DEI gave us Kamala Harris — the doctors it produces may be even worse



We've had mediocre presidential candidates before, elevated beyond their ability thanks to money, connections, or their family name. Kamala Harris is the first one to make it to the top explicitly because of her race and sex. As such, she's the living embodiment of DEI.

If Donald Trump defeats her, it will certainly strike a potent blow against this poisonous ideology. But Harris is merely the most high-profile beneficiary. Our institutions are already so captured by DEI that American lives are at stake.

Is a white man’s life worth less than a black woman’s? Through DEI’s oppressor-victim hierarchy, the answer is unequivocally yes.

Any serious attempt to undo the damage of a decade's worth of anti-meritocratic policies must begin in our medical schools

Ill communication

A recent report from the medical watchdog organization Do No Harm makes for a sobering read. American medical schools are prioritizing political agendas over essential health care education, with potentially dire consequences.

Titled “Activism Instead of Anatomy,” the report claims that diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are overshadowing traditional scientific and medical training at institutions nationwide.

At the heart of the problem lies a clear departure from rigorous scientific training toward ideologically driven content. Medical students are now being subjected to courses that prioritize social and political goals over traditional medical knowledge.

This includes an increased emphasis on identity politics and social theories that have little to do with developing the skills and knowledge essential for competent medical practice. This shift is eroding the essential knowledge needed for effective patient care. Moreover, this shift comes amid declining public trust in the medical establishment, which, rather than rebuilding confidence, seems intent on pushing Americans away — or into an early grave.

Rigor mortis

One of the report’s most alarming findings is the diversion of crucial time and resources away from core medical training. Medical curricula are already demanding, yet DEI-focused coursework consumes hours that should be dedicated to vital subjects like anatomy, pathology, and pharmacology.

Essentially, the rigor of medical education is being diluted, leaving future physicians less prepared for real-world challenges.

Beyond replacing essential training, this ideological shift raises serious ethical concerns. Students are pressured to adopt a specific worldview, with dissent risking punishment (more on this later). Ironically, in the name of inclusivity, medical schools are stifling intellectual diversity.

Training doctors to view patients primarily through an identity-based lens fosters division and undermines the principle of treating individuals as individuals. Is a white man’s life worth less than a black woman’s? Through DEI’s oppressor-victim hierarchy, the answer is unequivocally yes. White privilege has never looked so distinctly dangerous.

This is not hyperbole. When identity politics and political correctness dominate medical training, there is a tangible risk of professionals prioritizing ideological considerations over evidence-based care.

For example, as the report notes, the fixation on “correct” language and politically charged issues like transgender health care has, in some cases, overshadowed the need for solid, patient-centric approaches. While culturally competent care is essential, it should not replace scientifically sound medical practice but complement it.

Doctor Feelbad

This ideological push in medical schools risks seeping into the broader health care system. When doctors-in-training are taught to prioritize identity markers and politically charged agendas over clinical facts, this mindset can infiltrate hospitals and influence health care policies, compromising every single aspect of patient care. The obsessive focus on DEI initiatives often sidelines efficiency and merit-based advancement, ultimately affecting patient outcomes.

Remember, DEI agendas come at the cost of meritocracy. As a result, medical schools are not only admitting objectively less qualified students, but they are also producing objectively less competent doctors compared to just a few generations ago.

DEI is genuinely destructive, posing existential risks in critical areas. In truth, it's a matter of life and death, with significantly higher amounts of the latter, if the report is to be believed.

What we’re witnessing here is the professionalization of grievance and the prioritization of activism over expertise. Medical schools, once places of necessary knowledge and innovation, have transformed into training grounds for the next generation of political activists. The lunatics really are running the asylum.

Worse yet, much of the DEI narrative rests on a shaky foundation. Or, to be more accurate, no foundation at all.

Stage 4 racism

Recently, Dr. Kendall Conger, a former emergency physician at Duke University Health System, was terminated for questioning the claim that racism is a "public health crisis."

When Conger requested data to support this assertion, none was provided. Instead of engaging in dialogue, the institution punished him for raising a legitimate concern. This reaction reveals the hostile environment that sane medical professionals now face, where challenging the narrative leads not to discussion but to retribution.

Cancel culture still exists. Common sense? Well, not so much.

The report’s conclusion is clear. Medical schools must resist this ideological encroachment and refocus on their primary mission: Equipping future doctors with the skills and knowledge to save lives and improve patient outcomes.

