Gender ideologues' false narratives and monstrous practices were never a match for common sense, close scrutiny, and ethical review. Nevertheless they were championed in recent years by radical politicians, educators, health professionals, and clerics at the expense of confused minors and mentally compromised adults.

It appears that at least one major professional medical association that previously supported so-called "gender-affirming care" is belatedly correcting course in the wake of a federal crackdown, an overwhelming shift in public opinion, and proof that the sex-rejection regime is vulnerable to civil lawsuits.

'Plastic surgeons should adopt a posture of heightened caution ... recognizing that their role is not simply technical but ethical.'

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, a group founded in 1931 that represents over 11,000 physician members, claimed in 2019 that it firmly believed "that plastic surgery services can help gender dysphoria patients align their bodies with whom they know themselves to be and improve their overall mental health and well-being." The ASPS further criticized Republican-supported restrictions on so-called "gender-affirming care."

The surgeon group signaled a major change of heart on Wednesday in a policy statement regarding its views "on breast/chest, genital, and facial gender surgery for individuals under the age of 19."

The ASPS noted that in recent years, "a number of international health systems and professional bodies initiated formal re-examinations of earlier clinical practice assumptions in response to patient presentation and a growing uncertainty about the benefits of medical and surgical interventions."

"Systematic reviews and evidence reassessments have subsequently identified limitations in study quality, consistency, and follow-up alongside emerging evidence of treatment complications and potential harms," added the ASPS.

The ASPS made repeated reference both to the United Kingdom's damning 388-page Cass Review, which underscored that the sex-rejection regime was built on weak and unreliable evidence, and to the Department of Health and Human Services' exhaustive peer-reviewed 410-page 2025 report, titled "Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices," which elaborated further on the pseudoscientific and harmful nature of so-called "gender-affirming care."

Luis Soto/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

The surgeons' group noted that these reports and other scientific literature "have contributed to a clearer understanding of potential harms, while also highlighting limitations of the available evidence, including gaps in documenting long-term physical, psychological, and psychosocial outcomes."

In addition to enjoying greater clarity about the ruinous and irreversible nature of "gender-affirming care" and the lack of quality evidence to support its practice, the ASPS noted that "available evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of children with prepubertal onset gender dysphoria experience resolution or significant reduction of distress by the time they reach adulthood, absent medical or surgical intervention."

The ASPS noted in conclusion that "there is insufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for the pathway of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents" and recommended that surgeons "delay gender-related breast/chest, genital, and facial surgery until a patient is at least 19 years old."

The surgeon group indicated further that "plastic surgeons should adopt a posture of heightened caution, enhanced documentation, and explicit uncertainty disclosure, recognizing that their role is not simply technical but ethical."

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., among the many who celebrated the ASPS' disavowal of child sex-rejecting practices, stated, "We commend the American Society of Plastic Surgeons for standing up to the overmedicalization lobby and defending sound science."

"By taking this stand, they are helping protect future generations of American children from irreversible harm," added Kennedy.

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman at the medical advocacy group Do No Harm, said in a statement obtained by Blaze News, "High praise to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons for taking an important step toward ending the unscientific and harmful practice of sex-rejecting procedures on minors."

"The ASPS becomes the first major medical organization to support evidence-based and ethical medicine and reject, in their words, these harmful and irreversible procedures," continued Goldfarb. "The ASPS’s thoughtful, scientific, and well-reasoned statement today is a model for other medical organizations — namely the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and others — to follow and disavow their previous support for experimental and unscientific interventions."

Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

The ASPS issued its policy statement just days after a woman who underwent a sex-rejection surgery as a minor was awarded $2 million in the first medical malpractice lawsuit brought by a detransitioner to go to trial.

Fox Varian, 22, sued her New York-based psychologist and plastic surgeon, and their respective employers, after regretting the 2019 surgery that claimed her healthy breasts.

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 2024 that such lawsuits would help to, at the very least, make practitioners "think twice before they pick up a scalpel and remove the healthy breasts" of a young girl.

"It could be the malpractice carriers will stop covering — if they have to pay out huge amounts, they may think twice about covering the malpractice of these surgeons," added Grossman.

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

Who really controls behavioral health care — and why it matters now

Americans seeking mental health or addiction treatment often encounter a system that claims to coordinate care but rarely delivers it quickly. As demand for behavioral health services rises, a basic question deserves a clear answer: Who actually controls behavioral health care in the U.S., and is that control helping or hurting patients in crisis?

When someone finally reaches out for help, he encounters waiting lists, paperwork, and network gaps that push him toward emergency care or no care at all.

Nevada offers a revealing case study. The state’s Department of Health and Human Services certifies programs and distributes federal grants. County and regional commissions convene advisory meetings to reflect local priorities. Medicaid sets reimbursement rates and payment timelines. Managed-care organizations impose prior authorizations that can delay or deny treatment. Each layer is designed to promote accountability. Together, they often produce delays.

