Very woke indeed, as it just confirmed to Do No Harm.

Here’s the background. In November 2022, the Association of American Medical Colleges released a report showing that the vast majority of medical schools have embraced identity politics, despite their divisive and even discriminatory nature. The report was based on surveys of specific medical schools, which the AAMC didn’t name.

For the sake of transparency and accountability, Do No Harm submitted freedom of information requests to public medical schools nationwide, including the UMass Chan Medical School. We asked for a copy of its survey response, so that Massachusetts taxpayers and policymakers could learn the truth about this institution.

Here’s what the UMass Chan Medical School has self-reported:

  • It has adopted racially discriminatory admissions practices under the guise of “affirmative action.” This means it’s potentially lowering standards in the name of diversity, thereby threatening patient health. The schools list of selection criteria includes:

“Attributes that contribute to the diversity of the class, including, but not limited to, socio-economic background, educational background, work experience, nationality, languages spoken, ethnicity, race, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Also considered in diversity are students from disadvantaged backgrounds and resiliency in terms of positive capacity to cope with stress and adversity.”

  • It has a “dedicated office, staff, or resources” dedicated to DEI. This means there’s a permanent woke bureaucracy pushing ideology on faculty and students. The UMass Chan Medical School Diversity and Inclusion Office says it is “moving toward an equitable and anti-racist future.”
Figure 1. UMass School of Medicine Diversity and Inclusion Office.

The Diversity and Inclusion Office also sponsors the Emerging Professionals Summer Internship program, which includes racially discriminatory selection criteria that treats certain racial/ethnic groups differently than others. Do No Harm has filed a federal civil rights complaint against the university for this violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  • It lobbies for woke policies at the federal, state, and/or local levels. This means it’s wading into toxic public debates instead of fully focusing on educating future physicians.
  • It offers tenure and promotion to faculty who prove their commitment to extreme identity politics and woke priorities. This is a litmus test that requires faculty to toe the party line instead of teaching medicine at the highest level. The Diversity and Inclusion Office’s position on recruiting says the UMass Medical School is “committed to a program of affirmative action to eliminate or mitigate artificial barriers and to increase opportunities for the recruitment and advancement of qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans.”
  • Its administrators are active within local, regional, and national forums to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion. This means it’s wasting resources that would be better spent on real medical education.
Figure 2. UMMS DICE Inventory overall score.

All told, the UMass Chan Medical School has instituted 70.8% of the divisive and discriminatory woke policies listed by the AAMC. And you can bet it is feeling pressure from activists and outside groups to go even further down the radical rabbit hole – doing even more damage to faculty, medical students, and ultimately, the millions of patients they’ll see.

Massachusetts taxpayers help fund UMMS. They, and the policymakers who represent them, should ask why they’re giving so much money to an institution that’s putting divisive and discriminatory ideology at the heart of medical education. More importantly, they should ensure UMMS stops, and soon.

UPenn Only Wants Woke Medical Faculty

,

Want to work at UPenn’s Perelman School of Medicine? First, you have to prove how woke you are. This blatant political litmus test is now part of the faculty job application process. This prestigious institution is just the latest to put divisive ideology ahead of excellence and merit in its hiring process.

A tipster clued us into this disturbing turn of events at UPenn. Applicants for teaching positions must now submit a “Diversity Statement,” which is exactly what it sounds like: A statement proving their commitment to the divisive and discriminatory concepts of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”

UPenn doesn’t want rhetoric. It wants applicants to show their track record on DEI: “In general terms, diversity statement should include past experiences and activities, and also future plans to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The application guide asks a series of leading questions, too:

  • What does diversity mean to you, and why is this important?
  • Do you understand the university’s diversity goals?
  • What have been some of your experiences either being part of a non-majority group, or interacting with diverse populations?
  • How has your thinking about diversity actively influenced your teaching, research, and/or scholarship?
  • In thinking about the different roles you have played, and will play, as part of your university service, what role has/will diversity issues play?
  • What role do you believe that advising and mentoring play in working with diverse populations?
  • Does your engagement with diversity help students prepare for careers in a global society?

