Individuals with eating disorders, especially those who are not yet adults, often struggle with the psychological complexities of anxiety, depression, and body image. It is therefore particularly worrying that a group would impose a dangerous ideology onto a child who is psychologically and physically suffering.
And yet, that appears to be what is happening at the Eating Recovery Center (ERC), a nationwide eating disorder treatment center with numerous facilities and a great deal of online resources.
Although ERC’s website appears to be geared towards eating disorders, it only takes one click to find the following page, titled “Supporting Trans People with Eating Disorders: A Guide for Providers.”
This header appears cleverly crafted. There is a noticeable difference between these words on the webpage and the actual URL, which ends with “family-based-treatment-for-trans-youth-with-eating disorders [emphasis ours].”
The headline hides what the rest of the page explicitly says – namely, that the content is primarily centered on youth.
To begin, ERC centers its care around the so-called “gender-affirming” model. It endorses the “right to be affirmed” and the right to “receive gender-affirming medical care and gender-affirming mental health care. Full stop.”
It continues:
Eating disorders in transgender teens
First, let’s talk about trans youth. Adolescence is a time of blossoming gender identity and expression…For trans youth, when the body image doesn’t quite line up with who they want to portray in the world, like when a trans male begins to grow larger hips and breasts, gender dysphoria can arise. And it is extremely painful.
An organization that ostensibly seeks to treat eating disorders should not be rushing to “affirm” the self-professed gender of a distressed child; doing so pushes children onto the transgender medicalization pathway and encourages further harmful interventions. This is important, given the ERC’s explicit advice:
As eating disorder professionals, we must ask ourselves if the person we see in our office has a true eating disorder or sub-threshold eating disorder behaviors that are intended to increase acceptance and affirmation as their identified gender. Is the eating disorder about losing weight or is it about aligning with one’s identified gender?
This poses a serious concern: why does ERC advocate for “affirming” a youth’s gender identity, yet encourage scrutiny of an eating disorder to determine if it might be masking gender dysphoria?
Could ERC’s approach suggest to a patient that his or her eating disorder might stem from being transgender?
As concerning as this sounds (and also being at odds with solid, medically-based mental health care), there is solid reason to believe ERC is doing exactly that. Consider the following from the same page:
Benefits of gender-affirming treatment for trans individuals
Here’s one of our favorite data pieces to share.
When trans individuals take part in gender-affirming gender reassignment and gender dysphoria treatment, there is often a reduction in eating disorder behaviors. When one’s gender is affirmed and gender dysphoria is reduced, eating disorder symptoms decrease.
Isn’t that amazing? Treating underlying gender dysphoria is critical to supporting the health of transgender individuals, and this is supported by the data.[10, 11] By starting hormone treatment and gender-affirming surgery, body dissatisfaction decreases along with eating disorder symptoms.
First, the claims here are dubious.
Large-scale analyses such as the Cass Review and the Department of Health and Human Services’ “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices” demonstrate that the evidence supporting so-called “gender-affirming care” to treat sex-confused children is greatly lacking.
Second, the way in which ERC makes these claims (“Isn’t that amazing?”) indicates an almost cheerleader-like endorsement of gender ideology. It’s as though ERC is so committed to the so-called “gender-affirming” approach that it resists even entertaining the possibility of an alternative being valid.
And is ERC so intent on this being true that the idea is suggested to patients when it may not even be a relevant clinical consideration? Imagine what that would do to a young mind.
But then ERC reveals its position by explicitly admitting that it’s doing exactly that:
Screen all patients with gender dysphoria for eating disorders and vice versa
Further, every patient you talk to who has gender dysphoria should be screened for eating disorders. Every patient you see for an eating disorder should be asked about gender dysphoria.
An example of a question that you might consider asking would be, “From head to toe, what do you like/not like about your gender?”
For the record, screening for co-morbid psychiatric disorders and conditions is perfectly acceptable. Pushing gender ideology onto children through that process is not.
As if that were not enough to be appalled at the actions of ERC, it gets worse. In the section on the same page titled “Family-based treatment for trans youth with eating disorders,” ERC informs readers:
Here at Eating Recovery Center, we believe, and research has indicated, that the core tenets of family-based treatment (FBT) are essential to helping people recover from eating disorders. When it comes to trans youth, however, we must be cautious. We cannot assume that trans teens are fully supported by their family. We cannot assume that families will affirm their child’s preferred gender, name, and pronouns. If the trans patient does not feel affirmed, respected, and seen, they may struggle to do hard work with their family of origin in a family therapy setting and eating disorder recovery may stall.
Creating a warm and accepting environment in treatment is an essential component to support recovery.
For FBT and Emotion-Focused Family Therapy (EFFT) to work, the family must be in a place where healing can occur. Keep the options open for trans patients to work with a “family of choice” if their “family of origin” is not affirming because, while we do put some individual life activities on hold during treatment, we don’t want to put a patient’s gender development on hold [emphasis ours].
This comes across as painting the family of the patient as a potential enemy – or just plain ignorant. ERC is sending a message here that starts with an assumption that many parents are not acting in their children’s best interests.