Yet, the damage seems done. Curricula take years to develop and implement. Even if the entire DEI agenda were addressed logically today, it would take years to return to the basics. In the meantime, more doctors will graduate, and more Americans will pay the ultimate price — with their lives.

Blaze News original: Damning new database names and shames hospitals that have subjected thousands of kids to sex-change mutilations



Do No Harm is a medical advocacy group that works with health care professionals, hospital administrators, patients, policymakers, and others to reverse the ideological capture of medicine and medical education.

Since 2022, DNH — which comprises members across all 50 states and in 14 countries — has focused primarily on curbing two harmful ideological currents in particular: DEI-branded racism and radical gender ideology. DNH made a major strategic play this week to help expose the latter.

The organization launched the Stop the Harm database Tuesday, revealing precisely which hospitals and medical facilities around the country are presently subjecting thousands of vulnerable children to sex-change mutilations and sterilizing chemical treatments.

Dr. Roy Eappen, an esteemed endocrinologist and senior fellow at Do No Harm who has spent over three decades treating patients, told Blaze News, "A lot of the activists in this field say things like, 'No children are getting these kinds of treatments, or there are very, very few.'"

Eappen emphasized that the data say otherwise — and now the American public can see the offenders listed and victims tallied for themselves, all in one place.

'It is crucial every parent familiarizes themselves with this database.'

DNH's national database, which provides breakdowns on a state-by-state and institutional basis, revealed that between 2019 and 2023, at least 13,994 children received sex-change medical interventions.

"This first-of-its-kind project provides patients, families, and policymakers with a resource that reveals the pervasiveness of irreversible sex-change treatments for minors in America," Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman of DNH, said in a statement.

"The StopTheHarmDatabase.com that the incredible group Do No Harm put together is an incredible body of work," said Alvin Lui, president of the parental rights advocacy group Courage Is a Habit. "It is crucial every parent familiarizes themselves with this database."

DNH researchers analyzed publicly available insurance claims data "from an all-payer claims database that incorporated data from clearinghouses, data aggregators, payors, health systems, CMS, and multiple open data sources" as well as from commercial insurance, Medicaid, Medicare , and VA claims concerning confirmed sex-change-related treatments for minors ages 0 to 17.5.

They determined that a staggering 5,747 American children were subjected to sex-change mutilations over that short period.

Meanwhile, 62,682 prescriptions for sterilizing hormones and puberty blockers were written for 8,579 pediatric patients.

"That doesn't sound like a huge number, but I think it's way too many," said Dr. Eappen.

These figures are minimums as the researchers have admittedly only just scratched the surface.

'This data represents the tip of the iceberg.'

Dr. Eappen noted that the Kaiser Permanente health care consortium has, for instance, withheld its data concerning potential sex-change victims, and Lui noted that the "majority of transgender drugs and surgeries that are provided to children are still paid out of pocket."

Dr. Goldfarb noted that while "this data represents the tip of the iceberg, this is the first step in holding the medical establishment accountable for participating in, and often times promoting, predatory and unscientific medical interventions for vulnerable children."

Lui stressed that the "explosion of children getting sucked up into the cult since 2016 should frighten every parent in America."

While the trend got progressively worse in 2021 and 2022, there were potential signs of the trend tapering off in 2023.

Dr. Goldfarb told Blaze News:

In the majority of states, we saw a spike in minors undergoing sex change treatments between 2021 and 2022. For example, California saw a more than 50% increase between that time (2021-363 patients, 2022-687 patients). PA saw an ~30% increase (2021:105, 2022: 332). The numbers started to decline slightly in 2023, but that is also around the time when many states began to pass legislation banning '[gender-affirming care].' AL was the first to pass legislation in 2022 and was one of the only states to see a decline in minors undergoing sex change treatments in 2022.

Last year, however, Do No Harm observed a trend of fewer patients, "especially in states that have passed legislation banning 'GAC,'" said Goldfarb.

"Our plan with the next iteration of the database is to analyze the 2024 data to see if these states are in fact following the law, and if there is a downward trend in the states that are still allowing 'GAC,' especially now that the danger of ideology is more widely known," added the DNH chairman.

The current database makes abundantly clear that the mutilation and sterilization of America's youth is a profitable enterprise. Over $119.7 million was made during this period on child sex-change medical interventions.

When asked whether money or ideology was the driving force behind the sex-change industry's medicalization of children, who in most cases would alternatively grow out of their confusion, Dr. Eappen said, "I think it's actually a confluence of the two."