The list goes on. The application guide even provides a sample “Diversity Statement,” which lists things like publishing articles on DEI, teaching “equity” in the classroom, and other blatantly woke activities.

The UPenn mandate applies to every part of the university. Yet when it comes to the Perelman School of Medicine, the inevitable result will be harm to medical educators. They must either pretend to believe in these blatantly political ideas or actively subscribe to them, making them less suited to actually teach at the medical school. Political orthodoxy is not a legitimate qualification for teaching, yet by pretending it is, UPenn will do great harm to medical education.

The Connecticut General Assembly’s Fight Against Systemic Racism in “Endo…What?”

The Connecticut legislature wants to ensure its school nurses can detect systemic racism in students’ uteruses.

Rep. Jillian Gilchrest of the Connecticut General Assembly has been busy during the 2023 legislative session, including co-sponsoring legislation prohibiting the sale or barter of dead kangaroos, mitigating climate change, and introducing a bill promoting “equitable holidays” for state employees. But one proposed bill recently gained attention on social media: An Act Concerning Endometriosis Training for School Nurses.

HB 6297 says that school nurses and those serving in school-based health centers must be required to receive “(1) Endo What? School Nurse Training and Toolkit” and “(2) training on endometriosis that includes information on systemic racism, explicit and implicit bias, micro aggressions, racial disparities, anti-blackness, and experiences of transgender and gender diverse youth.”

Figure 1. HB 6297, Connecticut General Assembly 2023.

Moving past the fact that one must be trained and certified as an advanced practice nurse to diagnose and treat a medical condition, the provisions of this bill are facially absurd. Having spent several years of my nursing career in rural New Mexico, I gained a wide variety of experience in the field, including school nursing. I can confidently state that none of the students who came into the office said that their tummy aches or menstrual cramps were due to systemic racism or implicit bias. Working as an operating room nurse during many hysterectomies, there was no way to distinguish the race or ethnicity of the uteruses once they were in the specimen container. And, during multiple medical and surgical treatments for endometriosis as a young woman, my doctors never attributed the problem to “anti-blackness.”

Said one tweet about the Connecticut bill: “All that oppression in one uterus.”

Let’s demand more from our lawmakers who are proposing legislation in the name of public health. School nurses have more important topics to study for their continuing professional development. Most of all, children need protection from radical ideologies, not the promotion of them.  

Laura L. Morgan MSN, RN is the program manager for Do No Harm.

The UT Health Long School of Medicine Cleans Up Its Discriminatory Scholars Program

We recently reported that the University of Texas Health (UT Health) Long School of Medicine (LSOM) in San Antonio was under investigation for its racially discriminatory Diversity in Medicine Visiting Elective Scholars Program. The program’s eligibility restrictions required applicants to “identify as one or more of the following underrepresented backgrounds: Black/African American, Hispanic/Latinx, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.” Discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin is prohibited under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After being informed that a federal civil rights investigation was opened by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), UT Health LSOM scrubbed the website, claimed the program no longer exists, and “that any mention of the Program on its website was inadvertent.” An archived version of the web page can be accessed here.

OCR dismissed the case on February 7, stating:

The University provided OCR documentary evidence reflecting that the scholarship at issue in this case has been changed so that it is now available for visiting students, regardless of gender or race. Specifically, the webpage for the scholarship indicates that it is an opportunity for “individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are committed to working with underserved populations, or are interested in working with issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The evidence provided to OCR by UT Health Long School of Medicine is not publicly available. A search of the UT Health LSOM website and its Office for Inclusion and Diversity failed to locate any reference to the program, and the link to the original posting still shows “page not found.”

Do No Harm continues to fight back against discrimination in academic scholarships and programs. If your school offers a scholarship with eligibility criteria that are based on race/ethnicity or sexual orientation/gender identity, please let us know.