Is ERC suggesting that it is better equipped to serve as a parent than the actual parents themselves? Does ERC truly believe that a child’s family should effectively be “replaced” simply because the parents question immediate “affirmation?”
By this model, it is de facto decided before you even arrive that if you question ERC, you are harming your own child.
This isn’t treatment based in science. It’s more akin to the power of suggestion used at an illusionist’s show, except in this case, the audience is the minds of our youth.
Rather than relying on fleeting social trends or unproven theories, ERC should stop promoting gender ideology on kids when the evidence simply isn’t there. Children struggling with legitimate problems deserve better.
New Do No Harm Report Exposes How Parents Are Being Denied Access to Children’s Medical Records
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Health system, Hospital System Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; October 28, 2025 — Today, medical watchdog Do No Harm released a new report exposing how prominent medical systems and providers use electronic healthcare records (EHRs) to restrict parental access to children’s medical records, enabling providers to hide aspects of pediatric medical transition from parents.
The report, “Parental Access to Their Children’s Medical Records is Under Attack,” reveals how woke medical systems are limiting parents’ “proxy” access to their children’s medical records. These include restrictions that have been extended well beyond the limits of the law, thereby opening the door for hospitals to push a harmful gender ideology and sex change interventions on children.
“There is a heavy responsibility linked to medical decision making, one that children are not equipped to bear alone—nor should they,” said Kurt Miceli, MD, Medical Director of Do No Harm. “Our report calls out the policies, systems, and proxy configurations that put children directly in harm’s way by removing parental protection. The Privacy Law does not permit, nor is it intended to remove lawful parental access during their child’s developmental years. We are calling upon our colleagues in healthcare, to remember that their first and most important commitment is to do no harm, and to stop putting children at great risk during an age of confusion and vulnerability, particularly when they lack full cognitive maturity.”
“The Epic-Oracle duopoly provides the framework for activist physicians to funnel minors into the gender cult without parental knowledge or consent,” said Michelle Havrilla, CRNP, Director of Programs of Do No Harm. “From doctors asking kids about their sexuality to parents being blocked from their child’s medical decisions, transgender politics are increasingly pushed on children—and EHR companies design the systems that enable and sometimes encourage this. This report should be a wake-up call to legislators and medical professionals across the country: empower parents, protect kids, fix the system.”
Main Takeaways from the Report:
Read the full report 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.
Eating Disorder Organization Pushes Gender Ideology on Minors
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffIndividuals with eating disorders, especially those who are not yet adults, often struggle with the psychological complexities of anxiety, depression, and body image. It is therefore particularly worrying that a group would impose a dangerous ideology onto a child who is psychologically and physically suffering.
And yet, that appears to be what is happening at the Eating Recovery Center (ERC), a nationwide eating disorder treatment center with numerous facilities and a great deal of online resources.
Although ERC’s website appears to be geared towards eating disorders, it only takes one click to find the following page, titled “Supporting Trans People with Eating Disorders: A Guide for Providers.”
This header appears cleverly crafted. There is a noticeable difference between these words on the webpage and the actual URL, which ends with “family-based-treatment-for-trans-youth-with-eating disorders [emphasis ours].”
The headline hides what the rest of the page explicitly says – namely, that the content is primarily centered on youth.
To begin, ERC centers its care around the so-called “gender-affirming” model. It endorses the “right to be affirmed” and the right to “receive gender-affirming medical care and gender-affirming mental health care. Full stop.”
It continues:
An organization that ostensibly seeks to treat eating disorders should not be rushing to “affirm” the self-professed gender of a distressed child; doing so pushes children onto the transgender medicalization pathway and encourages further harmful interventions. This is important, given the ERC’s explicit advice:
This poses a serious concern: why does ERC advocate for “affirming” a youth’s gender identity, yet encourage scrutiny of an eating disorder to determine if it might be masking gender dysphoria?
Could ERC’s approach suggest to a patient that his or her eating disorder might stem from being transgender?
As concerning as this sounds (and also being at odds with solid, medically-based mental health care), there is solid reason to believe ERC is doing exactly that. Consider the following from the same page:
First, the claims here are dubious.
Large-scale analyses such as the Cass Review and the Department of Health and Human Services’ “Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices” demonstrate that the evidence supporting so-called “gender-affirming care” to treat sex-confused children is greatly lacking.
Second, the way in which ERC makes these claims (“Isn’t that amazing?”) indicates an almost cheerleader-like endorsement of gender ideology. It’s as though ERC is so committed to the so-called “gender-affirming” approach that it resists even entertaining the possibility of an alternative being valid.
And is ERC so intent on this being true that the idea is suggested to patients when it may not even be a relevant clinical consideration? Imagine what that would do to a young mind.
But then ERC reveals its position by explicitly admitting that it’s doing exactly that:
For the record, screening for co-morbid psychiatric disorders and conditions is perfectly acceptable. Pushing gender ideology onto children through that process is not.
As if that were not enough to be appalled at the actions of ERC, it gets worse. In the section on the same page titled “Family-based treatment for trans youth with eating disorders,” ERC informs readers:
This comes across as painting the family of the patient as a potential enemy – or just plain ignorant. ERC is sending a message here that starts with an assumption that many parents are not acting in their children’s best interests.
