The American Board of Internal Medicine Places Equity Over Excellence

As a medical board tasked with certifying internal medicine physicians, the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) is supposed to be a gatekeeper for medical excellence.

But under the guise of promoting “health equity” and DEI, ABIM has increasingly injected identity politics and racialism into its mission.

ABIM’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Strategic Plan lays bare this agenda.

The plan’s goals include: “Develop and implement programs that address the racial and ethnic disparities in health care”; “Influence the education and training of board certified internists to equip them with the skills and awareness to recognize and prevent healthcare disparities and to promote health equity”; and “Intentionally create and foster partnerships to exponentially expand the impact of ABIM’s efforts in addressing systemic racism and disparities in health care, in the healthcare profession, in the provision of health care and the outcomes of that care.”

This politicization isn’t limited to internal statements. Consider how ABIM is staffing its Approval Committees – the groups that approve the assessment content for certification and maintenance of certification. 

When seeking a new cardiologist for its Cardiovascular Disease Approval Committee, ABIM made a point to especially “encourage” applications from “under-represented minorities.” 

It also stated a preference for candidates with expertise in “health equity, health disparities, and/or social determinants of health.” These are ideological criteria, not clinical ones.

To further demonstrate how these ideas have pervaded the certification process, consider the ABIM’s “Health Equity Statement.”

This statement explicitly states that ABIM “include[s] health equity content in our assessments, based on science and evidence related to health disparities.”

“Equity” should not be a concern when deciding whether physicians meet certification standards. 

Rather, merit and medical expertise should be the sole focus determining that a physician meets board certification standards. The certification process should select for physicians who have the requisite medical knowledge, skills, and clinical judgement to provide high-quality patient care; whether or not they are versed in certain political narratives regarding the causes of health disparities is irrelevant to that mission.

An ABIM-certified physician should have expertise in the field of internal medicine, not expertise in navigating a divisive ideology.

Do No Harm Publishes Third Report Exposing Medical Schools for Skirting SCOTUS Ban on Race-Conscious Admissions

RICHMOND, VA; July 17, 2025 – Today, Do No Harm published a new report titled “Skirting SCOTUS Part III: How Medical Schools Continue to Practice Racially Conscious Admissions.” The report, a follow-up to Do No Harm’s two earlier “Skirting SCOTUS” reports, reveals definitive evidence that American medical schools have continued to racially discriminate after the Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) that such practices are illegal.

“Our research reveals evidence that a number of medical schools continue to pursue identity politics and employ discriminatory, racially conscious admissions policies,” said Stanley Goldfarb, MD, Chairman of Do No Harm. “These policies were deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court, and these schools are shirking their duty to train the most qualified group of future healthcare professionals. Do No Harm will continue to file complaints and lawsuits in order to restore merit and excellence to medical education.”

Do No Harm’s first Skirting SCOTUS report documented responses from medical schools and medical organizations signaling a continued commitment to race-based admissions. Skirting SCOTUS Part II observed suggestive evidence that schools had devised workarounds to maintain a racially biased admissions system. Now, this third report provides evidence of continued racial discrimination in American medical schools.

Key Findings

  • Do No Harm’s analysis of 23 public medical schools’ 2024 admissions data shows that accepted Asian and white applicants had higher MCAT scores than accepted black applicants at all but one school.
  • At 13 schools, the average MCAT score of rejected Asian or white applicants was higher than that of accepted black applicants.
  • At the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health a black applicant has nearly 10 times the odds of admission compared to an Asian or white applicant with the same MCAT score and GPA.
  • At Eastern Virginia Medical School there is an eleven-fold increase in odds of acceptance for black applicants compared to GPA- and MCAT-equivalent Asian or white applicants.

Click here to read Skirting SCOTUS Part I.

Click here to read Skirting SCOTUS Part II.

Click here to read the latest installment, Skirting SCOTUS Part III.

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 22,000 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.

The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Hasn’t Ditched Its DEI Ways Just Yet

In 2023, Do No Harm reported on a racially discriminatory grant program operated by the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society (LLS): the Underrepresented Minority Medical Student Research Program, which was only available to 2nd-to-4th-year medical students who were “Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino(a), American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander.”

Now, it appears that the grant program has been removed from the LLS’s website; its link redirects to the LLS’s general research page.

But a host of other programs, initiatives, and public statements promoting DEI remain, indicating that the LLS isn’t quite so far removed from its discriminatory past.

Take, for instance, LLS’s Equity in Access grants, which are intended to “generate new evidence that can guide policy reform and changes in healthcare practice” to mitigate the impact of “social, economic and environmental disadvantages and reduce barriers to care.”

As part of that mission, and the LLS’s adherence to DEI ideology, the organization is seeking applicants of certain backgrounds.

“Consistent with LLS’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, we encourage applications that have investigators and/or research team members from backgrounds historically underrepresented in research disciplines as a result of their race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, or other factors,” the LLS’s application guidelines stated.

The LLS also runs its IMPACT grant program, which provides funding to cancer centers to expand access to clinical trials.

“LLS is setting out to improve access to clinical trials for underrepresented patients, including Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), Hispanic, Latinx, and people from rural communities,” the program description states.

The LLS even has a statement on its website expressing its commitment to DEI.

“Our commitment to justice, dignity, and belonging takes two forms: a culture of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI); and a focus on advancing health equity for all,” the webpage states.

“We’re helping to advance new state and federal laws that require a deliberate approach to recruiting underrepresented patients to participate in clinical trials – because everyone deserves a fair shot at accessing cutting-edge treatment, regardless of their background, age, income, or location,” the webpage continues.

To be clear, medical organizations absolutely should work to expand access to treatment; but targeting certain racial groups in the name of equity is not “fair.”

Additionally, LLS maintains employee resource groups that appear to be catered to specific racial groups; these include the “Black Employee Forum” and “Asian, Pacific Islander, Desi Middle Eastern American Forum.”

Racial segregation is hardly welcoming or inclusive, but such contradictions are hardly out of place in the regressive ideology of DEI. 