UCSF Fresno Responds to Civil Rights Investigation of a Discriminatory Scholarship

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened an investigation into The University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Fresno for its racially discriminatory Obstetrics and Gynecology Scholarship for Visiting UiM Students – 2022 (archived page here), as we reported last December. The scholarship’s application confirmed that the program was intended to support students who are “underrepresented in medicine,” and asked for the applicant’s race/ethnicity.

Figure 1. UCSF Fresno OB/Gyn Scholarship for Visiting UiM Students application (archived version, September 28, 2022).

In response to OCR’s federal civil rights investigation, UCSF Fresno changed the name of the program to “Obstetrics and Gynecology Scholarship for Visiting Students 2023,” which is reflected on its webpage. The original eligibility requirements stated:

To qualify for this scholarship, you must identify as UiM** (** UIM includes a member of the LGBTQ+ communities or underrepresented minorities as described by the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development which includes: Black, African Americans or Africans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians, Native Americans or Alaskan natives, Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders, and Asians (other than: Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Koreans, Malaysians, Pakistanis, Asian Indian, and Thai).

The updated eligibility requirements now state:

To qualify for this scholarship, you must Identify as a student from a Disadvantaged Background** (**Family with an annual income below established low-income thresholds AND/OR from a social, cultural, or educational environment such as that found in certain rural or inner-city environments that have demonstrably presented barriers to navigating admissions or access to medical careers.).

The 2023 application also contains the restructured language, and information on the applicant’s race/ethnicity is no longer collected. However, it leaves the door open for the applicant to “further explain the circumstances of your ‘disadvantaged background’” as an optional response.

Figure 2. Current application for the UCSF Fresno OB/Gyn Scholarship for Visiting Students 2023.

As a result of these changes, the San Francisco Office for Civil Rights has determined the case is resolved.

Have you been excluded from a scholarship or fellowship program due to discriminatory eligibility criteria? Do No Harm wants to hear from you.

Meet January Littlejohn, Parent Advocate

January Littlejohn is a wife and stay-at-home mom to three children in Tallahassee, FL. She has a master’s degree in counseling and is also a licensed mental health counselor.

Her 13-year-old daughter was socially transitioned at her middle school in 2020 without her knowledge or consent. In 2021, she and her husband filed a federal lawsuit against the school district for parental rights violations.

Most of her free time is devoted to educating parents, school officials, legislators, and mental health professionals on the dangers of gender ideology and the affirmation only approach in medicine. She also helps parents whose children have fallen prey to this ideology find resources and treatment options to support their family.

Hear January’s story:

Why Isn’t OSMA Protecting Kids?

The Oklahoma State Medical Association doesn’t care about vulnerable children.

That’s the unavoidable takeaway of OSMA’s recent announcement that it opposes several bills in the state legislature that would protect children from dangerous transgender medical procedures by restricting so-called “gender-affirming care.” Why is the organization that represents Oklahoma physicians putting extreme gender ideology ahead of children’s health and well-being?

OSMA’s opposition couldn’t come at a more awkward time. This week, a whistleblower at a Missouri children transgender center went public with the de facto child abuse she witnessed on a daily basis:

“I left the clinic in November of last year because I could no longer participate in what was happening there. By the time I departed, I was certain that the way the American medical system is treating these patients is the opposite of the promise we make to “do no harm.” Instead, we are permanently harming the vulnerable patients in our care.”

The whistleblowers described children being given puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and even referrals for sex-reassignment surgeries. She also saw how these treatments led to severe medical issues, including infertility, and were given without question to children suffering from major mental health issues. Such is the nature of the “gender-affirming care” that OSMA wants to maintain.

Figure 1. From “Medicine Day 2023” announcement (Oklahoma State Medical Association).

OSMA may be completely in thrall to transgender activists, but its members know better. One member sent us the following note:

“I have been an OSMA member for many years. I just got my dues renewal and I will not – I cannot – send them money this year because they’re hurting kids by opposing this legislation. They need to stop politicizing their approach to medicine without regard for patient safety or wellbeing. They are doing so without the support of the members they represent and I can no longer be a part of dangerous pseudomedicine.”