Is ERC suggesting that it is better equipped to serve as a parent than the actual parents themselves? Does ERC truly believe that a child’s family should effectively be “replaced” simply because the parents question immediate “affirmation?”
By this model, it is de facto decided before you even arrive that if you question ERC, you are harming your own child.
This isn’t treatment based in science. It’s more akin to the power of suggestion used at an illusionist’s show, except in this case, the audience is the minds of our youth.
Rather than relying on fleeting social trends or unproven theories, ERC should stop promoting gender ideology on kids when the evidence simply isn’t there. Children struggling with legitimate problems deserve better.
Texas health system faces racial discrimination civil rights complaint
Uncategorized Texas DEI Health system, Hospital System Media Mention Do No Harm StaffMedical group Do No Harm filed a federal civil rights complaint against a Texas healthcare system for using “racially discriminatory criteria” when selecting its vendors, some stipulations being that a vendor must be minority- or woman-owned.
Do No Harm’s medical director Kurt Miceli told The Center Square: “By using racially discriminatory criteria to select vendors, JPS Health Network is depriving well-deserving businesses of a fair opportunity to contract with the health system.”
“Such unjust criteria damage the integrity of the medical field and promote a culture of mediocrity in this critical industry,” Miceli said.
Read the full story at The Center Square.
Case Management Society of America Embeds DEI Into Standards of Practices
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical association Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Case Management Society of America (CMSA) is a membership association representing case managers – healthcare professionals who help coordinate care for patients – in the United States.
Yet the organization clearly believes that an essential part of this function is promoting DEI and promoting identity politics.
In 2024, CMSA added an addendum to its standards of practice called “Standard Q” that incorporates DEI into the organization’s professional standards.
“At CMSA, we believe that Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) are essential components of professional case management. Standard Q serves as a vital resource for case managers, empowering them to make an impact by dismantling barriers to healthcare access and advancing health equity across all communities,” said CMSA President Janet Coulter in a press release announcing the addition.
What does this mean in practice?
Well, first, case managers must demonstrate a commitment to DEI.
“The professional case manager shall demonstrate a commitment to the principles of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging, and Health Equity in practice,” the standards state.
Next, case managers must gear their jobs toward advancing “health equity.”
“The professional case manager shall provide case management services and interventions that eliminate health disparities and inequalities,” the standards state.
“Health equity must be pursued as an intentional strategy since it will not necessarily happen as a by-product of other initiatives,” the standards continue. “Professional case managers in all healthcare settings (such as health plans, workers’ compensation, health systems, clinics, and individual practitioners) shall make every effort to improve health equity for all clients regardless of the demographics of the individuals, communities, or populations served.”
In short, the standards expect case managers to be evangelists for “health equity” in the workplace. Health equity, by its definition, calls for the equalizing of outcomes between particular identity (including racial) groups, invariably encouraging providers to engage in discriminatory behavior.
But that’s not all.
“The professional case manager shall participate in public policy activities and legislative efforts related to equity,” the standards state.
You read that right. Case managers are literally expected to become political activists in support of DEI and radical identity politics.
Moreover, the standards appear to suggest that case managers should promote discriminatory hiring and recruitment practices in the name of advancing diversity.
“The professional case manager shall engage in initiatives that support diverse teams throughout the entire employee lifecycle, including recruiting, hiring practices, promotions and career advancements, mentoring and sponsoring, and departures,” the standards read. “Diversity” here refers to the diversity of “social identity groups,” which are demarcated by “race, ethnicity, culture, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, spirituality, disability, age, national origin, immigration status, and language.”
It’s hard to imagine how this could be achieved except through overt racial discrimination.
In summary, the CMSA standards seek to radically alter the profession of case management into a vehicle for ideological activism. Case managers are expected to become foot soldiers for the DEI ideology.
This is utterly antithetical to proper healthcare practices and a dereliction of healthcare professionals’ fundamental duties to patients and society at large.
The Council on Social Work Education’s DEI-Infused Standards
Uncategorized United States DEI accrediting organization Commentary Do No Harm StaffIf you thought the goal of social work education programs was to train the best possible social workers, think again.
The field’s accrediting body, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), is infusing divisive identity politics into social work education programs and transforming them into vehicles for political and ideological activism.
The CSWE accredits baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral programs in social work across the United States. Many of these programs specifically focus on social work in the healthcare context; social workers are important figures in the healthcare landscape, connecting patients with valuable medical resources and helping them better manage their medical conditions.
In theory, accreditation bodies should ensure that programs meet professional and ethical standards. But the CSWE is more interested in enforcing an ideology centered around “anti-racism,” “equity,” and “social justice.”
The CSWE’s 2022 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards, the most recent iteration of the organization’s standards, include two competencies specifically geared toward DEI. Competency 2 requires programs to ensure students “Advance Human Rights and Social, Racial, Economic, and Environmental Justice,” while Competency 3 mandates that they “Engage Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ADEI) in Practice.”
Social workers should “demonstrate anti-racist and anti-oppressive social work practice at the individual, family, group, organizational, community, research, and policy levels,” the description for Competency 3 states.
The CSWE ensures social work programs achieve these goals by requiring them to meet certain DEI-centered standards.