To reiterate, expanding access to care is a worthwhile and admirable goal.

But the methods of achieving these goals should not involve racial discrimination, and successes for certain racial groups should not come at the expense of others.

Do No Harm Fellows Provide Expertise at FTC’s Workshop on Child Transgender Industry

,

Today, several Do No Harm fellows had the honor to participate in the Federal Trade Commission’s workshop, The Dangers of “Gender-Affirming Care” for Minors.

The workshop featured expert testimony from medical professionals, detransitioners, and parents of children harmed by gender ideology, and highlighted the misleading and deceptive practices employed by the child transgender industry. 

This is a massive step toward holding this industry accountable for its harmful behavior. 

Take it from us: we know just how often medical associations and doctors make misleading statements and downplay the harms of sex change interventions for children.

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson opened the event explaining why the FTC is interested in investigating the child transgender industry.

“If a medical claim is false or misleading, it is the commission’s sworn duty to protect American citizens from that claim, no differently than it would for any other false or misleading claim,” Ferguson said. 

“Refusing to investigate these health claims and the potential consumer harm to parents and children merely because one political party supports those claims as a matter of its ideology would be the politicized choice,” he continued.

Additionally, Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Miriam Grossman gave a presentation that focused on how the child transgender industry has long been inherently deceptive. 

Dr. Grossman discussed the origins of pediatric gender medicine and how activists have used shoddy research for decades to promote dangerous and harmful medical procedures. Her presentation focused on deceptive practice in language, in medical records, and in therapists’ letters for support of hormones and surgeries.

“Language is an instrument,” Dr. Grossman said, referring to euphemisms used by gender activists to obscure the true harms of sex change interventions. “It can be shaped for a particular purpose. It can change the way we think.”

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Simon Amaya Price shared his own experiences with the child transgender industry, detailing his encounters with a pediatrician who pressured him into transitioning. Simon was joined by his father, Gareth.

“The pediatrician asked my dad in front of me, ‘would you like a dead son or a living daughter?’ This isn’t just a line used by activists,” he said. “This is a line used in healthcare settings by the doctors that your kids are seeing in your communities all across this country.”

Later, a panel discussion focusing on the lack of evidence for child sex change interventions, Do No Harm Senior Fellow Dr. Lauren Schwartz, a psychiatrist, pointed out the false premises employed by the child transgender industry to justify medical interventions.

“To think that a child can make a decision whether or not they should go through unhindered puberty; that doesn’t seem like a medical decision or conversation we should be having with anyone, let alone a child,” Dr. Schwartz said.

“So when I think about what I do as a psychiatrist and I support mental health and wellness and well being of my patients throughout their entire lives, not just in that moment, my job is not to ‘affirm’ in that moment what the child thinks that they need or a vulnerable young adult thinks that they need,” she added.

And finally, Do No Harm Senior Fellow Jamie Reed, a whistleblower who previously worked at a pediatric gender clinic, provided an inside look at how “gender-affirming” practices are anything but scientific or evidence-based.

“The entire diagnosis is based on progressive stereotypes and self-described feelings for minor children and their parents,” Reed said. “My clinical experience shows that these […] assessments are not consistent, comprehensive or truly diagnostic.”

We’re enormously proud of our fellows for providing their insight and expertise on this crucial topic.

The child transgender industry has long misled parents, minors, and the public at large about the true nature of gender medical interventions.

These are not harmless medical procedures – these are life-altering interventions that are simply not supported by the evidence.

We commend Andrew Ferguson and the Federal Trade Commission for taking action.

North Carolina Governor Vetoes Legislation Cracking Down on DEI

North Carolina Governor Josh Stein vetoed several bills last week that would prevent public schools, institutions of higher education, and state entities from engaging in discriminatory DEI practices.

Now, the bills go back to North Carolina’s legislature, where lawmakers seek a supermajority to override Stein’s veto. 

The vetoed legislation ensures that public entities are not using their perch – and taxpayer money – to promote radical DEI ideology.

Senate Bill 558 ensures publicly-funded institutions of higher education, such as medical schools, do not engage in or promote discriminatory practices, and do not maintain offices to promote divisive and discriminatory practices.

Senate Bill 227 applies similar protections to public schools, while House Bill 171 ensures that state agencies do not use taxpayer money to fund DEI initiatives or maintain their own discriminatory DEI policies.

In his statement on the veto, Stein implied the legislation was in some way bigoted.

“These mean-spirited bills would marginalize vulnerable people and also undermine the quality of public services and public education,” Stein said.

But the legislation does just the opposite: the bills protect individuals from enduring discrimination on the basis of race, and ensure that institutions of higher education are not vectors for divisive and discriminatory ideology.

Stein’s veto prevents these protections against racial discrimination.

DEI, by its very nature, demands discriminatory hiring practices, admissions policies, and other race-conscious selection criteria to achieve its goal of “diversity” and equitable outcomes between racial groups.

Curbing these practices in higher education is essential to restore universities and medical schools to the pursuit of fairness, merit, and excellence.

North Carolinians should not be subjected to racial discrimination under the guise of “diversity” and “equity.”

Victory for Talk Therapy – And Children – In Virginia

Last week, a Virginia court ordered the state to cease enforcing a law that prohibited, among other things, licensed counselors from using talk therapy to treat minors suffering from gender distress.

The order, issued as part of a consent decree between counselors John and Janet Raymond and the Virginia Department of Health Professions, stated that the law violated the plaintiff’s religious rights under the Virginia constitution; Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares signed the decree.

This is a massive win for therapists seeking to treat children suffering from gender distress without simply “affirming” their self-professed gender identity – and, of course, a massive win for Virginia children. 

Bans on talk therapy to treat gender dysphoria harm children and reinforce the so-called “affirmation” approach to pediatric gender medicine. 

Contrary to the claims of activists, talk therapy is not “conversion therapy,” and therapy related to so-called “gender identity” should not be conflated with attempts to change a patient’s sexual orientation.