The result is not a coordinated system but a fragmented patchwork of public agencies, insurers, and contractors. Federal funding arrives with compliance requirements that consume clinicians’ time. States enact parity laws to ensure mental health and substance abuse treatment is covered like other medical care. Legislatures debate how to curb investor influence over clinical decisions, insisting that licensed professionals — not financial managers — direct care.

These tensions are unfolding as Washington rethinks the structure of federal health policy. The proposed Administration for a Healthy America would consolidate agencies such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration into a single entity. Supporters promise efficiency; critics warn that consolidation could slow local responses.

At the state level, the policy picture is equally unsettled. In 2025, lawmakers across the country revised behavioral health statutes with competing priorities: workforce shortages, crisis response systems, parity enforcement, and the elimination of out-of-pocket costs. Some states strengthened insurance mandates. Others reconstructed governance and funding to regain control over fragmented delivery systems.

Federal policy choices loom over the whole picture. Potential Medicaid funding cuts and weaker enforcement of mental health parity threaten access as demand continues to rise. Proposed budget changes could reduce support for community mental health clinics, suicide prevention programs, and substance abuse treatment — services that are often the last line of defense before emergency rooms or jails.

Shelby Tauber/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Technology adds another complication. States are beginning to regulate artificial intelligence in behavioral health, with some banning AI-driven psychotherapy outright and others exploring guardrails for diagnostic or treatment support tools. These debates reflect a larger concern: the potential for innovation to replace clinicians or create unregulated substitutes for human judgment.

What patients experience is the cumulative effect of misaligned authority. Financial power, regulatory oversight, and clinical delivery point in different directions. When someone finally reaches out for help, he encounters waiting lists, paperwork, and network gaps that push him toward emergency care or no care at all.

Reform should start with three principles. First, policymakers must reduce administrative burdens that trap providers in compliance while patients wait. Second, insurance reforms must deliver real parity in access — not just coverage on paper. Third, oversight should protect quality while allowing local systems to innovate and respond quickly to community needs.

Behavioral health care is not a niche service. It is a public safety imperative and a core function of a serious health system. Until policy shifts its focus from control to care, patients will continue to pay the price.

Rigged report exposed: Utah review appears to defend child sex-altering drugs while ignoring sterility and sexual risk

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) ratified legislation in January 2023 prohibiting health care providers from providing sex-altering surgeries or drugs to minors.

The law, which enraged gender ideologues and other non-straight activists, also required the Utah Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a "systematic review of the medical evidence regarding hormonal transgender treatments and provide recommendations to the Legislature."

The HHS' statutorily mandated review, which was completed last year then submitted in May 2025 to the legislature, painted the ruinous trans-drugs — which are also used to sterilize sex offenders — in a positive light, characterizing them as "effective."

According to a damning new report from the medical advocacy group Do No Harm, however, the Utah review — which was conducted on behalf of the HHS by the University of Utah College of Pharmacy's Drug Regimen Review Center — "is filled with falsehoods and serves as an aid to push harmful medical interventions as the answer to minors’ confusion, all while blatantly ignoring the associated risks."

'Utah legislators must not rely on a report that clearly undermines the safety and well-being of minors.'

While the executive summary for the review states that the HHS "does not take a position on whether to lift the moratorium" and the authors were not contracted to include a synthesis of the evidence they came across, the over-1,000-page review nevertheless delivers what is effectively an endorsement of sex-altering drugs for minors:

After having spent many months searching for, reading, and evaluating the available literature, it was impossible for us to avoid drawing some high-level conclusions. Namely, the consensus of the evidence supports that the treatments are effective in terms of mental health, psychosocial outcomes, and the induction of the body changes consistent with the affirmed gender in pediatric GD patients. The evidence also supports that the treatments are safe in terms of changes to bone density, cardiovascular risk factors, metabolic changes, and cancer.

Do No Harm indicated that the Utah review "deviates from established standards for systematic reviews, emphasizes the volume of evidence over its quality, relies uncritically on guidelines from self-proclaimed experts, neglects significant life-altering adverse effects, and includes input from advisers, some of whom demonstrate bias in favor of 'gender-affirming care' for minors."

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Do No Harm noted, for instance, that the review glossed over some of the worst, most life-changing effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, known as "puberty blockers," and cross-sex hormones — namely infertility, sterility, and sexual dysfunction. While admitting that "infertility is a known risk," the authors of the review didn't bother including it as an outcome of focus in their report. The risk of sexual dysfunction, meanwhile, was apparently not mentioned once.

Extra to leaning heavily on low-quality scientific literature, much of which was observational and not trial-based, the review may have also been ideologically contaminated. After all, among the advisers who consulted on the project were Nikki Mihalopoulos, chief of the division of adolescent medicine for the department of pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, and Brooks Keeshin, a professor of pediatrics at the university. Both have written positively about "gender-affirming care" for minors in recent years.