For instance, Accreditation Policy 2.0 mandates programs to engage “in specific and continuous efforts within the explicit curriculum related to anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
“Social work education is grounded in the liberal arts and a commitment to anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion, which together provide the intellectual basis for the professional curriculum and inform its design,” Educational Policy 3.0 reads. “The integration of anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion principles across the explicit curriculum includes anti-oppression and global positionality, interdisciplinary perspectives, and comparative analysis regarding policy, practice, and research.”
Educational Policy 2.0, meanwhile, instructs programs to “provide the context through which students learn about their positionality, power, privilege, and difference and develop a commitment to dismantling systems of oppression, such as racism, that affect diverse populations.”
Additionally, programs must “recognize the pervasive impact of White supremacy and privilege and prepare students to have the knowledge, awareness, and skills necessary to engage in anti-racist practice.”
The influence of this ideology isn’t just limited to the curriculum; Educational Policy 4.3: Administrative and Governance Structure requires that programs develop “an administrative and leadership structure that reflects and affirms respect for anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
This embrace of DEI mirrors the larger trend in social work; earlier this year, the National Association of Social Workers published an article titled “Targeting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: What It Means for Social Work Education,” that bemoaned the Trump administration’s efforts to remove DEI from higher education.
And sadly, the CSWE is far from the only accreditor that has pushed DEI on education programs. Do No Harm reported on healthcare education accreditors who were encouraging medical schools and universities to implement discriminatory admissions, hiring, and/or recruiting practices. And in April, President Trump issued an executive order targeting accreditors for injecting DEI into higher education. Thankfully, many of these accreditors have since walked back their programs following our investigation and the executive order.
Due to their unique position, accreditors have enormous power over the content of curricula and the policies and practices of higher education programs. This power simply cannot be abused to push radical identity politics and degrade the quality of education. This harms students, future social workers, and patients alike.
Lawsuit Seeks Data Behind Taxpayer-Funded Study That Undercuts Support For Puberty Blockers
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Federal government Commentary Do No Harm StaffToday, the American Accountability Foundation (AAF) filed a lawsuit seeking data from a taxpayer-funded study on the efficacy of puberty blockers to treat children with gender dysphoria.
The study was funded by a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant and helmed by Dr. Johanna OIson-Kennedy, who formerly led the pediatric gender clinic at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (which until recently was a prolific provider of child sex change interventions).
However, according to a New York Times report, Dr. Olson-Kennedy had initially refused to publish the results of the study as it found that “puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements” in children.
The Times reported that Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s decision was due to fears that the results could undermine the argument for “gender-affirming care.”
That same month, AAF submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the NIH for the study’s underlying data, but received a response that was incomplete and rife with redactions.
“Though the NIH sent a response and produced some records in November 2024, NIH’s production appeared incomplete, as it didn’t include Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s data and contained redactions throughout,” the suit states. “NIH’s response also appeared incomplete and insufficient because it didn’t justify any of the redactions, nor did it explain how the search was conducted to find responsive records pertaining to the data set.”
Subsequent efforts to obtain the data through the FOIA process were similarly stymied.
As a result, AAF filed its lawsuit against the NIH and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), alleging that the bureaucrats are improperly withholding the data.
“For over a year, HHS has been hiding a bombshell study that confirms what we’ve known all along: transgender therapy is a failure,” American Accountability Foundation President Tom Jones told The Daily Wire. “The lead researcher herself admitted that the findings challenge the effectiveness of these drugs. HHS bureaucrats are playing woke political games, ignoring science and common sense.”
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief in the form of a court order requiring the defendants to produce the data in question.
A preprint of the study was finally released earlier this year, finding that children’s depression symptoms and emotional health “did not change significantly over 24 months” of being on puberty blockers.
Do No Harm applauds AAF for fighting to expose this important data and pull back the curtain on the harms of sex-rejecting interventions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and Do No Harm supports this effort for transparency.
Commitment to DEI Required If You Want to Work at UNLV
Uncategorized Nevada DEI University of Nevada Las Vegas Medical School Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), by Do No Harm’s count, has more than two dozen healthcare-related instructional positions that require a commitment to DEI in some form or fashion.
These positions span several different schools at UNLV, including the School of Medicine, the School of Nursing, the School of Public Health, the School of Integrated Health Sciences, and the School of Dental Medicine.
For example, the position of “Surgery- Surgical Oncology, Assistant/Associate Professor” at the Kirk Kerkorian School of Medicine requires applicants to “demonstrate support for diversity, equity and inclusiveness.”
Similarly, the role of Assistant Professor-in-Residence, Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics at the School of Public Health demands support for “diversity, equity, and inclusiveness.”
Additionally, many postings require applicants to adhere to “Campus Values” that include concepts like “equity,” “compassion & inclusion,” and more.
So, not interested in DEI? Then you need not apply.
Do No Harm has previously documented UNLV’s activities related to DEI; in 2023, the school initially refused to hand over key information regarding their commitments to DEI in response to a public records request by Do No Harm.