Rather, the idea that talk therapy to treat gender dysphoria in minors is tantamount to “conversion therapy” implicitly assumes that a child’s self-professed “gender identity” is correct and must be affirmed. Under this assumption, attempts to treat gender dysphoria without simply affirming this belief are “converting” the child from their true self.

This notion in itself is dangerous, as it forces children onto the medicalization pathway and leads to harmful medical interventions such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical procedures.

Additionally, children experiencing gender dysphoria often have concurrent or underlying mental health conditions that deserve treatment.

Allowing children suffering from gender distress to receive non-invasive treatment is essential to ensure their mental well-being and to protect them from the harms of child sex change interventions. 

Gender dysphoria is very real, and forcing children experiencing it to undergo so-called “gender-affirming care” as the only means of medical “treatment” is cruel and unscientific.

Do No Harm applauds Attorney General Miyares and the Youngkin administration for acknowledging the law’s harms and agreeing not to enforce it.

Refining Diagnostic Precision: The Impact of Race in Clinical Labs

Samantha Anderer’s Medical News in Brief, Thyroid Disease May be Overdiagnosed, Study Finds, recounted an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine which found that variables, including race, may significantly influence thyroid hormone levels and affect diagnostic accuracy.[1],[2] 

Compared to current laboratory reference values, the distribution of thyroid disease diagnosis greatly changed when accounting for race. According to the Annals article, 50.1% of whites diagnosed with subclinical hypothyroidism under current standards moved to the normal category once age-, sex-, and race-specific reference intervals were considered. For blacks, it was 14%. Moreover, for blacks, 60% moved from the subclinical hyperthyroidism to normal. The same was true for 17.3% of whites under an age-, sex-, and race-specific reference range.[3] 

The authors concluded: “These findings should help establish more accurate reference intervals for thyroid disease […].”[4] If correct, then a change in parameters partly based on race would improve diagnostic precision, minimize unnecessary treatment, and lower avoidable healthcare costs.

This appeal to accuracy in diagnosis comes in contrast to the debate over estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). In that setting a race correction was called “race-based medicine” given race’s “social construct.”[5] Yet, have we sacrificed clinical precision in pursuit of an illusory sense of equity? 

It seems so. Proponents of a race-neutral equation claim that the race-corrected calculation underestimates renal disease severity in many black patients leading to delayed treatment. However, in his article, “Retaining Race in Chronic Kidney Disease Diagnosis and Treatment,” Paul Williams compares in great detail the race-corrected 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration formula with the race-free 2021 version, showing that the 2009 formula better aligns with the true measure of GFR.[6]

Joel Velasco and Brad Snodgrass echoed this point in highlighting the harm to black patients by removing the race correction. They specifically noted the safe and effective prescribing and dosing of metformin necessitates an accurate eGFR.[7] Likewise, certain antibiotics, anticoagulants, and antihypertensives require a precise eGFR, not a political one. Even more critically, eGFR guides decisions on dialysis and transplant eligibility – making accuracy vital.

Delivering the highest quality care requires precision. While we have a moral obligation to treat people fairly, disregarding race when it can be clinically meaningful is misguided and can result in unequal treatment. May the same rigor being applied to thyroid diagnostics return to measures like eGFR, which were hastily politicized in the name of equity and at the expense of truth.

[1] Anderer S. Thyroid Disease May Be Overdiagnosed, Study Finds. JAMA. 2025;333(24):2134–2135. doi:10.1001/jama.2025.6466

[2] Qihang L, Yida T, Xuefeng Y, et al. Thyroid Function Reference Intervals by Age, Sex, and Race: A Cross-Sectional Study. Ann Intern Med. [Epub 6 May 2025]. doi:10.7326/ANNALS-24-01559

[3] Qihang L, Yida T, Xuefeng Y, et al. Thyroid Function Reference Intervals by Age, Sex, and Race: A Cross-Sectional Study. Ann Intern Med. [Epub 6 May 2025]. doi:10.7326/ANNALS-24-01559

[4] Qihang L, Yida T, Xuefeng Y, et al. Thyroid Function Reference Intervals by Age, Sex, and Race: A Cross-Sectional Study. Ann Intern Med. [Epub 6 May 2025]. doi:10.7326/ANNALS-24-01559

[5] Cerdeña JP, Plaisime MV, Tsai J. From race-based to race-conscious medicine: how anti-racist uprisings call us to act. The Lancet. 2020;396(10257):1125-1128

[6] Williams P. Retaining Race in Chronic Kidney Disease Diagnosis and Treatment. Cureus. 2023;15(9). doi: 10.7759/cureus.45054

[7] Velasco JD, Snodgrass B. The Use of Race in eGFR: Why Racial Justice Requires Accuracy. The American Journal of Medicine. 2021; 134(7):827-828

CMS Could Cut Funding for Children’s Hospitals Performing Sex Change Interventions on Minors

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is considering cutting off funding for children’s hospitals that provide sex change interventions to minors, The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week.

The report comes on the heels of a CMS letter warning several children’s hospitals that child sex change interventions “lack reliable evidence of benefits.” 

The letter gave the hospitals a 30-day deadline beginning May 28 to provide information and data related to their sex change services.

The hospitals include Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Boston Children’s Hospital, Children’s National Hospital, UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, Children’s Hospital Colorado, UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, the WSJ reported.

These hospitals are ALL on Do No Harm’s “Dirty Dozen” list of the most prolific providers of child sex change interventions.

This list was created as part of Do No Harm’s Stop the Harm Database, a first-of-its-kind national database of hospitals and medical facilities administering irreversible sex change interventions on children in the United States.

Do No Harm has worked to shed light on these hospitals’ practices, profiling them and their gender activism. For instance, Do No Harm launched a digital campaign targeting the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, highlighting the hospital’s devotion to gender ideology.

This is welcome scrutiny from CMS: Do No Harm supports efforts to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to support dangerous and experimental procedures to which children cannot consent.

The Do No Harm in Medicaid Act, sponsored by Representative Dan Crenshaw and endorsed by Do No Harm, would codify prohibitions on Medicaid funding for child sex change interventions.