Mihalopoulos co-authored a 2021 paper that stated, "Pediatric health care providers can play a critical role in building solutions in policy and advocacy ... to improve the health of transgender/gender diverse youth. Many government entities, especially at the state and local level, actively resist efforts promoting equal rights."

Keeshin wrote in an article published last year that "as states pass adolescent bans on gender-affirming care across the country, Utah offers a potential pathway forward in restrictive states to help maintain or open access to care." Keeshin also suggested that some adolescents could benefit from radical sex-rejecting medical interventions.

Do No Harm concluded on the basis of these and other issues with the review that Utah lawmakers are better off turning to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' thorough and peer-reviewed report, which was released last month.

The federal HHS' report underscored that "the harms from sex-rejecting procedures — including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations — are significant, long-term, and too often ignored or inadequately tracked."

Michelle Havrilla, Do No Harm's director of programs, said in a statement, "This Utah Report is unreliable, unscientific, and fails to meet the standards of a systematic review."

"The Report’s inaccuracies and bias diminish its credibility and allow left-wing activists to weaponize it for their political machinations. Utah legislators must not rely on a report that clearly undermines the safety and well-being of minors," added Havrilla.

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

Study shows massive decline in peanut allergies after previous experts proven wrong

Health experts suggested in years past that mothers with familial predispositions to developing allergies should avoid peanut consumption during pregnancy and breastfeeding and that parents should avoid giving their children peanut products and other common allergens before the age of 3.

According to a National Institutes of Health-backed study published on Monday in the American Academy of Pediatrics' medical journal, Pediatrics, the strategy of avoidance appears to have been the wrong approach.

Background

After observing the prevalence of peanut allergy among children in Western countries double over the course of a decade, an international team of researchers evaluated studies of peanut consumption and avoidance to figure out which was the better approach.

'There are less kids with food allergy today than there would have been if we hadn’t implemented this public health effort.'

The researchers, whose work was partly funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, conducted a randomized trial of peanut consumption in infants at risk for peanut allergy and found that "early introduction of peanuts significantly decreased the frequency of the development of peanut allergy among children at high risk for this allergy and modulated immune responses to peanuts."

Following the 2015 publication of the trial results in the New England Journal of Medicine, numerous health organizations issued consensus-based interim guidance recommending early allergen introduction.

Years later, the NIAID, leaning on the trial data in the 2015 study, released guidelines recommending early introduction for all infants facing low risk of developing a peanut allergy and for high-risk infants where appropriate.

Photo by Amy Brothers/ The Denver Post

Exposure therapy

The new study in Pediatrics indicates that the exposure strategy was worthwhile and has resulted in a 27.2% reduction in the cumulative incidence of peanut allergy among children in the post-guidelines cohort versus the pre-guidelines cohort, and a reduction of over 40% when comparing the pre-guidelines cohort with the cohort situated after the 2017 release of the updated NIAID guidelines.

After analyzing health records from nearly 50 pediatric practices altogether tracking over 120,000 kids, the researchers behind the new study found that overall food allergy rates in kids under 3 dropped from 1.46% between 2012 and 2015 to 0.93% between 2017 and 2020.

The researchers noted further that a Canadian study found that the implementation of early peanut introduction guidelines "was associated with a significant decrease in new-onset anaphylaxis in children aged 2 years or younger."

"I can actually come to you today and say there are less kids with food allergy today than there would have been if we hadn’t implemented this public health effort," Dr. David Hill, an allergist at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and author of the study, told the Associated Press.

While about 60,000 kids have reportedly dodged food allergies since 2015, including 40,000 children who would have otherwise developed peanut allergies, 8% of children remain affected by food allergies. One reason the number remains high may be that only a minority of pediatricians — roughly 29% — indicated they followed the expanded guidance released in 2017.

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

RFK Jr. makes crystal clear to the CDC mutineers: The restoration of public trust 'won't stop'

Establishmentarians' worst fears are being realized at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is putting Americans' health first, challenging the failed status quo, and threatening Big Pharma's apparent influence over the agency.

While there now appears to be a sizeable mutiny under way at the CDC, Kennedy has made one thing crystal clear: He's not backing down.

Frustration with Kennedy has been mounting among medical establishmentarians for months.

'Once RFK provides the other side of the story, there is no turning back for a significant portion of the country.'

There has, for instance, been a great deal of pearl-clutching over his termination of the Biden appointees on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices whose coziness with pharmaceutical companies prompted questions about their vaccine recommendations; his removal of the COVID vaccine from the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule for healthy pregnant women and children; and his cancellation of mRNA vaccine development contracts.

This shake-up at the CDC continued last week with the White House's ouster of Susan Monarez as director — a removal her attorneys claimed was the result of her supposed refusal "to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts."