We couldn’t agree more. The Oklahoma State Medical Association should focus on medicine, not radical gender ideology. And the state legislature would be wise to restrict transgender treatments for children as soon as possible. The health and well-being of vulnerable Oklahoma children depend on it.

Is your medical association advocating extreme ideology? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina’s Foundation is Funding a Racially Discriminatory Grant

,

We received two anonymous tips about the Advancing Healthy Food Equity initiative at the BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina (BCBSNC) Foundation. This program, which is “part of an overall commitment to increase equity access to healthy food,” offers the opportunity for ten organizations to receive $300,000 over three years. But here’s the catch: Only non-profit organizations with specific race/ethnicity-based characteristics are eligible. Here’s what the BCBSNC Foundation requires of these non-profit entities to be considered for funding: “Led by, serving, and accountable to American Indian, Black, Latino, other People of Color, and members of immigrant communities that have been impacted by inequities in access to healthy food.”

To provide clarity on the grant’s background and eligibility criteria, BCBSNC Foundation held an informational webinar on January 31, 2023, which reiterated the standards that must be met:

  • The executive director or CEO is American Indian, Black, Latino, other Person of Color, or from an immigrant community.
  • The community served is primarily American Indian, Black, Latino, other People of Color, or members of immigrant communities as demonstrated by the demographic of those directly impacted by an organization’s programming.
  • The staff, board, or coalition leadership reflect the community served.

However, Healthy Food Director Merry Davis wanted to ensure that the criterion for the CEO of the applying organization was crystal clear:

We have received questions about eligibility from organizations that have a majority people of color staff, and staff leadership, and white CEO. So given the spirit of this opportunity Sheila and I shared earlier, these organizations are not eligible for this particular opportunity.

The BCBSNC Foundation further defines its commitment to promoting equity over equality in its Racial Equity Commitment for “addressing structural racism and creating more equitable opportunities for health.”  

Figure 3. BCBSNC Foundation’s Racial Equity Commitment.

The Foundation claims that health equity means “a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible.” But what is fair and just about excluding specific groups of people from access to healthy food on the basis of race and ethnicity? And just because an otherwise eligible organization has a CEO whose race happens to be white, it can’t be considered? North Carolinans and BlueCross BlueShield members need to ask the BCBSNC Foundation why they are funding a racially discriminatory grant program.Have you seen healthcare-related grant opportunities with discriminatory eligibility criteria? Please let us know via our secure online portal.

We Need More Trans Whistleblowers Like This One

Have you personally seen the disturbing reality of transgender treatments for children? A new whistleblower from Missouri did – and she’s saying this blatant child abuse needs to stop, now. Do No Harm hopes more whistleblowers will speak out and join the fight to protect vulnerable children.

The Missouri whistleblower’s story is powerful:

I am a 42-year-old St. Louis native, a queer woman, and politically to the left of Bernie Sanders… [It] led me to a job in 2018 as a case manager at The Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital.

I left the clinic in November of last year because I could no longer participate in what was happening there…Instead, we are permanently harming the vulnerable patients in our care… and what is happening to them is morally and medically appalling.

She describes how quickly her colleagues recommended irreversible treatments, without any regard for counseling or even basic medical science:

Frequently, our patients declared they had disorders that no one believed they had. We had patients who said they had Tourette syndrome (but they didn’t); that they had tic disorders (but they didn’t); that they had multiple personalities (but they didn’t). The doctors privately recognized these false self-diagnoses as a manifestation of social contagion…

To begin transitioning, the girls needed a letter of support from a therapist—usually one we recommended—who they had to see only once or twice for the green light. To make it more efficient for the therapists, we offered them a template for how to write a letter in support of transition. The next stop was a single visit to the endocrinologist for a testosterone prescription. 

That’s all it took. 