Several of the hospitals have suspended their sex change services in the wake of pressure from the Trump administration; Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, citing the CMS letter, announced last month it would no longer provide so-called “gender-affirming care” to children.

The Flawed Logic Behind the ‘Social Determinants of Health’ Theory of Medicine

Over the past few years, a movement has emerged to expand the scope of healthcare research and practice to “social determinants of health” (SDOH) – social, economic, and environmental conditions that can be construed as influencing individuals’ health.

Some commonly-cited examples of SDOH include income, employment, educational quality, housing quality, transportation, and so on.

Now, the authors of a commentary published in JAMA Surgery, titled “Quantifying Social Vulnerability and Its Impact on Health Care Delivery, Payment, and Performance,” argue that SDOH data should be integrated into patients’ electronic health records.

This means that SDOH data will likely inform individual care decisions by healthcare professionals.

The authors justify this position by arguing that SDOH “should dictate how we deliver the most appropriate care to each patient.”

They then go a step further, arguing that “[s]urgical research directed at health care delivery should consider these data in a similar way to the contributions of medical comorbidities.”

Yet the fundamental assumption behind the authors’ argument – that SDOH are the cause of disparities in health outcomes between populations, with the authors arguing that SDOH are “drivers of inequities” – is seriously flawed.

Although SDOH may be correlated with disparities in health outcomes, the evidence that SDOH cause poor health outcomes is shoddy and weak, at best.

Much of the scholarship on the topic confuses social and economic conditions that correlate with poor health outcomes with the actual causes of those outcomes, ignoring other factors such as individual agency and health decisions that contribute to health outcomes.

As Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Chris Pope lays out, “SDOH literature is dominated by sloppily designed observational studies that do not seriously attempt to disentangle causation from correlation or to control for obvious sources of bias.”

Citing Yale University economist Jonathan S. Feinstein, Pope notes that smoking, for example, is more common among poorer people and explains “much of the disparity in health outcomes.”

In other words, although income levels may be correlated with worse health outcomes, the cause of that disparity (in this example) is individual choice. Whereas the SDOH theory may attribute that disparity to poverty, the real culprit is not so easily pinned down.

As another example, a study published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, examined the question of nutritional inequality: why do higher-income groups of people eat healthier than lower-income groups of people?

The study found that 90% of this “nutritional inequality” is driven by differences in demand; in other words, it was the choices of the lower-income people, not the environmental factors, that caused this disparity.

The “food desert” theory of nutritional inequality, which attributes the fact that lower-income people eat unhealthy foods to lack of supply of healthy food, had the causality backward.

To further illustrate the point that adjusting SDOH does not necessarily produce positive health outcomes, we can look at the results of an experiment with Universal Basic Income (UBI).

Under the SDOH theory, in which income levels determine people’s health outcomes, increasing income should improve health outcomes.

But when nineteen counties in Texas and Illinois tested out the UBI program, recipients “reported no increase in access to or utilization of health care,” UBI did not lead to lasting “physical or mental health improvements,” and “recipients were four percentage points more likely to report a disability or health problem that limits the work they can do.”

Advocates for the SDOH theory of health disparities are thus making the elementary mistake of confusing correlation with causation, or more pointedly, ignoring other causal and confounding factors that undermine the SDOH theory’s explanatory value.

This is not to say that SDOH cannot ever contribute to health inequities, but rather that evidence for SDOH as “drivers of inequities” is wanting, to say the least.

In a nutshell, “social determinants of health” don’t actually “determine” health.

In addition, many studies purporting to show the effects of SDOH on health outcomes fail to consider the effects of personal agency, such as patient’s health choices or adherence to health programs, when identifying health disparities that they attribute to SDOH.

For instance, one of the studies cited by the JAMA Surgery article identifies disparities in emergency gall bladder removals for individuals with higher social vulnerability scores compared to lower scores.

However, the study fails to make any mention of personal choices that may have impacted the need for the emergency procedure, such as decisions to seek care at earlier junctures. The social vulnerability index used in the study does include factors that could potentially impact these decisions, such as distance to the hospital, but does not disaggregate the actual healthcare choices made by the patients from its analysis.

This omission implicitly assumes the causal effect of SDOH without considering the confounding variables that may be correlated with SDOH.

And finally, there is the authors’ position that “[s]urgical research directed at health care delivery should consider these data in a similar way to the contributions of medical comorbidities.”

One of the problems with this position, beyond the causal issues identified earlier, is the lack of a limiting principle; should surgical research consider everything?

SDOH, by their very nature, describe just about every conceivable factor in an individual’s environment that could be construed as affecting an individual’s health. The universe of possibilities is endless.

The resulting policy implications are likewise too broad and removed from the focus of healthcare. Put simply, it is not the role of medical professionals to become transit activists or education reformers.

Such activities are beyond the purview of medicine, and this mission creep comes at the detriment of medicine’s core focus.

Despite Executive Order, West Virginia University Medical School Advertises DEI Programs

,

In January 2025, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrissey signed an executive order restricting DEI initiatives at state-funded entities, such as West Virginia University (WVU).

The order, among other things, prohibits state-funded entities from “grant[ing] preferential treatment based on one person’s particular race, color, sex, ethnicity, or national origin over that of another.”

In response to the executive order, WVU shuttered its DEI department, according to a response to a public records request submitted by Do No Harm. The school’s Vice President for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion was earning $239,372.00 per year, the records showed.

However, WVU’s School of Medicine still advertises a number of DEI initiatives and commitments on its website.

For instance, the WVU Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences still advertises its commitments to diversity, including language that appears to gesture at granting preferential treatment to individuals of certain backgrounds.

“Our goal is to recruit faculty and trainees of different backgrounds to better serve our patients, foster a learning environment that celebrates individuals of all backgrounds, and train culturally competent physicians who will thrive in any setting they find themselves in after graduation,” the department’s “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” webpage reads.