Amid Monarez's futile fight to keep her job — she has since been replaced by Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Jim O'Neill — other CDC officials threw in the towel, including Debra Houry, the chief medical officer; Daniel Jernigan, the director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Disease; and Demetre Daskalakis, the sex-obsessed homosexual "activist physician" who showed up in public wearing bondage gear and served as director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Following this changing of the guard, over 1,000 current and former HHS staff members released a letter on Wednesday demanding Kennedy's resignation from his position as health secretary.

The Save HHS campaign's letter, whose signatories are not publicly named but have been supposedly revealed to members of Congress, claims that Kennedy "continues to endanger the nation's health" by:

"facilitating" the removal of Monarez;
"causing the resignations" of Daskalakis and his ilk;
appointing Dr. Robert Malone and other experts to ACIP who have in the past raised concerns about experimental vaccines;
rescinding the Food and Drug Administration's emergency use authorization for COVID vaccines; and
daring to say that "trusting experts is not a feature of either a science or democracy."

The Save HHS campaign did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

The Save HHS campaign indicates on its website that its partner organizations include Doctors for America, National Nurses United, and the American Public Health Organization.

The scientific advisory board of the Accountability Journalism Institute is apparently also a partner.

In its petition to remove Kennedy, the AJI's scientific advisory board claimed that President Donald Trump's health secretary "poses an immediate and long-term threat to the health of the American public."

The AJI scientific advisory board's claim appears to be a stone's thrown from a glass house. After all, a member of the board and signatory of the petition is Peter Daszak — the disgraced British zoologist who was formally debarred along with his scandal-plagued organization EcoHealth Alliance in January by the HHS.

Former CDC Director Susan Monarez and ex-CDC official Demetre Daskalakis. Photo (left): Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images; Photo (right): Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images

Blaze News senior editor Daniel Horowitz, author of "Rise of the Fourth Reich: Confronting COVID Fascism with a New Nuremberg Trial So This Never Happens Again," noted to Blaze News, "The reason you are seeing so much mutiny against RFK Jr. is because unlike many of the Trump legal and policy changes, which can easily be changed under the next administration, CDC guidance is much more of a cultural influence straight down to individual parents and doctors."

"For years, the industry relied on an air-tight unanimity of opinion in health care and government that every vaccine was as pure as the wind-driven snow and absolutely indispensable for every baby born in this country," wrote Horowitz.

"Once RFK provides the other side of the story, there is no turning back for a significant portion of the country because ultimately it relies on the public confidence in vaccines," continued Horowitz. "It's not like immigration policies with TPS, parole, and expedited removal that the next president can just reinstate the prior policies from day one."

Kennedy noted in an op-ed on Tuesday that while the CDC "was once the world's most trusted guardian of public health" with a mission both clear and noble, "over the decades, bureaucratic inertia, politicized science, and mission creep have corroded that purpose and squandered public trust."

'The CDC must restore public trust — and that restoration has begun.'

The health secretary turned the endangerment accusation on its head, pointing out that the CDC under previous management "produced irrational policy during COVID: cloth masks on toddlers, arbitrary 6-foot distancing, boosters for healthy children, prolonged school closings, economy-crushing lockdowns, and the suppression of low-cost therapeutics in favor of experimental and ineffective drugs."

"The toll was devastating. America is home to 4.2% of the world’s population but suffered 19% of COVID deaths," added Kennedy.

The health secretary noted further that the "truth must no longer be ignored" about the downsides of vaccines, antibiotics, and therapeutics and that "infectious and chronic illness are linked."

Kennedy indicated that his ACIP housecleaning and the replacement of CDC leaders who "resisted reform" were meaningful steps toward restoring trust, eliminating conflicts of interest, and curbing "bureaucratic complacency" at the agency but that there was still much work to be done.

"The CDC must restore public trust — and that restoration has begun," wrote Kennedy. "It won't stop until America’s public health institutions again serve the people with transparency, honesty, and integrity."

To this end, Kennedy indicated that the agency will modernize systems, enhance scientific rigor, build infrastructure, and empower states and communities.

HHS communications director Andrew Nixon said in a statement to Blaze News, "Secretary Kennedy has been clear: The CDC has been broken for a long time. Restoring it as the world’s most trusted guardian of public health will take sustained reform and more personnel changes."

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

FDA blasts 'politically motivated' criticism over review of SSRI health risks during pregnancy

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is pushing back against criticism from medical establishmentarians over the agency's willingness to take a closer look at the health risks posed by antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, during pregnancy.

Various health organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, accused FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, his agency, and the participants in an expert panel discussion that Makary hosted last month of disseminating "inaccurate" information and of making "outlandish" claims.

'Adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents.'

An FDA spokesperson defended the agency's discussions with experts on the topic, suggesting to Blaze News that the critiques of the agency's expert advisory process were "politically driven."

Dr. Jay Gingrich, professor of developmental psychology at the Columbia University Medical Center, noted during the July 21 panel discussion that while expectant mothers suffering depression have long been prescribed SSRIs, it was not until recently that any substantial research was undertaken to determine whether these drugs improved outcomes in the mothers' offspring.