What is surprising is that, just earlier this month, UNLV went to painstaking lengths to “erase” references to DEI on its website. Those webpages now produce a “page not found” error message:
Critically, in a statement, UNLV noted they have “not ended” DEI programs but merely “modified” the “organizational structures supporting them” in order to “build a climate of engagement and collaboration among all members of the university community.”
So UNLV made it appear as if they were doing the right thing, but in reality it is nothing more than a reframing of verbiage.
All of this comes on the heels of UNLV being investigated earlier this year for using “racial preferences and stereotypes in education programs and activities.”
Put simply, UNLV has a long track record of embracing DEI wholeheartedly.
Instead of simply scrubbing its website, UNLV should actually distance itself from DEI. There is no better place to start than getting rid of ideological litmus tests for DEI in its hiring practices.
Stop Forcing Taxpayers to Pay for DEI Politics
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical Journal Commentary Kurt Miceli, MDEditor’s note: This comment is in response to “Structural and Scientific Racism, Science, and Health — Evidence versus Ideology,” published by The New England Journal of Medicine in September 2025.
Krieger and Bassett’s Perspective, Structural and Scientific Racism, Science, and Health — Evidence versus Ideology, unintentionally makes a compelling case for why DEI research shouldn’t be funded by taxpayers. The article rehashes political claims that solely see the world through the lens of race.
For starters, the article is divisive; opposition to Medicaid expansion is deemed to be “rooted in racially discriminatory beliefs.” How did a legitimate debate over government-run healthcare – centered on cost, market impact, and efficiency – get miscast as racism?
Likewise, the authors go back over 400 years to criticize colonial America. While slavery was a grave evil, dwelling only on past wrongs and ignoring decades of progress hinders healing and keeps us stuck in history. It also does nothing to improve healthcare.
Yet, the authors insist that denying government funding for DEI projects amounts to “racial discrimination,” reflecting a sense of entitlement echoing Ibram Kendi’s controversial antiracism perspective. But private efforts aren’t banned, and public funding isn’t owed. Framing the opposition, however, as racist is simply unproductive, inappropriate, and un-American.
A Call to Reclaim Scientific Debate
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical Journal Letter Howard Fenn, Kurt Miceli, MDEditor’s note: This comment originally appeared as a response to the editorial, “The Importance of Health Equity Scholarship in Uncertain Times,” published in JAMA Health Forum.
Healthy scientific discourse thrives on skepticism and debate. The scientific process advances when it avoids premature closure or pseudo-certainty. JAMA’s editorial policy, however, as stated in “The Importance of Health Equity Scholarship in Uncertain Times,” promises to publish only articles based upon an unproven assumption—that health equity research will “allow all people to live longer, healthier lives.” The policy presumes a wide consensus and declares that there is, and, ominously, should be, “alignment across journals, institutions, and disciplines around the goals that animate health equity work.”
Read the full comment at JAMA Health Forum.
State-Backed Pregnancy Course is Chock-Full of DEI
Uncategorized Minnesota DEI Health system Commentary Do No Harm StaffBack in 2023, Do No Harm research revealed that the University of Minnesota had paid an organization called Diversity Science (now the Humanitas Institute) $219,633 to create a continuing medical education course whose purpose was to “empower perinatal care providers with the foundational knowledge, insights and skills they need to ensure that Black and Indigenous women and birthing people receive fully equitable patient-centered, respectful, high-quality care free of bias and discrimination.”
The course, called “Dignity in Pregnancy & Childbirth,” is intended for employees at Minnesota hospitals and birthing centers who work with pregnant or postpartum patients.
Now, the latest update of the course is out – and as one might expect, it’s rife with DEI, ideology, and dubious medical concepts.
Central to the course’s themes is the notion that ameliorating “implicit/unconscious bias” in healthcare providers, specifically white healthcare providers, can improve health outcomes for minority patients. This argument in turn relies on the premise that providers’ unconscious biases negatively impact the health outcomes of minority patients.
For instance, the course opens with the graphic below suggesting that unconscious bias is a key driver for racial disparities in health outcomes.
There is simply no evidence to support this claim.
The primary tool to assess an individual’s ostensible implicit bias, the Implicit Association Test or IAT, has been shown to have little predictive value.
“Twenty years of research produced very little evidence that the IAT test predicts any real-world behaviour,” University of Toronto Mississauga psychology professor Ulrich Schimmack, who spent years studying implicit bias, said in 2019. “On top of that, some of the articles that claim it does, on close inspection, fail to show that.”
Nevertheless, the course suggests “evidence-based mind hacks” for healthcare professionals to employ to prevent this “unconscious bias” from affecting the care they provide.
This is so troubling as it’s a tacit accusation, utterly lacking in evidentiary basis, that healthcare professionals harbor secret prejudices.
Clearly, this sows distrust and division within the healthcare system.
But that’s not all; not satisfied with advancing the unsupported notion that implicit bias negatively affects health outcomes, the course dips its toes into racial concordance.
In a video that plays at the end, the course narrator makes the following claims:
While it’s unclear exactly which studies the course is referring to, it doesn’t really matter: the implication that minority patients face worse health outcomes when treated by white healthcare professionals is completely false.
The course is gesturing at the notion that racial concordance – in which patients are treated by providers of the same race – improves health outcomes, a notion that runs against the weight of the current evidence.