“We have recently initiated a program of scholarships to students at medical schools in historically black colleges and universities who choose to perform clinical or research rotations in ophthalmology at WVU,” the webpage continues; it’s not clear exactly what program the webpage refers to.

Similarly, the WVU Department of Otolaryngology mentions its efforts to increase diversity within its residency program on its “Diversity” webpage.

“We strive to recruit residents and faculty from minoritized communities who are traditionally underrepresented in medicine,” the webpage states. “We additionally greatly value individuals from all backgrounds including those from economically and educationally underserved communities.”

The page goes on to refer to the department’s “Diversity/Pipeline Programs and Partnerships.”

“Our health science center engages in ongoing and focused recruitment and retention activities to aid us in achieving diversity amongst our trainees, faculty and staff. This includes programs and/or partnerships between key Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion focused personnel, and our Otolaryngology Residency.”

WVU’s School of Public Health likewise maintains its webpage listing the “diversity initiatives,” though much of that information appears to be out-of-date. 

These initiatives include links to DEI trainings, as well as webpage titled “Racism is a Public Health Crisis.”

That webpage provides a list of organizations with whom students can “get involved,” including Color of Change, the NAACP, the Equal Justice Initiative, the Black Student Union at West Virginia University, and Call to Action for Racial Equality (CARE) West Virginia.

WVU should end all of its divisive and discriminatory programming – for good.

American Society of Anesthesiologists Grills Members on Support for DEI

It appears the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) is numb to the real interests of its members.

The ASA sent out a survey, obtained by Do No Harm, asking its members to share their opinions on a series of prompts related to DEI and DEI trainings.

It’s not clear how this information is relevant or helpful to an organization representing anesthesiologists, but according to the survey, the ASA plans to use it to inform its DEI trainings and educational offerings.

First, the survey prompts readers with misleading and favorable definitions of diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

In particular, the survey states that “equity” ensures “that everyone has access to similar opportunities,” and that “inclusion” ensures that all individuals “have equal access to opportunities, resources, and participation in all aspects of society, organizations, or communities.”

Figure 1. A screenshot from the ASA survey,

In practice, however, DEI does the exact opposite: it restricts access to opportunities on the basis of race, doing so in the name of achieving “equity” and “diversity.”

Later in the survey, the ASA asks members to answer how important it is for health professionals to receive DEI competency training.

Figure 2. A screenshot from the ASA survey.

Next, the ASA asks members specifically how much training they have received on DEI at various stages of their educational journey.

Figure 3. A screenshot from the ASA survey.

And finally, the ASA asks its members to answer whether they believe they’ve received “enough” DEI training.

Figure 4. A screenshot from the ASA survey.

The ASA’s DEI-related activities provide some clues on how the organization plans to use this information; on its website, the ASA lists a host of diversity resources and statements in support of DEI.

For instance, the ASA maintains a graphic on its website explaining how each “Strategic Pillar” upholds the organization’s DEI principles.

“ASA’s diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts are not mere window-dressing. We are committed to integrating DEI efforts into each of our seven strategic pillars,” an ASA statement accompanying the graphic reads. “We support and empower committees and staff to produce work product that drives meaningful change. And we are developing and tracking objective measures of success, attaching metrics to established DEI goals to ensure we are on track to a more equitably and inclusive future.”

Figure 5. A screenshot of the ASA’s “Strategic Pillars” demonstrating the organization’s commitment to DEI.

The ASA’s DEI page also links to a lecture titled “Anesthesiology must lead in diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

In other areas of the website, the ASA’s commitment to DEI is also on full display.

For instance, the organization advertises its DEI principles on its web page promoting careers within ASA.

“We are committed to increasing the representation of individuals from groups underrepresented in anesthesiology and ensuring that future Anesthesiologists have the tools to care for patients from diverse backgrounds,” the ASA Medical Student Component’s diversity statement reads.

The website also contains a DEI lecture series, including an interview with an anesthesiologist at the University of Chicago who discussed “the importance of the social determinants of health and his efforts to create a more diverse and inclusive workforce.”

The ASA, like many other medical associations, appears more concerned with imposing a divisive and discriminatory ideology onto its members than furthering the interests of the medical field.

University Systems Announce Alternative Accreditation Model Prioritizing ‘Academic Excellence’

,

Back in March, Do No Harm released a report highlighting how accreditors’ power over institutions of higher education, particularly in medical education, enables them to inject political agendas into universities’ policies.

Now, there’s a sign that accreditors’ stranglehold on public education may be breaking.

Six public university systems announced plans Thursday to launch a new accrediting agency for public higher education institutions.

The University of Florida System, University of Georgia System, University of Tennessee System, University of North Carolina System, University of South Carolina System, and Texas A&M System together announced the creation of the Commission for Public Higher Education in a press release. The commission will develop an accreditation model aimed at prioritizing “academic excellence, student outcomes and achievement.”

The press release describes the new body as a “consortium of higher education systems from several states offering a new accreditation model that will focus on academic excellence, student outcomes, process efficiency, and the pursuit of quality assurance for public postsecondary education.”

“By establishing rigorous, transparent, and adaptable outcomes-based accreditation standards and practices, CPHE will ensure that colleges and universities meet and maintain academic quality and operational excellence on behalf of their students,” the press release states. 

New accreditation models are sorely needed in medical education: as Do No Harm reported, accreditors often use their perches to require universities and medical schools to engage in divisive and discriminatory policies

This problem prompted President Trump to issue an executive order targeting accreditors for their ideological mandates.

Although the two main medical education accreditors, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), have since walked back their DEI standards, many others have not.

An alternative accreditation model enables universities to operate without deferring to the whims of the entrenched accreditors. 

Do No Harm supports all attempts to direct medical education toward the values of excellence, achievement, and merit.

Evidence Over Politics: Rethinking Gender Medicine in Psychiatry and Beyond

This past May I had the opportunity to attend the American Psychiatric Association (APA) annual meeting in Los Angeles along with Ian Kingsbury, Do No Harm Director of Research, and Dr. Miriam Grossman, Do No Harm Senior Fellow. It was the first time I came as an exhibitor, and it has been at least a decade since I’ve been a full program attendee. I entered as part of Do No Harm, and to hear – for what I believe was the first time – general sessions on both sides of the debate surrounding the care of minors with gender dysphoria.