She saw the horrifying consequences constantly:

When a female takes testosterone, the profound and permanent effects of the hormone can be seen in a matter of months. Voices drop, beards sprout, body fat is redistributed. Sexual interest explodes, aggression increases, and mood can be unpredictable. Our patients were told about some side effects, including sterility.

But after working at the center, I came to believe that teenagers are simply not capable of fully grasping what it means to make the decision to become infertile while still a minor. 

This brave whistleblower deserves credit for speaking out – and surely she is not alone. If you’re a medical professional or parent who’s seen children subjected to radical gender ideology, including extreme treatments, please let us know. We’ll help you tell your story – and protect more children.

Why Does This Medical Publisher Need To Know Your Race?

The publisher behind The Lancet, one of world’s most prestigious medical journals, wants to know the race and gender of all its peer reviewers. Do No Harm reviewed the details, which are deeply concerning. This beacon of medical scholarship is fixated on race, when it should be fully focused on medical research.

The publisher is Elsevier, and its demands for reviewers are blunt. Before a medical educator or scholar can review a study being considered for publication – the tried-and-true process known as “peer review” – they must first fill out a diversity survey. If they refuse, they are not allowed to continue with their review. Apparently, their expertise doesn’t matter if they don’t first disclose their skin color.

Reviewers can choose from a variety of racial classifications, and if you answer “White,” you are further directed to choose “Western European” or “Eastern European.” The survey states, “You are not expected to undertake DNA testing, nor to use the results of such a test as your basis for answering.” It also says: “Selecting one’s racial identity as ‘white’ should not be misconstrued with nor is indicative of white supremacy in any way.” Yet it still sends the message that white reviewers are somehow biased and therefore unwelcome as reviewers.

How is Elsevier using this racial data? Its woke bureaucracy-babble doesn’t give a straight answer. The publisher says: “Your self-reported diversity data will be used to improve diversity and inclusion across journal editorial processes,” and “if there are opportunities to further advance inclusion and diversity, such as by enhancing outreach, we aim to take action to adopt them.” This raises the question of whether Elsevier is moving to ban or solicit scholarly reviewers based on race.

Such is the nature of woke ideology in health care. It inevitably leads to racial discrimination, while sending divisive messages to scholars and experts. The Lancet and Elsevier’s other medical publications are supposed to promote the best medical research. So why are they increasingly obsessed with race?

Have you seen discriminatory woke ideology at a medical journal or in medical research? Please let us know – securely and anonymously.

Wokeness Is Gaining a Toehold In Arkansas Medical Education

The Alice L. Walton School of Medicine (AWSOM) opened in 2021 with a degree program “that integrates conventional medicine with holistic principles and self-care practices.” Problem is, the school is also integrating wokeness into its recruiting and hiring processes.

Prospective faculty members seeking a position at AWSOM are informed that, in addition to their curriculum vitae and a statement on their teaching philosophy, they will be required to submit a “diversity statement.”

Figure 1. From the “Join Our Team” page at AWSOM.

One of the available positions is for an Assistant Dean of Inclusive Excellence in the Office of Faculty Affairs and Inclusive Excellence:

The Assistant Dean of Inclusive Excellence will work with school leaders to build and guide a team of staff charged with building and fostering a diverse, inclusive, equitable work and learning environment such that our faculty, students and staff can thrive. Areas of responsibility include but are not limited to developing, leading and guiding the development of a DEI plan, facilitate training programs, advocate for policies, programs and processes that enhance our diversity, increase our strength, and ultimately result in excellence. In short, this person will work to create and sustain a professional and inclusive culture/climate. We are building a workplace and learning climate in which inclusive excellence and whole health principles are inextricable parts of our culture and practices.

It’s to be expected that a woke medical school would require its “inclusive excellence” dean to be “committed to diversity and inclusion.” But what about other faculty positions? A Physiology Faculty opening says the ideal candidate will be responsible for curriculum development and instruction of students with “demonstrated experience and expertise in medical education.” Yet, this position is expected to take the same DEI pledge.