"Ideology is a big part of it. But you know, Marci Bowers, who's the chief of WPATH, which is the World Professional Association of Transgender Health, made a million dollars last year as a transgender surgeon," continued Dr. Eappen. "It can be quite a lucrative undertaking."

'You're also making children into patients for life.'

Dr. Melanie Crites-Bachert, a urologist and osteopathic surgeon with expertise in pelvic reconstruction, recently provided Blaze News with some idea of how much surgery centers can make performing various sex-change mutilations.

"A lot of these surgeries can be done in a surgery center. They are very lucrative with reimbursement," said Crites-Bachert. "If somebody were going to have an orchiectomy or castration — my former biller pulled up this information — the Medicare reimbursement is $324. To amputate a penis is $804. Now, keep in mind, therapeutically, you sometimes do need to amputate a penis if there's penile cancer or things like that, but purely amputating a penis is $804. A hysterectomy, an abdominal hysterectomy, is a little over $1,000. A vaginoplasty, which is basically reconstructing the vagina for things like trauma, is $1,161."

Crites-Bachert indicated that these figures represent Medicare reimbursements for therapeutic procedures and that a surgery center can expect 150-200% reimbursement above that from commercial insurance if a patient has commercial insurance paying these procedures.

"You're also making children into patients for life because a lot of these kids have complications from these kinds of surgery. And you're saying that they should be on their hormones basically forever," said Dr. Eappen.

According to Grand View Research, the U.S. sex reassignment hormone therapy market size was an estimated $1.6 billion in 2022 and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 4.05% until 2030.

The Free Press noted that Planned Parenthood, whose business model has long appeared to be harming vulnerable human beings, is presently the country’s leading provider of sex-change hormones for young adults.

The Insight Partners estimated that the global sex-change surgery market will grow to nearly $7 billion by 2031.

Dr. Miriam Grossman, the board-certified child and adolescent psychiatrist who authored the 2023 book "Lost in Trans Nation: A Child Psychiatrist’s Guide Out of the Madness," told Blaze News in September that surgeons and pharmaceutical reps will not be the only ones cashing in on victims of the sex-change regime.

Grossman noted that billions of dollars are "going to be made from reproductive technologies because we're producing a generation of sterilized people who are going to need egg and sperm donations. They're going to need IVF. They're going to need surrogates in order to have children."

'Medical gender reassignment does not have an impact on suicide risk.'

While there are hospitals that have far higher child sex-change billings, DNH's Stop the Harm database indicated that the 12 worst-offending children's hospitals promoting sex-change treatments for minors are as follows:

Blaze News reached out to the top offenders above for comment but received a response only from Children's Hospital Los Angeles, which noted it was "declining participation" in this report.

The continued medicalization of children is particularly egregious, not only because of the impossibility of getting informed consent from minor patients and in many cases their guardians — a troubling reality even WPATH scientists have admitted in private communications — but because of the ever-growing mountain of scientific literature indicating "gender-affirming care" is at best pseudoscience.

Gender ideologues and profit-incentivized health professionals have long told parents with confused children that they must choose between a "dead son or a live daughter" or between a "living son or a dead daughter” — the suggestion being that ruinous chemical treatments and irreversible surgeries are solutions to a gender-dysphoric child's supposed suicidality.

This claim has collapsed in recent years.

A peer-reviewed study published in January in the esteemed quarterly journal BMJ Mental Health revealed that "medical gender reassignment does not have an impact on suicide risk."

'You've sentenced a whole bunch of children to infertility and many other problems.'

"All-cause and suicide mortalities did not differ between those gender referred who had and had not proceeded to [sex-change surgeries] when psychiatric treatment history was accounted for," wrote the researchers.

The suicide argument is not the only core gender ideology claim to have recently crumbled.

Dr. Hilary Cass, an esteemed British medical doctor who previously served as president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, was commissioned by NHS England to lead a multi-year investigation into the U.K.'s sex-change regime, particularly its youth-facing services.

Her final report came out earlier this year, revealing that where so-called gender science is concerned, "There is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices."

The Cass Review had the University of York undertake a series of systematic reviews on topic, which found that most of the "research" underpinning so-called gender science is of "poor quality," demonstrating "poor study design, inadequate follow-up periods and a lack of objectivity in reporting of results."