Serious concerns surrounding the evidence for pediatric medical transition – puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries – are not unique. Systematic reviews reveal the very low quality of evidence for any beneficial effects compared to the risk of significant, irreversible harms. Even the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) itself noted in its Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8 (SOC-8) that a “key challenge in adolescent transgender care is the quality of evidence evaluating the effectiveness.” It goes on to state that “adolescents, their parents, and care providers should be informed about the nature of the evidence base.”

Yet, WPATH has not heeded its own warning, leading professional medical associations to unfortunately place the cart before the horse in issuing guidance before appropriately assessing the evidence. Prior to understanding or performing systematic reviews, many organizations within the medical establishment made their policy position known. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), for example, issued a Policy Statement in 2018, which it later reaffirmed in 2023, fully supporting an “affirming” model, and nothing else. And while the AAP called for a “systematic review of the evidence” in 2023, none has yet to be delivered.

The same goes for the American Psychiatric Association, whose Assembly and Board of Trustees approved a Position Statement in 2020 supporting “access to affirming and supportive treatment for trans and gender diverse youth and their families, including appropriate mental health services, and when indicated puberty suppression and medical transition support.” An affirming model was fully and solely endorsed; reference to “mental health and social support services” was merely mentioned in the context of “navigat[ing] the gender affirmation process.”

The Europeans followed a different course than our U.S.-based medical societies. Finland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom issued systematic reviews to inform their analysis. Their work highlighted the low quality of evidence for an affirming model that includes puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. They found a lack of evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of these treatments in minors. Caution was strongly advised and these otherwise experimental medical and surgical interventions were sharply restricted. Clear priority was given to psychosocial support and psychotherapy.

Despite the evidence from overseas, many U.S. medical organizations maintain a pro-affirmation stance and have historically silenced debate in the face of any disagreement. However, the 2025 APA annual meeting showed signs of change. For one, Do No Harm’s exhibit allowed for meaningful one-on-one conversations with many attendees. We spoke with those caring for youth with gender dysphoria as well as students just learning about this condition. Our discourse was free and open. I’m encouraged to think these same open-minded individuals will also give a fair reading to the Department of Health and Human Services’ report on this topic.

Moreover, the APA talks on the subject were highly informative, and perhaps for some, eye-opening especially when juxtaposed with one another. One session in particular looked at the data from Europe and the role of systematic reviews. Drs. Christian Monsalve, Stephen Levine, Kristopher Kaliebe, and Kathleen McDeavitt did a phenomenal job in clearly and professionally reviewing the evidence. Credit goes to these outstanding speakers as well as Dr. Michael Myers, Chair of the Scientific Program Committee, for making this happen.

I also applaud the persistence of those who have been petitioning the APA for this conversation. I understand these efforts to raise serious and legitimate concerns regarding pediatric medical transition have been a long time coming to a national meeting like the one I recently attended. For years, dissenting views within the medical community that challenged the prevailing narrative around so-called “gender-affirming care” were effectively muted. May this silencing finally have come to an end.

Indeed, the moment has arrived for the APA – and other specialty medical societies – to demonstrate responsible leadership and change course from the past. Duty to the members of these associations, the integrity of medical practice, and, most importantly, the patients themselves, demands an open and rigorous examination of the evidence. Systematic reviews cannot be ignored. Neither can the serious risks associated with the current affirming model. Frankly, this exercise should have transpired within organized medicine well in advance of one-sided policy statements, which unfortunately have been informed more by politics than solid evidence.

In this regard, debate must occur in an honest and transparent manner throughout the halls of medicine. Medical societies should not fear the public, but welcome their desire for knowledge. If medical societies like the APA seek to earn the public’s trust at this point in the debate, then these medical associations need to dialogue openly and truthfully.

While the press was, unfortunately, not permitted at these sessions of the APA, this practice must end. The closed doors must be opened. Silence gives the sense of a false unanimity that only so-called “gender-affirming care” is supported by the medical community, when in fact there are many physicians with grave concerns about the harms these interventions have on youth.

Today we are at a critical moment. A careful review of the HHS report is essential. As an umbrella review, seventeen systematic reviews met the report’s inclusion criteria. And, as with the various European analyses, the conclusion was clear: The overall quality of evidence regarding the psychological, quality of life, and long-term health effects of pediatric medical transition is very low. In other words, the reported benefits of these interventions are likely to be significantly different from actual outcomes.  

The evidence also indicates these interventions are not lifesaving. Yet, some physicians advocating for pediatric medical transition pressure anxious parents by citing an alleged increased risk of suicide, a claim that is both unfounded and unethical, as noted in the HHS report. Likewise, serious, irreversible risks of these interventions must not be overlooked, including infertility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone mineral density, cardiovascular ailments, surgical complications, and regret, the latter of which the true rate is simply not known.

More so, the role of physician extends beyond mere technical expertise. Doctors have a duty to thoughtfully consider a minor’s inability to consent or assent to treatment and the ethical implications of their clinical recommendations in light of this reality. The Boe v. Marshall case underscored this concern, as the Johns Hopkins University team, which was contracted by WPATH as part of SOC-8, found insufficient evidence to support the claim that adolescents possess the capacity to consent to these interventions. Furthermore, when considering issues like fertility, we must recognize that an adolescent’s limited life experience places significant limitations on his or her ability to truly comprehend future desires.

From an ethical standpoint, it is also important to recognize that patients do not have an inherent right to medications and procedures that lack demonstrable benefit. Autonomy, while valued, is not the sole guiding ethical principle in medical decision-making. Physicians must also remember both beneficence and nonmaleficence, ensuring that their recommendations prioritize the patient’s well-being and safeguard against harm. Physicians must move beyond “have it your way” medicine and remember they’re not working for Burger King but rather caring for people. May that sacred duty never be forgotten.