Do No Harm’s December 2023 report on this issue examined the literature on racial concordance and highlighted the fact that four out of five systematic reviews found no evidence to support the claim that racial concordance produces positive health outcomes.
Another recent review published in the Substance Use & Addiction Journal found inadequate evidence to support the notion that racial concordance improves health outcomes for black patients in addiction treatment.
Nevertheless, the course continues to suggest that biases held by white healthcare professionals negatively impact minority patients’ health outcomes.
For instance, the course proposes a hypothetical in which a white nurse tells a black male individual to “calm down” when begging for her to help a patient, and asks why the nurse acted that way.
One of the options is the following statement: “White people are prone to interpreting even neutral expressions on Black faces as angry or hostile.”
Course participants must select all of the options above if they wish to be completely correct.
In short, this course is advancing debunked academic concepts that reinforce a vision of the healthcare system completely divorced from reality.
This is in itself harmful, and has no place in medical education.
Do No Harm Files Civil Rights Complaint Against JPS Health Network for Discriminatory Vendor Selection
Uncategorized Texas DEI Health system Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; October 21, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm filed a federal civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights against Texas’ JPS Health Network for using racially discriminatory criteria in its vendor selection.
JPS solicits proposals from vendors offering consulting services; however, to satisfy JPS’s criteria, vendors must be a minority, woman, or veteran-owned business enterprise (MWVBE) or demonstrate “efforts” to subcontract with such businesses. Once selected, JPS continues to assess the vendor’s minority participation and may exclude the vendor from future contract opportunities if it fails to meet the criteria at any point.
“JPS Health System’s conduct is unjust and unacceptable,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman at Do No Harm. “By racially and sexually discriminating against potential vendors, the health system is rejecting excellence and merit and embracing divisive identity politics. JPS should prioritize consultants who enhance the network’s ability to provide high-quality care for patients, rather than vendors that merely fit an ideological checklist. We are confident HHS will take immediate action to hold JPS accountable.”
Details
Click here to view the complaint.
Do No Harm, established in April 2022, has rapidly gained recognition and made significant strides in its mission to safeguard healthcare from ideological threats. With over 40,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries, DNH has achieved over 10,000 media hits in top-tier publications and garnered widespread attention through numerous broadcast news appearances.
Medical Journal Operates Discriminatory ‘Mentorship’ Program for ‘Underrepresented’ Minorities
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffThe Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI): In Practice is operating a mentorship program that is only open to members of certain racial groups.
The program, titled “JACI: In Practice Underrepresented in Medicine (UIM) Reviewer Mentorship Program,” is expressly intended to increase the number of ethnic minorities in editorial positions at the journal.
“The purpose of the program is to increase the diversity and expertise of the JACI: In Practice reviewer pool and Editorial Boards,” the program description states.
The program offers selected scholars considerable opportunities to develop their careers.
These include “high level didactic training regarding how to provide optimal journal article reviews” as well as the chance to “work with four Editorial Board members on four Original Article reviews during the year.”
Moreover, “special efforts will be made to allow mentees to have the opportunity for continued reviews so as to potentially quality (sic) for Editorial Board Membership.”
However, these opportunities are restricted on the basis of race.
The program’s eligibility criteria reads as follows:
“For the purposes of this program, members of the following UIM demographic groups (as defined by the National Science Foundation and the Association of American Medical Colleges) are eligible: American Indian/native Alaskan, Black or African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian/Pacific islander, Underrepresented Southeast Asian populations.”
In other words, white applicants are excluded.
This is blatant racial discrimination that is not only unethical but antithetical to the purpose of medical journals to advance medical science.
It’s difficult to see how the racial composition of a journal’s editorial board will improve the quality of its product; instead, selecting these positions on the basis of race rather than merit risks degrading its quality.
JACI should select the most qualified applicants, not dole out opportunities on the basis of race.
Do No Harm Urges Benevity to Ditch SPLC’s Discredited ‘Hate List’
Uncategorized United States DEI, Gender Ideology Nonprofit Commentary Do No Harm StaffBenevity is a software company that provides a platform to facilitate companies’ charitable giving efforts to nonprofit organizations.
However, Benevity uses a so-called “Hate List” and “Hate Map” developed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to vet the nonprofits deemed eligible for corporate charitable giving and employee matching programs. The SPLC fully supports radical identity politics, branding efforts to fight back against discriminatory DEI practices and gender ideology as somehow hateful.
And at some point, the SPLC designated Do No Harm as a “hate group.”
Do No Harm, along with 11 other similarly-branded organizations, is signing onto a letter urging Benevity to immediately cease relying on this discredited and harmful list.
“By relying on these partisan designations, Benevity legitimizes a severely biased blacklist that inspires violence, urges discrimination against mainstream organizations, and undermines the spirit of charitable giving,” the letter reads.
The letter then cites examples of groups that have been falsely deemed hateful by the SPLC and subsequently subjected to violence.
“Just one day before the assassination of its founder, Charlie Kirk, the SPLC featured Turning Point USA in its Hatewatch newsletter,” the letter reads.
Do No Harm believes that children should not be subjected to dangerous, life-altering medical procedures in the name of “gender affirmation.” Labeling such ideas as “hateful” is clearly intended to silence the voices of those who stand for evidence-based medicine and the safety of children.