In the case of the puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones apparently foisted on children by Boston Children's Hospital and other offending institutions, the review made clear that the uses "are unproven and benefits/harms are unknown."

"In addition to this making it difficult for clinicians to know whether these are appropriate treatments to offer, it is also challenging to provide children, young people and families with sufficient information on which to make an informed choice," said the review. "The duty of information disclosure is complicated by many 'unknown unknowns' about the long-term impacts of puberty blocker and/or masculinizing/feminizing hormone during a dynamic developmental period when gender identity may not be settled."

"I'm appalled that in North America, the Cass Review has not received more attention," Dr. Eappen told Blaze News. "[Dr. Cass] was neutral, and she basically came to the conclusion that most of this should not be done."

Dr. Eappen suggested that the North American medical establishment is keen to ignore the mounting evidence of the sex-change regime's unscientific and harmful practices in part because of its ideological capture — a problem that not only affects medical institutions but various medical professional associations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society. It may, however, also be a matter of guilt and liability.

"When you've done things that are basically irreversible, it's very hard to say that you've done something wrong," said Dr. Eappen. "I mean, you've sentenced a whole bunch of children to infertility and many other problems. How can you say that you made a mistake?"

Dr. Eappen indicated that for each of the victims tallied above, there are also parents who bear some responsibility, and it's "very hard to say that you've done something that's harmed your children."

Chloe Cole, a senior DNH fellow and patient advocate, is among the many Americans victimized by the sex-change regime.

Cole told the Florida Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine Joint Rules/Legislative Committee in 2022, "At 13, I started taking puberty blockers and testosterone. At 15, I underwent a double mastectomy in which my breasts were removed and my nipples were grafted. And yet, at 16, after years of medically transitioning, I came to realize I severely regretted my transition."

Cole — who recently endorsed President Donald Trump "because he's committed to protecting children from these rash decisions" — said in a statement, "This new project from Do No Harm proves the lies from the medical establishment and radical politicians who argue that cases like mine are rare."

"The stats in this database represent thousands of kids who are being treated like Guinea pigs for unproven, and sometimes dangerous, medical experiments," continued Cole. "I hope politicians and parents alike use this database to see where these treatments are happening and protect their children from being rushed into irreversible, life-altering treatments."

When discussing the best ways to cripple the sex-change regime, Dr. Eappen told Blaze News that:

DNH has helped several legislatures pass laws because if the medical field doesn’t self-regulate itself properly, I think it’s the responsibility of the government to do something about it. I would prefer not to pass laws — I would prefer that doctors look at the risk-benefit ratio and see that the risks outweigh the benefits and act accordingly. But if they're not going to do that, [laws] are one way. The other is lawsuits: make it expensive for them to continue with this kind of procedure.

The Stop the Harm database might, in this regard, serve to provide a list of prospective institutional defendants as well as highlight states where children need legislative protection from the sex-change regime.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Attention parents! New database provides detailed breakdown of which facilities are performing sex-change procedures on minors IN YOUR AREA



Stop the Harm is a database created by Do No Harm that tracks and reports on “gender affirming care” for minors taking place in each state, the goal being to “encourage positive change and protect children” from the insidiousness of gender ideology.

With a click of your mouse, you can easily see the exact hospitals in your state that are offering gender affirming care to children, how many sex-change surgeries they’ve performed, how many prescriptions they’ve written, and how many patients they’ve seen.

The site also provides statistics on the worst offending hospitals and doctors in the nation.

It’s a wealth of resources for parents who want to stay informed on one of the most egregious issues of our time.

“This is an ideology; this is not science, certainly not medicine. Medicine is intended to treat something that is wrong — to heal,” says Liz Wheeler. “Over 90% of children with gender dysphoria will outgrow that feeling once they have hit puberty, once they become adults.”

“So if we actually wanted to help young people with gender disorders, we would send them to counseling; we would wait for them to grow up; and we would adamantly refuse to transition them,” she continues.

While the movement is certainly driven by a destructive ideology, it’s also driven by something perhaps even more nefarious: the love of money.

“You'll never guess how much money these hospitals and doctors profited off of mutilating these children in the name of gender ideology,” says Liz, who invites the director of programs at Do No Harm, Michelle Havrilla, to the program to discuss the revolting statistics on the Stop the Harm database.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

“We're told, of course, by the left that sex changes on children don't happen, but what did you find when you were analyzing this data?” Liz asks.