Psychiatrists, too, must not abandon the essential role they play in the care of minors with gender dysphoria. The vast majority of these children have co-occurring psychiatric conditions or have experienced significant trauma – factors that warrant careful evaluation and treatment. In fact, high-quality psychotherapy first requires a comprehensive understanding of the underlying and sustaining factors contributing to a patient’s distress. Subsequently, psychotherapeutic approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, psychodynamic psychotherapy, and family therapy, among others, can offer meaningful impact. Clearly, these non-invasive options should serve as an obvious first-line treatment.

The APA’s recent meeting marks progress toward open discourse and more ethical practice. While past policy statements have been issued without comprehensive systematic reviews, the willingness to engage in debate signals a shift toward greater intellectual rigor. However, much more is needed from medical associations, specifically policies and guidelines grounded in science and the evidence base. Ultimately, the APA – and other specialty societies – must revisit their own position statements on pediatric medical transition. An update is sorely needed given the data before us. Ending pediatric medical transition and moving toward genuine psychosocial support and psychotherapy is essential to prioritizing the long-term health and well-being of children suffering from gender dysphoria.

Psych Association Targets Specific Racial Groups for ‘Fellows’ Grants

According to a letter obtained by Do No Harm, the Southern California Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (SCSAP) decided to offer its members a “Fellows Grant” to cover the costs of attending the 2025 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP). 

The grant includes up to $750, and is available to active SCSAP members.

Yet the SCSAP seems to have particular racial groups in mind for the grant.

According to the letter, “[f]ellows who meet the AAMC URiM definition below and those with an interest in justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (JEDI) are encouraged to apply.”

The letter goes on to then reference the Association of American Medical Colleges’ definition of “underrepresented in medicine,” which has since been removed from the AAMC website.

“The AAMC defines underrepresented in medicine (URiM) groups as ‘racial and ethnic populations that are underrepresented in the medical profession relative to their numbers in the general population,’” the letter reads.

“Individuals from underrepresented minority (URM) groups, ‘which consists of Black, Mexican-American, Native Americans [sic] (that is, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), and mainland Puerto Ricans [sic]’ are particularly encouraged to apply.”

Additionally, applicants must answer the following two questions: “Why is justice, equity, diversity and inclusion important to you?”; and “What do you hope to gain or experience from the 2025 AACAP meeting in Chicago?”

This initiative reflects a disturbing trend in medicine, where access to opportunities is increasingly defined by racial background and adherence to ideology rather than merit. 

By prioritizing certain racial or ethnic groups and tying funding to a commitment to “justice, equity, diversity and inclusion,” the SCSAP sends a message that immutable characteristics matter more than ability.

FBI Launches Probes Into Children’s Hospitals That Performed Child Sex Change Interventions

, , ,

Last night, the FBI launched criminal investigations targeting three children’s hospitals on Do No Harm’s list of top offenders.

The probes follow on the heels of a memo by Attorney General Pam Bondi directing the Department of Justice to enforce a federal statute that prohibiting female genital mutilation.

Additionally, President Trump issued executive orders protecting Americans from the unconscionable ideology behind so-called “gender-affirming care.”

These probes represent aggressive action – backed by federal authority – to further protect children from irreversible and experimental procedures. They specificallytarget Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH), Children’s Hospital Colorado (CHC), and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA); all hospital’s on Do No Harm’s “Dirty Dozen” list of the most prolific providers of child sex change interventions.

Last October, Do No Harm released the Stop the Harm Database, a first-of-its-kind national database of hospitals and medical facilities administering irreversible sex change interventions on children in the United States. Just scratching the surface, the database exposed key findings about these three hospitals.

By the Numbers (BCH, CHC, and CHLA from 2019 to 2023):

  • 686 Total sex change patients
  • 337 Total surgery patients
  • 360 Total hormone and puberty blocker patients
  • 2,500 Total prescriptions written
  • $8,474,775 Total submitted charges

Additionally, Attorney General Pam Bondi will soon launch a new taskforce, the Coalition Against Child Mutilation, joining forces with state attorneys general across the country to hold hospitals and practitioners that violate laws against female genital mutilation accountable.

Part of this development includes an effort to establish a private right of action for children and parents of children “whose healthy body parts have been damaged by medical professionals through chemical and surgical castration.”

This is a massive victory, and there’s more to come. The days of children being subjected to dangerous, irreversible procedures are numbered.

The ACAAM Is Still Addicted to DEI

One would think that, as more and more Americans realize the harms associated with DEI, medical associations would read the room and ditch their commitments to this ideology.

Not so at the American College of Academic Addiction Medicine (ACAAM).

In April 2025, the ACAAM Board of Directors “reconfirmed the organization’s commitment to the following actions, which are based on advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in all the organization does,” the organization announced in a statement.

These actions include: “Commit to ongoing efforts to embrace diversity within the organization and act to promote an inclusive and equitable environment among the addiction medicine workforce”; “Maintain educational resources related to anti-racism, cultural competence, social disparities of health & social justice […]”; and “Recruit and train students, residents, fellows and addiction specialists from minoritized populations in the addiction medicine workforce and pathways.”

The last item in particular, depending on how the ACAAM aims to achieve it, appears to imply that the ACAAM will engage in racial discrimination.

Additionally, on its website, the ACAAM promotes a host of resources aimed at promoting DEI in the substance use field.

This includes the “Advancing Racial Equity in the Substance Use Field” presentation, a “two-part pre-recorded racial equity training series focused on the substance use field.” 

That training is through the Opioid Response Network, and includes segments on “Developing a Shared Language for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” and “Systemic Racism and Substance Use Disorder: Anti Racist Strategies.”

One of the recommended behaviors in the presentation’s call to action was to “stare at awesome black people.” 

Yes, really.

Another segment of the presentation stated that as part of “anti-racist” leadership, organizations should “promote and elevate BIPOC employees” and “recruit and hire staff to reflect the client population.”

Figure 1. A screenshot from the “Advancing Racial Equity in the Substance Use Field” presentation.

