RUTHFULLY YOURS

The National Institutes of Health, which provides funding for breakthroughs in medical science, has long enjoyed a trustworthy reputation. But, in keeping with the Biden administration’s “whole-of-government equity agenda,” the NIH has shifted its priorities away from science and toward “the science of scientific workforce diversity,” subordinating medicine to the latest ideological fad: diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI.

With the help of Open the Books, a nonprofit research organization, we have obtained documents detailing the NIH’s descent into left-wing racialism. The agency, which is supposed to prioritize hard science, has made DEI a top priority, shelling out millions on “diversity” initiatives that do nothing to advance medical research.

At the beginning of his term, President Biden signed an executive order implementing DEI throughout the federal bureaucracy and Congress directed the NIH to develop “a strategic plan with long-term and short-term goals to address the racial, ethnic, and gender disparities at NIH.” In short: less focus on curing cancer, and more attention to making sure no one cures cancer without acknowledging his “responsibility to correct systemic racism and inequities.”

The NIH immediately got to work implementing the executive order across the mammoth agency. The plan, which applied to fiscal years 2023 through 2027, required “the participation of all 27 Institutes and Centers (ICs); Offices within the Office of the Director (OD); and working groups, staff committees, advisory groups, and employee groups across NIH.” Altogether, the agency reported, it had “identified a community of almost 100 offices, committees, and groups working within the NIH-wide DEIA ecosystem.”

Overseeing this bureaucracy is the NIH’s Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, which has more than 50 employees. The office’s mission: to “identify and eliminate discrimination from the agency’s personnel policies, practices, and working conditions.” As part of its efforts, it has created digital information hubs on “Understanding Systemic Racism” and “Racism in Health,” and planned an “Anti-Bullying Training” session for employees—all methods to advance racialist ideology, rather than the department’s scientific mission.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/return-of-the-masks

Regardless of Americans’ preference for seeing each other’s faces and breathing in fresh air, many public health officials are still fond of masks mandates. Accordingly, almost five years after Covid-19 hit our shores, a handful of counties encircling the San Francisco Bay have announced new mask mandates in various health-care facilities. San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Napa Counties have all declared mask mandates for health-care workers in hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, or both, starting the day after Halloween and extending until early spring.

San Mateo County, which borders the southern part of San Francisco, has announced that its mask mandate in skilled nursing facilities will also cover family members and friends who visit patients. The county’s health officer has asked the local sheriff and chief of police to “ensure compliance with and enforce this Order,” as a “violation of any provision of this Order constitutes an imminent threat and immediate menace to public health.” She declares that such violations are “punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.”

One of the great lessons from the pandemic should have been that America’s founders knew what they were doing when they separated the powers of government, and when they entrusted policymaking to the legislative branch. Americans shouldn’t be put in the position of potentially being tyrannized by one kingly official wielding largely unchecked powers. Yet the source of the mandates in at least three of these counties, and likely in all five, is a lone individual: the county health officer (joined, in Alameda County, with the city of Berkeley’s acting health officer).

The health officers are dictating medical protocols to doctors. Many doctors don’t want to wear masks because they compromise interaction with patients, because they force people to breathe in unhealthy levels of their own carbon dioxide, and—most importantly—because the best scientific evidence suggests that they don’t work. But, convinced that they know better, the health officers are ordering doctors to obey their commands or else face punishment by law enforcement for being a “menace to public health.”

For the record, cloth masks won’t qualify as acceptable face coverings, at least not in San Mateo, Santa Clara (home of San Jose, Stanford, and Silicon Valley), or Napa (home of the French Laundry restaurant). The good news is that, in all three counties, masks won’t be required in the health-care facilities’ gift shops. So, even if you don’t get to smile at your loved one when you visit, you’ll still get to shop for souvenirs or knick-knacks unimpeded.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/10/advocates-of-woke-medicine-play-victim-while-still-pushing-their-agenda/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_

It’s pretty brazen to pretend to be on the defensive when your effort is having real-world consequences for doctors and patients.