“The data show that approximately 14,000 children throughout the country under the age of 17 and a half have received some type of sex-change treatment — whether it be surgery, such as a body modification surgery, hormones, or puberty blockers — totaling, in terms of claims submitted, $120 million over a four-year period between 2019 and 2023,” says Havrilla, adding that this is “a very, very conservative estimate.”

To amalgamate the statistics in its database, Do No Harm only “looked at insurance data,” as it was barred from accessing other sources of information.

“Kaiser for one does not allow their data to be public. We don't have information on self pay, and we also don't have information on charity pay,” says Havrilla, adding that in the state of California where gender affirming care is rampant, “Kaiser is probably the number one payer in the state.”

“When we looked at California, we saw a total of $23 million of submitted charges within that time frame of 2019 to 2023, so without the addition of Kaiser to that, we suspect that it's probably higher,” she explains.

Another factor that’s skewing the numbers to be lower than reality is the fact that Do No Harm was “very conservative in [its] methodology.”

In order to ensure that treatments were indeed within the category of gender affirming care, Do No Harm “matched [procedures and prescriptions] with a gender diagnosis code or an icd10 code.”

We did this “to make sure that really there was not any ambiguity in what we were presenting,” Havrilla tells Liz.

To sum that up, the stats you’ll find on the Stop the Harm database are already telling (and horrifying), but they’re merely scratching the surface when it comes to the reality of how many children are being butchered by the medical industrial complex that sees our most vulnerable population as an opportunity to get rich.

To hear more about the work Do No Harm is doing to keep parents informed and children safe, watch the clip above.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Biden Admin Official Pressured WPATH To Nix Age Limits On Sex-Change Procedures For Minors, Emails Reveal

'Levine, through a staff member, pressured WPATH to remove recommended minimum ages'

New England Journal of Medicine publishes proposal that medical students be segregated by race



The esteemed New England Journal of Medicine has advanced a recommendation by California academics that medical schools should divide up students on the basis of their race.

Although the Bay Area academics behind the proposal, published on April 27, did not specify whether water fountains, bathrooms, and bus seats should similarly be zoned for persons depending on their skin pigmentation, they did, however, call for medical students to receive instruction in racially segregated groups.

This woke proposal, in keeping with the University of California at San Francisco's so-called anti-racist efforts to "decolonize the health sciences," has been met with fierce opposition and called "morally abhorrent."

An indecent proposal

The proposal was penned by a number of academics and administrators from UCSF, including social worker Leanna Lewis; pediatrician Camila Fabersunne; assistant professors of pediatrics Corina Iocopetti and Dannielle McBride; and "inquiry program coordinator" Gabby Negussie-Retta.

The UCSF crew stated as though it were a fact in their proposal that racism is the "root cause of racially disparate health outcomes" and that medical education is founded "on legacies of colonialism and racism."

On the basis of this ideological claim, they stressed that "we need curricula for training physicians to dismantle the systems that perpetuate these inequities. Since traditional approaches to medical education are themselves founded in inequitable systems, new approaches are essential."

Since a scientific, rational approach to problems of disease and injury — and training future doctors to tackle them — is apparently racist, the UCSF crew recommended the embrace of so-called racial affinity group caucuses.

RAGCs are "facilitated sessions involving participants grouped according to self-identified racial or ethnic identity to support integration of antiracism curricula into clinical practice."

The perceived utility of these RAGCs is that each racially segregated group can process critical race theory doctrine within the context of their "own racialized experience," that is without the intrusion of people who don't look like them.

Additionally, Lewis and company intimated that nonwhites can't hack it in existing medical schools, suggesting that non-segregated learning can be "retraumatizing, resulting in imposter syndrome, heightened anxiety, and a reduced sense of belonging."

To remedy this "reduced sense of belonging," the UCSF crew proposed group isolation.

"Some BIPOC people have been socialized to care for the egos of White people, to express their emotions only in ways that are palatable to White audiences, and to tread lightly around 'White fragility,'" said the proposal. "In a space without White people, BIPOC participants can bring their whole selves, heal from racial trauma together, and identify strategies for addressing structural racism."

The academics further noted that the UCSF School of Medicine has successfully piloted this segregationist initiative, using RAGCs for struggle sessions, "optional spaces for students and trainees to debrief about current events," and for re-education attempts.

While Lewis and her fellow segregationists reckon black people and other "people of color" ought to exploit these RAGCs to "build community, deepen their understanding of and healing from racism ... express a full range of emotions," and altogether celebrate their racial perspectives, they conversely figure white people should use these opportunities to escape and/or dismantle their racial perspective.