Other presentations included “Academic Addiction Medicine Responds: Addressing Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” and “Unpacking Racial Disparities in Addiction and a Path Forward.”

Moreover, one presentation titled “Identifying and Addressing Implicit Bias in Our Work” featured an article arguing that “medicine is not a stand-alone institution immune to racial inequities, but rather is an institution of structural racism.”

In sum, these resources demonstrate the ACAAM’s deep institutional commitment to DEI.

Healthcare professionals should be guided by merit and excellence, not ideology.

The ACAAM Is Still Addicted to DEI

One would think that, as more and more Americans realize the harms associated with DEI, medical associations would read the room and ditch their commitments to this ideology.

Not so at the American College of Academic Addiction Medicine (ACAAM).

In April 2025, the ACAAM Board of Directors “reconfirmed the organization’s commitment to the following actions, which are based on advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in all the organization does,” the organization announced in a statement.

These actions include: “Commit to ongoing efforts to embrace diversity within the organization and act to promote an inclusive and equitable environment among the addiction medicine workforce”; “Maintain educational resources related to anti-racism, cultural competence, social disparities of health & social justice […]”; and “Recruit and train students, residents, fellows and addiction specialists from minoritized populations in the addiction medicine workforce and pathways.”

The last item in particular, depending on how the ACAAM aims to achieve it, appears to imply that the ACAAM will engage in racial discrimination.

Additionally, on its website, the ACAAM promotes a host of resources aimed at promoting DEI in the substance use field.

This includes the “Advancing Racial Equity in the Substance Use Field” presentation, a “two-part pre-recorded racial equity training series focused on the substance use field.” 

That training is through the Opioid Response Network, and includes segments on “Developing a Shared Language for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” and “Systemic Racism and Substance Use Disorder: Anti Racist Strategies.”

One of the recommended behaviors in the presentation’s call to action was to “stare at awesome black people.” 

Yes, really.

Another segment of the presentation stated that as part of “anti-racist” leadership, organizations should “promote and elevate BIPOC employees” and “recruit and hire staff to reflect the client population.”

Figure 1. A screenshot from the “Advancing Racial Equity in the Substance Use Field” presentation.

Other presentations included “Academic Addiction Medicine Responds: Addressing Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” and “Unpacking Racial Disparities in Addiction and a Path Forward.”

Moreover, one presentation titled “Identifying and Addressing Implicit Bias in Our Work” featured an article arguing that “medicine is not a stand-alone institution immune to racial inequities, but rather is an institution of structural racism.”

In sum, these resources demonstrate the ACAAM’s deep institutional commitment to DEI.

Healthcare professionals should be guided by merit and excellence, not ideology.

Emergency Medicine’s ‘Most Listened To’ Program Devolves Into DEI Activism

Emergency Medicine Reviews and Perspectives (EM:RAP) is a medical education program that provides instructional emergency medicine content and discussions through podcasts and videos.

The program bills itself as “the most listened to audio program in emergency medicine, with more listeners than the total number of emergency physicians in the United States.” 

During a July 2024 episode of the EM:RAP podcast, several emergency medicine practitioners discussed so-called “anti-DEI” legislation and offered their support of DEI efforts.

The focal point of the discussion was the EDUCATE Act, a bill introduced by Representative Greg Murphy (and recently reintroduced this spring) and endorsed by Do No Harm that would cut off federal funding to medical schools’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

The bill would defund programs that compel students or faculty to engage in racial discrimination, as well as block funding to medical schools that have DEI departments or functionally equivalent offices. The bill would also require accreditation agencies to remove DEI requirements while allowing instruction about ethnicity-related health issues.

A screenshot of a message Description automatically generated
Figure 1. A screenshot of the EM:RAP podcast episode summary.

The EM:RAP discussion featured faculty members, including Tiffany Mitchell, MD, Italo Brown, MD, and Alden Landry, MD. Predictably, the faculty members, who work at Mount Sinai, Stanford, and Beth Israel Deaconess hospitals respectively, opposed the bill, according to an episode summary that included various statements in opposition to the legislation and in support of DEI.

These statements included: “DEI efforts are integral to promoting innovation and advancing equitable patient care”; “Silencing discussions on diversity hinders progress in mitigating discrimination and improving healthcare equity”; and “Institutions must stand firm in supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts to ensure a fair and inclusive medical education system.”

During the episode itself, the first guest to address the legislation, Dr. Brown, erroneously argued that it would exclude physicians of certain backgrounds.

“This felt like … people who took the same oaths that I took … had automatically decided that people who come from diverse backgrounds no longer should be considered to be in our brotherhood/fraternity/family of physicians,” Brown said.

The idea that legislation intended to restrict discriminatory practices is itself discriminatory is obviously wrong; the EDUCATE Act does not prevent individuals of certain backgrounds from becoming physicians. In fact, it does the exact opposite.

But Brown continued, arguing that the proper response to the EDUCATE ACT should be even more DEI advocacy on the part of the medical community.

“This is why advocacy, now more than ever, just needs to come from us. That we need to rise with all of our physician voices,” Brown said.

But the endorsements of DEI didn’t end there.

Later in the episode, Dr. Landry discussed the role of DEI offices in medical schools, arguing that DEI must be present in every corner of medical school administrations.

“I do think that every office of student affairs on a medical school campus should champion DEI offices,” he said. “Every DEI office of faculty affairs should champion DEI efforts. I think every office of research should champion DEI efforts … it should be in every office in every institution.”

The discussion concluded with an endorsement of DEI advocacy from Dr. Mitchell, who succinctly summed up the EM:RAP faculty’s position.

“All of our institutions, all of our hospitals, and schools, and courthouses should be proud to proclaim a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Full stop.”

EM:RAP is woefully out of touch with the reality of DEI, and its faculty appear to misunderstand the subjects they are discussing.

DEI, by its nature, divides individuals on the basis of race and encourages racial discrimination to achieve “equitable” ends. 

Not only is DEI dangerous, it is antithetical to the ethical practice of medicine.