The forces driving the politicization of medicine have a complaint: People are starting to notice what they’re doing.

Their effort to view health care through a DEI lens, which has proceeded almost unabated for years, has only recently begun to have genuine opposition. And this is supposedly threatening their cause’s very existence. “It’s very taxing,” Chandra L. Ford, a professor at Emory University and founding director of the Center for the Study of Racism, Social Justice & Health, recently lamented to the Washington Post. “This anti-DEI movement creates a climate of fear.”

Sheldon Rubenfeld would be surprised to learn that Ford and those like her are on the defensive. Rubenfeld had been clinical professor of general medicine at Baylor College of Medicine. But this past summer, the medical school officially ended its relationship with him. It’s just the latest chapter in a story that demonstrates both the extent of the problem and the need to confront it.

Rubenfeld’s service at Baylor went back decades. It encountered a major stumbling block last year, however. The medical school abruptly canceled Healing by Killing: Medicine during the Third Reich, an elective course he had been teaching for 20 years. Rubenfeld, also the author of Medicine after the Holocaust: From the Master Race to the Human Genome and Beyond, believes the course was an effective way to warn aspiring doctors against letting their prejudices influence how they treat their patients. Doing so ultimately “leads to all sorts of nastiness,” he says, “and Jews are always the first ones to experience it.”

One student, however, thought the course itself was a source of nastiness and filed an “anonymous grievance” after a lecture in which Rubenfeld pressed his students about their own potential biases. As he wrote in National Review earlier this year, all he learned about the nature of the complaint is that the student objected to his use of the word “Palestinian” — somehow now a charged term after the campus convulsions surrounding Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel and Israel’s response. Despite the filing of no further anonymous grievances, Baylor canceled the course.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/10/doctors_have_responsibility_but_no_authority.html

Nothing proves the title better than the recent reinstatement of a mask mandate in San Francisco hospitals. Every clinical doctor knows the data overwhelmingly proves they don’t work “to prevent the spread of the flu, COVID and other seasonal illnesses,” the ostensible, official reason for re-masking.

Note the adjective “clinical” doctor to contrast MDs in the trenches caring for sick people with bureaucrat MDs who, like Fauci, have never cared for patients in the real world but who dictate how the clinicians must practice medicine.

For most viruses, a cloth surgical mask is as effective as a screen door on a submarine. When (not if) patients get sick with the flu despite healthcare workers wearing masks, who will be responsible to care for them? When patients complain that masks did not prevent illness, who will they blame?

For decades, federal regulations and bureaucratic doctors have been chipping away at doctors’ independence, authority, and valuation. The heart surgeon with the best results can charge more than the surgeon with poor results, yet both are paid the same: an amount much less than their charges and what Medicare determines as “allowable reimbursements.” These are not reimbursements — they are government-pre-determined, low-ball payments.

As an interventional pediatric cardiologist, this author’s charges for a cardiac catheterization in a critically ill newborn baby ranged from $1,500 to as much as $9,000 if a device were implanted. Medicaid paid the maximum allowable reimbursement: $387.

In the past, general physicians would refer their patients to surgeons with the best results for the operation the patient needed. Now they must send the patient to whatever institution (not even who) the insurance company has a contract with.

A personal physician is no longer chosen by the patient. The enrollee, not patient, is assigned a provider on a health plan panel. People wait months to get in for a 15-minute appointment during which the doctor spends most of the time looking at a computer screen and filling out forms. No one takes a history or does a physical exam anymore.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/lipstick-on-a-pig

The American College of Surgeons is trying to expunge the term DEI from antiracism and critical race theory initiatives. An attempted rebranding was inevitable, given how rapidly the term and its associated programs have fallen out of favor. Universities, corporations, and institutions of all kinds are eagerly rechristening, if not dismantling, their DEI departments and laying off their DEI administrators.