“As organizations that have been unjustly placed on the SPLC’s “Hate List,” we call on Benevity to immediately, publicly end its use of the SPLC’s Hate List and Hate Map, adopt a viewpoint-neutral process for nonprofit eligibility, and restore access to organizations unfairly excluded,” the letter reads.
It’s essential that radical ideologues intent on silencing those of us simply fighting to protect children cannot exert this kind of influence.
As Do No Harm’s Director of Research Ian Kingsbury said: “What’s more malicious: Trying to protect people from bad medicine, or trying to destroy the reputation of groups that don’t toe your ideological line?”
False Parallels: How Misleading Comparisons Downplay the Severity of Widespread Child Sex Change Interventions
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Medical Journal Commentary Do No Harm StaffA 2024 paper published in JAMA Network Open tries to dismiss concerns over children being subjected to dangerous medical procedures for the purposes of “affirming” their self-professed gender.
But the authors’ arguments don’t add up.
The paper, titled “Prevalence of Gender-Affirming Surgical Procedures Among Minors and Adults in the US” by Dai, et. al, seeks to examine the extent to which children and adults received “gender-affirming” surgical procedures in 2019.
In doing so, it classifies procedures to treat gynecomastia (an abnormal increase in the amount of breast gland tissue) in “cisgender” males as “gender-affirming care,” and then uses this sleight-of-hand to downplay the severity of widespread child sex change interventions.
The authors sum up their argument here:
There are a few problems with this reasoning.
First, and most saliently, it is simply inaccurate to conflate breast reductions performed on “cisgender” males for the purposes of addressing gynecomastia with breast reductions performed on healthy females for the purposes of aligning their bodies with the sex traits of men.
This is a category error at best, and outright misleading at worst. The JAMA article’s authors are inappropriately expanding the definition of “gender-affirming care” to encompass the former category. A boy suffering from gynecomastia isn’t receiving treatment to modify his body in accordance with the opposite sex. Conversely, a female who removes her healthy breast tissue to appear more like a male does not have any abnormal physical conditions.
This is comparing apples to oranges.
Second, the argument is a non sequitur. It does not follow that a high number of “cisgender” males undergoing such procedures means that concerns over females undergoing such procedures are somehow unwarranted; the authors concede that the procedures are still taking place!
And there’s a further wrinkle that undercuts the authors’ argument.
The prevalence of gynecomastia among adolescent males during puberty can range as high as 69%. The JAMA paper notes that 653 “cisgender” (507 adults and 146 minors) males received breast reductions in 2019. That’s a relatively small number amidst a massive denominator.
Conversely, the clinical prevalence of gender dysphoria ranges from anywhere between 4.6 and 7.5 per 100,000 individuals, based on reports authored within the last decade by many of those who were instrumental in WPATH’s Standards of Care-8. This is a drastically smaller pool of patients than those males with gynecomastia.
Yet within this pool of patients with gender dysphoria, the surgical numbers are extraordinarily significant, especially when viewed as a percentage of the clinically-relevant population. The JAMA authors estimate that “the rate of undergoing a gender-affirming surgery with a [gender dysphoria]-related diagnosis was 5.3 per 100,000 total adults compared with 2.1 per 100,000 minors aged 15 to 17 years” – with the overwhelming majority (96.4%) of surgeries in minors being for “chest-related procedures.”
In other words, gynecomastia is fairly common with a relatively small number of individuals receiving surgical treatment, and gender dysphoria is comparatively less common with a much higher percentage of individuals undergoing surgery. Given the very different sizes of the two groups, comparing the raw number of “cisgender” males receiving breast reductions to gender dysphoric females having similar surgeries is again a comparison of apples to oranges.
And finally, the JAMA authors make a very bizarre choice when deciding what data to use in their comparisons. The authors go on to compare only “breast reductions” for minors suffering from gender dysphoria to “breast reductions” for “cisgender” males.
But a breast reduction is not the only chest-related procedure for the purpose of “gender affirmation.” Indeed, many cosmetic breast alterations for the purposes of “gender affirmation” are not coded as breast reductions but as mastectomies, for example. That’s what we primarily saw in the Stop the Harm database when diving into the numbers; for 2019 approximately 5% of “chest-related procedures” were coded as breast reductions.
This will undoubtedly skew the results.
If anything, the authors should have at least compared the universe of pertinent “chest-related procedures” in individuals suffering from gender dysphoria to the universe of “chest-related procedures” in “cisgender” males, not cherry pick “breast reductions” alone. This would still be wrong as, again, a chest-related procedure for the purpose of treating gynecomastia is categorically different from one to “affirm” an individual’s gender, but it would at least be the accurate application of the authors’ own logic.
On multiple levels, the JAMA authors aren’t making like-to-like comparisons.
They’ve erroneously expanded “gender-affirming care” as a term beyond its use in gender dysphoria. They’ve then inflated a comparison of numbers between a relatively common physiological condition (gynecomastia) in males with the smaller – though still significant – population of those suffering from gender dysphoria.
And, lastly, even using their own logic, they’ve very narrowly presented data on “breast reduction” instead of looking at the universe of “chest-related procedures.”