JAMA Medical News confirmed that no randomized clinical trials have been undertaken, due partly to ethical concerns. Despite the absence of such trial data, 6%-8% of pregnant women are reportedly prescribed SSRIs in the United States.

After observing in rodent trials that the mice born of female mice exposed to SSRIs exhibited "stark changes in behavior" and "changes in the brain," Gingrich explored with Finnish researchers whether SSRI exposure in the womb was similarly consequential for human children and found that it was.

Farrukh Saeed/Getty Images

A study co-authored by Gingrich and published earlier this year in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications provided further confirmation of negative impacts, revealing that "adolescents exposed to SSRIs in utero exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed adolescents and also had greater activation of the amygdala and other limbic structures when processing fearful faces."

The study concluded that "SSRIs are a common therapeutic strategy in perinatal maternal emotional disorders, however the present cross-species data and prior studies on single species indicate that we need more mechanistic understanding of how pharmacological factors like SSRIs impact early brain development and later result in maladaptive behaviors."

'The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings.'

Dr. Adam Urato, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at MetroWest Medical Center in Massachusetts, told his fellow panelists that he has observed in recent years women increasingly taking antidepressants during pregnancy, in many cases thinking SSRIs "don't affect the baby or cause complications."

"These drugs alter the mom’s brain. Why wouldn't they affect the baby’s?" said Urato. "We can see it on prenatal ultrasound. The ultrasound studies show SSRI-exposed fetuses have different movement and behavior patterns. After birth the newborn babies can have jitteriness, breathing difficulties, and higher rates of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit."

"The public needs better information, and the FDA must strengthen the warnings," Urato underscored. "For example, there's currently no warning regarding preterm birth or preeclampsia. The postpartum hemorrhage warning needs to be strengthened. But perhaps the major shortcoming is that the label doesn't make clear that SSRIs alter fetal brain development."

The concerns raised by Gingrich, Urato, and the other panelists evidently ruffled some feathers at organizations that champion the use of SSRIs during pregnancy.

Steven Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, rushed to complain, stating shortly after the conclusion of the panel discussion that it "was alarmingly unbalanced and did not adequately acknowledge the harms of untreated perinatal mood disorders in pregnancy," adding, "Robust evidence has shown that SSRIs are safe in pregnancy and that most do not increase the risk of birth defects.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' current practice guidelines reportedly recommend SSRIs as a first-line pharmacotherapy for mothers between the time of conception and up until a year after the baby's birth.

Fleischman told JAMA Medical News last week that the panel may "incite fear and cause patients to come to false conclusions that could prevent them from getting the treatment they need."

'Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health.'

Marketa Wills, CEO of the American Psychiatric Association, echoed Fleischman in a July 25 letter to Makary, stating, "We are alarmed and concerned by the misinterpretations and unbalanced viewpoints shared by several of the panelists."

"The inaccurate interpretation of data, and the use of opinion, rather than the years of research on antidepressant medications, will exacerbate stigma and deter pregnant individuals from seeking necessary care," wrote Wills.

In addition to stating that "the overall evidence suggests that individuals can and should take SSRIs prior to or during pregnancy, when they are clinically indicated for treatment," Wills claimed that "recent meta-analyses have found no association between prenatal SSRI exposure and overall risk of birth defects."

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine similarly complained, suggesting that the panelists made "unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims."

Dobrila Vignjevic/Getty Images stock photo

Other groups similarly outraged by the discussion of possible downsides to drugs characterized as safe and effective include Postpartum Support International, the National Curriculum in Reproductive Psychiatry , and the Massachusetts General Hospital for Women's Mental Health.

An FDA spokesperson told Blaze News, "The claim that the FDA’s expert advisory process is 'one-sided' or politically driven is insulting to the independent scientists, clinicians, and researchers who dedicate their expertise to these panels."

"FDA expert panels are roundtable discussions with independent panels of scientific experts that will review the latest scientific evidence, evaluate potential health risks, explore safer alternatives, and individual experts may offer their recommendations for regulatory action," continued the spokesperson. "This initiative is part of the FDA’s broader efforts to apply rigorous, evidence-based standards to ingredient safety and modernize regulatory oversight, thoroughly considering evolving science and consumer health."

The spokesperson noted that "Commissioner Makary has an interest in ensuring policies reflect the latest gold-standard science and protect public health" and stated that suggesting "his engagement on women’s health signals a desire to manipulate outcomes is politically motivated and undermines the serious work being done to improve care for millions of women."

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

There Is No Way To Moderate Transgenderism. It Must Be Destroyed

A New York Times author quietly made a series of admissions that, only a few years ago, would have been dismissed as reactionary bigotry.

Pandemic fallout: Study finds parents are increasingly taking a stand on vaccines

Experimental vaccines were rushed to market during the pandemic, then advertised as "safe and effective" by government officials, the establishment media, and pharmaceutical representatives. Those who said otherwise or asked too many inconvenient questions were attacked and censored. Meanwhile, affordable alternative treatments were suppressed and/or characterized by supposed experts as dangerous quackery.