AWSOM isn’t finished with infusing DEI into every corner of the school. The Director of Facilities Services, which is responsible for the management of building operation, mechanical systems, and environmental services, is also required to submit a Diversity Statement and meet the DEI commitment skills requirement.

Figure 2. From AWSOM Director of Facilities Services job posting.

AWSOM isn’t expecting its first class to start until 2025, but it is taking measures to ensure the DEI agenda is teed up and ready to go for students, faculty, and even the plant engineer. The residents of northwest Arkansas need to decide if they want wokeness or wellness in their new doctors.

This Is What Passes As “Continuous Knowledge” at the American Board of Family Medicine

The American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) offers Self-Assessment and Lifelong Learning in a number of topics that many physicians use to obtain and maintain their family medicine board certification. Individual modules in the “Knowledge Self-Assessment” section also provide continuous medical education (CME) credits to maintain a medical license. One such tool is the Continuous Knowledge Self-Assessment (CKSA). Launched in 2017, the CKSA delivers 25 multiple-choice questions to the ABFM member portal on a quarterly basis throughout the year.       

Do No Harm obtained a copy of a recent practice question on the CKSA:

A 13-year-old who was assigned female at birth has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. His parents fully support their child and affirm his gender as male. One examination the patient has a sexual maturity rate of Tanner stage 3. Which one of the following steps would be appropriate for optimal support and therapy for this patient?

The appropriate approach is to conduct psychosocial assessments, followed by family counseling. None of the answer choices reflect the course of action that is aligned with a family physician’s duty to minimize the risk of harm to the child, rather than prescribing “gender-affirming” treatments. While incorrect, the most conservative response is “Recommending delaying any gender-affirming treatment until he is at least 18 years old to prevent adverse psychosocial outcomes of puberty suppression.”

Figure 1. Practice question on the ABFM CKSA.

However, the ABFM has a different idea of appropriate care for children, and the answer is appalling. The CKSA shows “recommending GnRH analogue treatment” (puberty blockers) as the correct choice for this question.        

Figure 2. ABFM’s indication of the correct answer to the CKSA practice question.

Why is the ABFM endorsing the use of puberty blockers in children? Even if commonly cited guidelines are accepted by the physician, this is still an erroneous response. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines, which the CKSA cites, lists the summary criteria for adolescents. The first intervention listed is “a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment including relevant mental health and medical professionals” (WPATH Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, version 8, appendix D).

Figure 3. From WPATH Standards of Care, Version 8.

The ABFM’s rationale for this answer says it refers to the WPATH guidelines and asserts there is “consistent evidence” in the treatment of “gender incongruence.” Adolescents who receive puberty blockers, it says, “have improved mental health outcomes,” so family physicians must “recognize the indications for timely treatment or referral.” The explanation goes on to say, “Puberty suppression is reversible,” and prescribing it “allows transgender adolescents, their families, and the care team to determine appropriate gender-affirming care as the patient approaches adulthood.” Plus, the references they use are flawed, as noted by the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine (SEGM) in a recently published study.

Figure 4. Rationale for the ABFM’s correct answer.

But it gets worse. The final paragraph of the rationale states:

It is unethical and against recommended guidelines for a physician to attempt to convert a person’s gender identity to the sex assigned at birth.

Figure 5. Rationale for the ABFM’s correct answer.

In other words, the ABFM is compelling family physicians to agree with prescribing so-called “gender affirming care” to minors as the correct answer on its practice exam and self-assessment for members.

Doctors who are taking advantage of the continuing education resources the ABFM is giving them are being coached with incorrect information regarding the safest course of treatment and advocating for preventing harm to their adolescent patients with “gender dysphoria.” The ABFM holds all the power with family physicians who are seeking the credential of board certification. They, and others who are committed to protecting children from potentially catastrophic harm, are the ones who must fight back against this alarming stance by the American Board of Family Medicine.

Is your accrediting or certifying organization pushing gender ideology? Please let us know via our secure portal. You may remain anonymous if you wish.