The new name of the game is “Inclusive Excellence.” Like “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” it has a nice ring to it and even seems to signal a return to a focus on merit. This is not the case. Search the ACS website for the Office of Diversity, and you’ll be redirected to the Office of Inclusive Excellence. The ACS has renamed its DEI Toolkit, introduced in December 2023, the ACS Inclusive Excellence Resource and Implementation Toolkit.

A perusal of the materials reveals that little if anything has changed in the program’s content and focus. It continues to promote the discredited Implicit Association Test as a measure of one’s implicit bias. It still claims that achieving proportionate representation of identity groups somehow makes organizations better. It adopts the same underlying DEI premise: that disparities of representation always indicate discrimination.

https://amgreatness.com/2024/10/14/poll-majority-favors-federal-ban-on-transgender-surgeries-for-minors/

A new poll shows that nearly two-thirds of voters support a federal ban on so-called “sex change” operations for minors, as Democrats continue pushing transgenderism on children across the country.

As reported by Just The News, the new survey from the Center Square Voters’ Voice Poll found that 59% support the ban, including 82% of Republican respondents and 56% of independents. Only Democrats were against the ban, with just 36% of Democratic respondents favoring it.

Along gender lines, men were more likely to support such a ban than women, with 63% of men favoring it while 56% of women voiced their support for it. When broken down by ethnicity, a total of 61% of White respondents favored the ban, while 46% of black respondents favored it, compared to 32% who opposed it and 22% who remained unsure.

The age groups which most favored the ban were the 45-54 and 54-65 demographics, both at 61% support. Meanwhile, the 18-34 bloc supported such a ban by a narrow majority, at 52%.

Lastly, 55% of voters with a college degree supported such a proposal compared to 61% of voters without a college degree, while 61% of voters with children supported a ban, compared to 52% of voters without children.

Transgenderism, the false and scientifically-debunked belief that there are more than two genders, and that anyone can simply change their gender at any time, has been promoted by Democrats for the last several years; the ideology has only recently begun facing serious pushback from conservatives, with laws banning such treatments for minors in 25 different states.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-therapy-is-broken?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

An hour a week in a shrink’s office is increasingly treated as a prerequisite for a healthy, happy life. There, we imagine, friends learn new coping skills and enemies realize the errors of their ways. Everyone is “healed.” Therapy has been marketed as a panacea for all kinds of issues, from fixing a bad personality to ending racism. Refusing to seek treatment becomes a red flag, while fluency in “therapy-speak” is all but mandatory. Professional help has even infiltrated our leisure hours: Reality TV shows like Couples Therapy, podcasts from This Is Dating to Where Should We Begin?, and “therapy in a box” card games, some actually designed by psychoanalysts, abound.

Unfortunately, as anyone who’s actually tried it can tell you, therapy often sucks.

Anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of people who go to therapy report some benefit—but at least 5 percent of clients get worse as a result of treatment. (For people from marginalized groups, harmful outcomes may be even more common.) The remainder report no clear benefit at all. Plenty of would-be clients go once and, feeling alienated, never return. Others keep trying, even as it becomes clear they aren’t really getting what they need, whatever that is.

But the American mental health care system has hardly acknowledged the existence of bad therapy, let alone taken steps to fix the problem. Instead, in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, which sent the demand for therapy soaring, the American Psychological Association and other organizations seemed to prioritize the quantity of available appointments over the quality of any resulting therapy. The rise of app-based mental health care, like BetterHelp and Talkspace, has only made this landscape harder to navigate.

The result is that everyone is telling everyone else to go to therapy, but “nobody really creates space to have dialog about, ‘OK, if it doesn’t work, let’s talk about why,’” says psychotherapist Ben Fineman, cohost of the Very Bad Therapy podcast with Carrie Wiita. That’s partly out of fear of uncertainty, which therapists dislike as much as anyone, and partly because reforming mental health care is complicated. But ignoring these shortcomings is only perpetuating the suffering therapy promises to heal.