This profitable private-public campaign to impose novel vaccines on the American population was not advanced merely through propaganda, the silencing of dissenting voices, and through uncompetitive practices; it also depended upon straightforward coercion.

Only 40% of parents said they plan to load their child up with all of the recommended vaccines.

For instance, the Biden administration mandated that federal employees and even military service members get the jab. Millions of other Americans across the country were also told to offer up their arms if they wanted to keep their jobs, eat in public, stay in school, or visit their loved ones.

Adding injury to insult, it was later revealed that the vaccines were not as safe or as effective as advertised.

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-backed study published this month in the JAMA Network revealed that a great many American parents are no longer willing to blindly trust the medical establishment, at least not when it comes to the vaccination of their children.

According to the study, titled "Vaccination Intentions During Pregnancy and Among Parents of Young Children," 33% of parents surveyed who have children under age 5 indicated that they intend to delay or refuse some or all government-recommended vaccines for their child.

Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

Only 40% of parents said they plan to load their child up with all of the recommended vaccines; 20% said they plan to delay some vaccines.

While only 4% of first-time pregnant mothers said they intend to delay or refuse all recommended vaccines, 48% expressed uncertainty about childhood vaccination.

Children's Health Defense, which was chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from 2015 to 2023, noted, "Only 37% of young and expecting parents now plan to fully vaccinate their children — a seismic shift. Why? Because when parents ask real questions about the vaccine schedule to their pediatricians, they’re met with silence or deflection."

'If you dig into the hepatitis B stuff that they try to give to your child when they're born, you realize it's to inoculate a future population of drug addicts and prostitutes, not to protect your child.'

"No answers. No informed consent. Just blind trust demanded," continued CHD. "Parents aren't buying it anymore."

The study's authors, researchers from Emory University, suggested that the remedy for this uncertainty might be interventions during pregnancy.

"Given the high decisional uncertainty during pregnancy about vaccinating children after birth, there may be value in intervening during pregnancy to proactively support families with childhood vaccination decisions," wrote the authors.

Blaze News senior politics editor Christopher Bedford said, "I get text message requests every week on different threads — neighborhood threads, church threads, Knights of Columbus threads, political threads — from people asking, 'Hey, where can we find a doctor who's not going to force us to keep to the CDC regime, who's going to let us take it at our own pace, informed as parents?' And it's extremely difficult."

Bedford noted that in Northern Virginia and elsewhere, parents have taken to scouring the pages of pediatricians for signs of politicization in an effort to determine whether the doctors will "talk to you like a human being; whether they'll let you make your decision and space it out the way that you want."

"People are asking for what they can read, where they can learn more, because they just don't trust the experts any more," continued Bedford. "We've been lied to. The COVID vaccine, we now know, was a lie. If you dig into the hepatitis B stuff that they try to give to your child when they're born, you realize it's to inoculate a future population of drug addicts and prostitutes, not to protect your child. ... Parents just want a practice that will listen to them, take them seriously, and not be political — and it's wild how political it's gotten."

EKIN KIZILKAYA/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Jake Scott, a clinical associate professor of infectious diseases at Stanford University, indicated that whereas the childhood vaccine schedule contained around 11 doses protecting against seven diseases in 1986, the schedule now includes roughly 50 injections covering 16 diseases. Between 30 and 32 shots are typically required for kids to attend state schools.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who indicated during a recent congressional hearing that kids "get 69 to 92 jabs of vaccines between conception and when they are 18 years old" — a figure apparently higher than the one cited by Scott on account of certain brands requiring multiple doses — recently told Fox News host Martha MacCallum that none of the vaccines on the schedule have been safety-tested except for the COVID-19 vaccine.

"Nobody has an idea what the risk profiles are on these products, and we don't know whether they have anything to do with the epidemic of chronic disease," added Kennedy.

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

Another white flag! Child sex-change regime continues to collapse under weight of Trump enforcement

President Donald Trump declared war on gender ideology and the corresponding child sex-change regime upon retaking office. Despite the best efforts of non-straight activists and overreaching federal judges, the campaign is off to an excellent start — as recently evidenced by Stanford Medicine's partial surrender.

Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 28 directing all federal agencies to ensure that medical institutions receiving federal funding "end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children" — an initiative that accords with popular opinion, which is majoritively against sex-change drugs and surgeries for children.

"Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child's sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions," wrote Trump. "This dangerous trend will be a stain on our Nation's history, and it must end."

It's clear that the president meant business — which in practice, has meant putting the sex-change regime out of business.

Children's Hospital Los Angeles — which reportedly had patients as young as 3 and billed millions of dollars for hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and sex-change mutilations for minors — announced last month that it was shuttering its child sex-change center after assessing the "severe impacts" of the Trump administration's actions and proposed policies.