\u201cRacial affinity group caucuses \u2014 facilitated sessions for learners who join groups according to self-identified racial or ethnic identity \u2014 can help integrate antiracism curricula into clinical practice. https://t.co/YW71FiYfRS\u201d
— NEJM (@NEJM) 1682960400

Backlash

Do Not Harm, a medical group committed to protecting health care from being undermined by a political agenda, condemned the proposal, noting on Twitter that it amounted to "racial segregation in medical education."

"This sends a deeply concerning message about the priorities and principles of what is supposedly the most prestigious journal in American medicine. Our physicians and patients deserve better," said Do Not Harm.

The group's founder, Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania’s medical school, blasted the New England Journal of Medicine and called on it to "apologize for running such an illiberal and extremist article," reported the Daily Mail.

"'It is difficult to understand how such offensive language made it past the gatekeepers of this prestigious institution," Goldfarb wrote in a letter to the journal. "In these same pages, authors and editors have been covering the unprecedented exodus of physicians and other staff leaving the clinical profession due to demoralization, burnout, and toxic work environments."

"Have you considered the possibility that divisive and highly politicized pieces such as this might be worsening this crisis, in addition to moving medical education toward segregation?" added Goldfarb.

He further highlighted that the proposal's authors simultaneously stated that nonwhite medical students "are incapable of succeeding in the presence of students of other races" and "white people are inherently menacing."

Goldfarb indicated that this "morally abhorrent" proposal will likely be subjected to federal challenge and has started a petition to prompt the journal to apologize.

The New York Post reported that Goldfarb previously indicated that so-called "anti-racism" policies, such as those advocated by Lewis and the UCSF crew, are "lowering standards, reducing students to the color of their skin and corrupting medicine in general."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Medical group sues Pfizer for 'open' discrimination against whites and Asians: Report



A group of medical professionals and other health care associates has sued pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. for supposedly discriminating against "white and Asian-American applicants" for one of its fellowship programs.

Earlier this month, Do No Harm — which describes itself as "a diverse group of physicians, healthcare professionals, medical students, patients, and policymakers" who wish to "[p]rotect healthcare from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology" — filed a lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan to end the supposedly discriminatory aspects of Pfizer's Breakthrough Fellowship Program.

Pfizer claims that it established BFP "to increase minority representation at Pfizer" and "to enhance [its] pipeline of diverse leaders." To achieve that end, BFP recipients are given funding for: several summer internships, a master's degree, and pre- and post-graduate employment at the company. However, Pfizer limits those who may apply for BFP. In addition to being a U.S. citizen or resident; a junior at an accredited college or university; interested in a master's in business, pharmacology, or statistics; and willing to remain in or relocate to New York City, applicants must "[m]eet the program’s goals of increasing the pipeline for Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic and Native Americans."

In other words, Do No Harm alleges, whites and Asian-Americans need not apply. Such a policy, Do No Harm states, is "discriminatory on its face."

"Racial discrimination demeans us," the complaint continues.

Not only does Do No Harm insist that this form of racial discrimination is wrong, the group also alleges that "open exclusion of white and Asian-American applicants is illegal" because it violates municipal, state, and federal civil rights laws as well as laws regulating which companies can receive federal funding.

The lawsuit seeks to end the discriminatory BFP requirements, prevent Pfizer from discriminating against white and Asian-American applicants for the 2023 BFP awards, and collect $1 in compensatory damages.

However, Pfizer seems unfazed by either the lawsuit or the accusations. Though representatives of the COVID vaccine manufacturer claim they had not read the entire lawsuit, they said they have "every confidence" that Pfizer's policies comply with all local, state, and federal employment laws.

"We will continue to strive to create more opportunity," the statement from Pfizer said, "including through specific programs designed to cast a wide net for talent."

As it stands, Pfizer said it hopes to develop 100 fellows within the next three years.

Google has also recently come under fire for supposedly discriminating against whites and Asians in one of its Ph.D. fellowship programs.

"The Google Fellowship program is a blatantly unlawful and immoral quota plan that pits students against one another by skin color and ethnic heritage," said Edward Blum, the founder of Students for Fair Admissions. "Our nation’s enduring civil rights laws were passed to specifically forbid this type of racial discrimination."

Like Pfizer, Google said that it stands by its policy.