The JAMA study seems to be an obfuscation to say the least.
Do No Harm Honors Annual Award Recipients
Uncategorized United States DEI, Gender Ideology State legislature Press Release Do No Harm StaffRICHMOND, VA; October 15, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm announced the recipients of its annual awards. Tennessee Majority Leader Jack Johnson received the Legislator of the Year award. Indiana State Senator Tyler Johnson, M.D., received the award for Outstanding Leadership for Merit in Medicine and Kansas State Senator Beverly Gossage received the award for Outstanding Leadership for Stopping the Harm.
“Majority Leader Johnson, and Senators Gossage and Johnson have shown great courage and clarity in taking on harmful ideologies in healthcare,” said Kristina Rasmussen, Executive Director, Do No Harm. “Majority Leader Johnson worked tirelessly to combat DEI in both state and local government and higher education. He was also instrumental in Tennessee’s law banning the transgender medicalization of children. Senators Gossage and Johnson have both been outstanding advocates and leaders in their legislatures for improving healthcare. We are proud to honor Majority Leader Johnson, and Senators Gossage and Johnson for their important work.”
The Awards:
Do No Harm’s video honoring Legislator of the Year Johnson can be found 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 40,000 members, including doctors, nurses, physicians, and concerned citizens across all 50 states and 14 countries.
Half of U.S. medical schools flouting Trump DEI ban; rating report finds revolt of 67
Uncategorized United States DEI Medical School Media Mention Do No Harm StaffNearly half of U.S. medical schools continue to operate diversity, equity and inclusion offices in defiance of Trump administration policies, a new report says.
The conservative physician advocacy group Do No Harm flagged 43.5% of the nation’s 154 accredited medical programs, or 67, for maintaining their DEI offices as of last month.
That was down slightly from 79 in February. That month, the Department of Education gave universities receiving federal funds 14 days to end race-based policies, programs and practices.
Read the full story at The Washington Times.
The List of the ‘Best’ Children’s Hospitals is Out. Here’s Who’s Still Providing Child Sex Changes
Uncategorized United States Gender Ideology Hospital System Commentary Do No Harm StaffIn the wake of President Trump’s executive order on gender ideology, as well as mounting legal pressure from both federal and state governments, many children’s hospitals have shuttered their pediatric gender clinics this year.
However, recalcitrant children’s hospitals remain – many of which are among the most prestigious hospitals in the United States.
Today, U.S. News published its “Best Children’s Hospitals 2025-2026 Honor Roll,” a list of the top 10 hospitals in the country according to their rankings across multiple specialties.
Several of these hospitals are still clearly providing so-called “gender-affirming care” – such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and/or surgical procedures – to patients under the age of 18.
Children’s Hospital Colorado and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) advertise their pediatric gender clinics on their website.
For others, meanwhile, the truth is somewhat murky. According to the Voice of San Diego, Rady Children’s Hospital is still providing sex change interventions to children, but has removed much of its content regarding these services from its website.
Boston Children’s Hospital confirmed its belief in “a gender-affirmative model of care, which supports transgender and gender diverse youth” in July, though a lawsuit alleged that the hospital had canceled appointments for “gender-affirming care” earlier this year.
Seattle Children’s Hospital maintains a webpage advertising “gender-affirming care” to minors, but reporting from April indicates that the hospital is not actively providing these procedures to patients.
Conversely, three of the 10 “best” hospitals (Cincinnati Children’s, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, and Texas Children’s Hospital) are in states that have banned child sex change interventions.
Children’s Hospital Los Angeles shuttered its pediatric gender clinic in July; moreover, Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, who previously helmed the center, is no longer employed by the hospital. Last year, The New York Times reported that Olson-Kennedy had initially refused to publish the results of a multi-million dollar, federally-funded study that found that “puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements” in children; Olson-Kennedy’s decision was due to fears that the results could undermine the argument for “gender-affirming care.”
The results of the study were finally released as a preprint in May, finding that children’s depression symptoms and emotional health “did not change significantly over 24 months” of being on puberty blockers.
And Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C. is no longer providing so-called “gender-affirming care” to minors.
This list demonstrates that, while many children’s hospitals have done the right thing and ceased providing dangerous, unsupported medical interventions to children, there is still much work to be done.
Christian Counselor Fighting Restrictive Gender Counseling Law Wants SCOTUS To Vindicate Her Free Speech Rights
Uncategorized Colorado Gender Ideology Media Mention Do No Harm StaffIn its brief, Colorado claims that “every major professional healthcare association in the country further agrees that conversion therapy is not just ineffective and unnecessary, but can be harmful, particularly to minors.” It cites medical organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA) and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), which have previously allowed political concerns about child-sex change bans to influence their decisions.
“There is no reliable evidence supporting Colorado’s counseling ban; and all the best evidence on treating gender dysphoria in minors recommends the very psychosocial treatment Colorado forbids,” Do No Harm Medical Director Dr. Kurt Miceli said in a statement.
Scientific advances were not made by respecting “authority,” Judge Harris Hartz, wrote in his dissent from the 10th Circuit’s decision.
Read the full story at The Daily Caller.