Stanford Medicine revealed last week that it too was shuttering one of its youth sex-change practices.

'Her testes are nonfunctional, and in medicine, don't we often recommend the removal of nonfunctional organs like an appendix?'

The Stanford Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Clinic was founded in 2015 by pediatric endocrinologist Tandy Aye.

During a 2019 TED Talk, Aye suggested age should not determine when kids can have their genitals surgically removed and/or distorted.

"Doctors usually allow those who are 18 to make decisions about their procedures and consent so that you can weigh the risks and benefits," said Aye, a member of the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. "Well then, the transgender patient may be one of the most well-informed patients. Who else has had years of psychological evaluation, months of medical therapy, and has thought of this one procedure for so long?"

Aye suggested that in the case of a little boy sterilized after being pumped full of puberty blockers, conventional medical wisdom would dictate that his testicles should be removed.

"Her testes are nonfunctional, and in medicine, don't we often recommend the removal of nonfunctional organs like an appendix?" asked Aye. "So therefore, does it make sense for Avery to wait until she's 18?"

Some of Aye's colleagues at WPATH admitted behind closed doors that informed consent by minors was all but impossible.

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

It's clear that the Stanford clinic shares Aye's eagerness for putting children on the path to sterility and permanent discomfort, stating in its FAQ that it treats "transgender and gender diverse children, adolescents, and young adults" and "will see younger children before puberty starts for education, social support, and referral to mental health and community resources."

The clinic is, however, pausing the surgical side of its deformative practice.

Stanford told the San Francisco Chronicle in a June 24 statement, "After careful review of the latest actions and directives from the federal government and following consultations with clinical leadership, including our multidisciplinary LGBTQ+ program and its providers, Stanford Medicine paused providing gender-related surgical procedures as part of our comprehensive range of medical services for LGBTQ+ patients under the age of 19, effective June 2, 2025."

"We took this step to protect both our providers and patients," said Stanford. "This was not a decision we made lightly, especially knowing how deeply this impacts the individuals and families who depend on our essential care and support."

'Children deserve evidence-based care, not irreversible harm backed by political activists.'

The decision to pause genital mutilation at the clinic, which will reportedly continue to provide other forms of sex-change "care," was supposedly made before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee Republicans' ban on sex-change genital mutilations and sterilizing puberty blockers for minors on June 18.

Similar laws are on the books in 23 other red states.

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chairman at the medical advocacy group Do No Harm, told Blaze News in a statement, "It is encouraging that Stanford Medicine has joined the ranks of medical systems ending experimental sex-change surgeries on children. However, Stanford Medicine should remain under scrutiny for its history of performing these procedures and its continued use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on children."

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

"As the administration continues to investigate and take regulatory action against hospitals that harm gender confused kids, it should by no means give Stanford Medicine a pass until it complies with HHS' recommendations for treating gender dysphoria," continued Goldfarb. "Children deserve evidence-based care, not irreversible harm backed by political activists."

As Goldfarb alluded, the Trump administration is bringing the full weight of the law down on those who would mutilate children on the basis of pseudoscience and false, ideologically driven narratives.

Attorney General Pam Bondi noted in an April 22 memo that pursuant to Trump's executive order, she was directing all Department of Justice employees "to enforce rigorous protections and hold accountable those who prey on vulnerable children and their parents."

Just last week, the FBI launched criminal probes into Boston Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital Colorado, and Children's Hospital Los Angeles — all three listed on medical advocacy group Do No Harm's list of the 12 worst offending institutions that promote sex changes for minors.

Time will tell whether the administration will take a similar approach to Stanford.

Blaze News has reached out to the Department of Justice for comment.

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

Scientific American attacks Jay Bhattacharya for prioritizing Americans' autonomy over 'the science'

Scientific American, a 179-year-old magazine published by the German-British Springer Nature Group, appears increasingly keen to dirty itself with politics rather than engage in clean science.

Just weeks after Laura Helmuth stepped down as the magazine's editor in chief after an ugly rant in which she effectively called over 77.3 million Americans who voted for President-elect Donald Trump both "fascists" and "bigoted," and months after the magazine pushed gender ideologues' pseudoscientific narrative, Scientific American published a piece claiming that Trump's choice of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to run the National Institutes of Health is "the wrong move for science and public health."

Extra to insinuating that Bhattacharya was not actually censored during the pandemic and arguing that the destructive approach championed by the scientific establishment during the pandemic was not authoritarian, the author of the piece, Steven Albert, concern-mongered that Trump's pick might prioritize Americans' personal autonomy if confirmed as head of the NIH.

Debate over therapeutics, health protocols, and the origin of COVID-19 was stifled during the pandemic. Bhattacharya, among the experts whose views were suppressed at the urging of Biden health officials, refused to uncritically accept the prevailing wisdom of medical establishmentarians who advocated for lockdowns, vaccine mandates, masking for kids, and other ruinous COVID-19 policies.

Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford University, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which suggested that geriatrics and other higher-risk groups should engage in shielding, whereas healthy individuals should "immediately be allowed to resume life as normal." According to the declaration, healthy individuals were better off catching the virus and developing natural immunity.

Scientific establishmentarians keen on coercive medicine and blanket lockdowns attacked Bhattacharya for proposing this alternative approach. President Joe Biden's former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci called the declaration "total nonsense." Former National Institutes of Health Director Dr. Francis Collins conspired to issue a "quick and devastating takedown" of Bhattacharya's criticism.

In the weeks since Trump announced that Bhattacharya would "restore the NIH to a Gold Standard of Medical Research," establishmentarians have resumed their attacks on the esteemed epidemiologist both at home and abroad.

'Pitting personal autonomy against the application of science to policy is fine for vanity webcasts and think tanks.'

Steven Albert, Hallen chair of community health and social justice at the University of Pittsburgh's School of Public Health, jumped on the bandwagon, griping in the pages of Scientific American about Bhattacharya's criticism of the "authoritarian tendencies of public health" and his advocacy for turning "the NIH from something that's sort of how to control society into something that's aimed at the discovery of truth to improve the health of Americans."

"The claims of authoritarianism are a screen for pushing a particular agenda that is likely to damage the NIH. Bhattacharya's science agenda is political: to set concerns for personal autonomy against evidence-based public health science," wrote Albert. "This is not appropriate for NIH leadership."

Albert expressed concern that Bhattacharya's apparent prioritization of Americans' God-given and Constitution-secured rights over health policy might prompt him to take a stand against "enforced vaccine requirements for children attending public schools" or perhaps even against the introduction of fluoride in drinking water, which the National Toxicology Program recently admitted can cause mental retardation in kids at the exposure levels seen in various places around the country.

"Pitting personal autonomy against the application of science to policy is fine for vanity webcasts and think tanks, but inappropriate for NIH leadership. If he would rather focus on promoting personal autonomy in pandemic policy, perhaps he is being nominated to the wrong agency," wrote Albert.

Albert further suggested — in the pages of a magazine that not only platformed the claim on the heels of a rushed vaccine rollout that "there is no question that the current vaccines are effective and safe" but also echoed the discredited thesis of a paper in its sister journal that the COVID-19 virus likely had zoonotic origins — that Bhattacharya's critical views "are one more unfortunate legacy of the COVID pandemic."

Albert defended the failed pandemic policies that Bhattacharya previously criticized, claiming that "science supported school closures, work-from-home policies, large gathering restrictions in public spaces, and face mask requirements as effective ways to lower hospital surges and buy time for vaccine development."

The "science" that Albert trusted in the case of school closures clearly needed the kind of second-guessing advocated by Bhattacharya, given that the closures put multitudes of school children years behind in math, reading, science, and general learning and have been linked to massive spikes in mental illness, suicide, and obesity.

After making the grossly ahistoric claim that "it is not authoritarian to use science for policy" and accusing Trump of dealing in falsehoods, Albert claimed that "income inequality and access to health care," not "authoritarianism in science or public health," were responsible for the devastation wreaked upon the country during the pandemic.

Albert wrapped up his hit piece by complaining about Bhattacharya possibly decentralizing the agency's functions and shifting NIH grant funding to the states; banning dangerous gain-of-function research and experiments using aborted baby parts; and depoliticizing science.

In response to Bhattacharya's nomination last month, Matt Kibbe, BlazeTV host of "Kibbe on Liberty" and "The Coverup," which recently featured the epidemiologist, noted, "Jay Bhattacharya was deemed a 'fringe epidemiologist' by former NIH Director Francis Collins, who demonized him for asking obvious questions about the government's authoritarian response to COVID. Now, Jay will take the helm at NIH and clean house of all those who corrupted public health and did so much damage to Americans during the pandemic. Karma is a b****."

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

Win for kids! Major surgeon group reverses course, comes out against child genital mutilation

Who really controls behavioral health care — and why it matters now

Rigged report exposed: Utah review appears to defend child sex-altering drugs while ignoring sterility and sexual risk

Study shows massive decline in peanut allergies after previous experts proven wrong

Background

Exposure therapy

RFK Jr. makes crystal clear to the CDC mutineers: The restoration of public trust 'won't stop'

FDA blasts 'politically motivated' criticism over review of SSRI health risks during pregnancy

There Is No Way To Moderate Transgenderism. It Must Be Destroyed

Pandemic fallout: Study finds parents are increasingly taking a stand on vaccines

Another white flag! Child sex-change regime continues to collapse under weight of Trump enforcement

Scientific American attacks Jay Bhattacharya for prioritizing Americans' autonomy over 'the science'

'This is a must-win': These 4 Republicans voted against banning trans surgeries on children

'Complete lizard person': Chuck Schumer gives stunningly tone-deaf remarks following Australia attack

Your tax dollars are building the robot class

Background

Exposure therapy

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.