In encouraging the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions, the AAP claims the treatments are reversible. The AG letter says that is “misleading and deceptive.”
“It is beyond medical debate that puberty blockers are not fully reversible, but instead come with serious long-term consequences,”
Attorney generals from 20 states and legislators from Arizona signed an interrogatory letter to the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) about the group’s support of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery for children and adolescents who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
“Often the AAP has exercised its influence responsibly,” states the letter. “… But when it comes to treating children diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the AAP has abandoned its commitment to sound medical judgment.”
The AG letter demanded responses to multiple questions about its child gender policies by October 8, and it stated AAP’s conduct is being reviewed further.
Idaho Attorney General Raul R. Labrador sent the letter, and AGs from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia signed it, as did the president of the Arizona State Senate and the speaker of the Arizona House.
Sounding an Alarm
The American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds), an alternative medical professional organization, has spent years sounding the alarm on AAP-approved transgender treatments.
ACPeds organized a coalition of health care professionals to create the Doctors Protecting Children Declaration, a document urging organizations to stop promoting what ACPeds calls unethical, harmful practices in treating children with gender dysphoria. Some 82,500 professionals and concerned citizens have signed the declaration.
“We have personally reached out to the AAP leadership and leaders of the other named organizations, asking them to put a stop to this, and have not received a response,” said ACPeds Executive Director Jill Simons, M.D.
“Unfortunately, the leadership of the AAP and other organizations have silenced their very members from engaging in medical discourse when they have put in question these harmful protocols, and they continue to double down on them even as they stand without evidence-based research to support their current positions,” said Simons.
Questioning What’s ‘Reversible’
In encouraging the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions, the AAP claims the treatments are reversible. The AG letter says that is “misleading and deceptive.”
“It is beyond medical debate that puberty blockers are not fully reversible, but instead come with serious long-term consequences,” the letter states.
The letter cites the widely recognized Cass Review commissioned by Britain’s National Health Service and published in April.
“The Cass Review was monumental in demonstrating, through the most thorough review of the research and current protocols and outcomes in England, that the current protocols of social affirmation, puberty blockers, and cross-sex hormones do not improve the health outcomes of children with gender dysphoria and in fact there is evidence of causing harm,” said Simons.
“Dr. Hilary Cass’s recommendation has shut down the practice of transitioning kids in England,” said Simons. “Many other European countries are also reversing course and returning to proven medical care, which is supportive mental health and addressing underlying diagnoses.”
Leaked files from the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) and a recent statement from the American Society of Plastics Surgeons have bolstered the case against surgical and hormonal trans treatments, says Simons.
APA, AMA Uninterested
A growing number of people are recognizing the validity of the studies, says Dr. Tim Millea, chair of the Health Care Policy Committee and Conscience Rights Protection Task Force of the Catholic Medical Association (CMA).
“Physician organizations such as AAP and [American Medical Association] appear to be uninterested in those studies, at the expense of ongoing harm to Americans that they encourage to enter the ‘gender-industrial’ medical system,” said Millea. “It seems to be true that the leadership of these groups prioritize ideology over science, which is a dereliction of duty in the vocation of medicine.”
Doctors Afraid to Speak Out
Most U.S. pediatricians are members of the AAP. Dissent within the organization has led to the development of alternative professional organizations such as ACPeds. The AAP is too radical for most pediatricians, though they are reluctant to say so, says Simons.
“I speak to countless pediatricians who are members of the AAP who disagree with the AAP’s policies and fully support our efforts to put a stop to these unethical protocols, but they are truly fearful of losing their jobs and the harms that will come to them if they speak out,” said Simons. “I unfortunately speak to pediatricians who have been reprimanded and even fired for speaking out.”
Going to Court
The AAP has been named in multiple lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. Members of ACPeds have served as expert witnesses and submitted amicus briefs to fight the AAP’s gender treatment protocols.
ACPeds also filed a lawsuit against the Biden-Harris administration for its rule requiring doctors to perform gender transition procedures on minors against their medical judgment.
“The American College of Pediatricians is filing this lawsuit against HHS because doctors should never be forced to violate their sound medical judgment and perform life-altering and sterilizing interventions on their patients,” stated ACPeds news release. “Our doctors take an oath to do no harm, but the Biden administration’s rule forces them to violate this oath and perform procedures that are harmful and dangerous to our patients– vulnerable children. What the Biden Administration is calling for is wrong and unlawful.”
Over the past several years, the CMA has been involved in gender intervention cases around the country and plans to file an amicus brief for the Supreme Court case United States v. Skrmetti, scheduled to be heard during the current session.
Changing the Culture
CMA hosted a two-hour panel discussion on September 8, 2024, in which several de-transitioners recounted the harms they suffered from gender transition procedures as minors. The organization wants to make sex-change procedures among children, teens, and young adults unthinkable, says Millea.
“There are three areas of emphasis to accomplish that goal, and two of them are judicial and legislative,” said Millea. “The third is of greatest importance, and that is cultural. The public needs to learn and understand the negative and lifelong risks and complications of gender transition.
“We remain hopeful that doctors will push back against these protocols and follow their oath to do no harm,” said Simons. “There will be a tipping point when doctors are no longer fearful and will speak out.”
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
The changes are expected to reduce the agency’s headcount from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a significant restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday in a move to streamline the huge federal agency and cut costs.
Kennedy plans to trim about 10,000 employees from the agency’s workforce in addition to employees who left as part of a Deferred Resignation Program, similar to a buy out, earlier this year. The move is expected to save about $1.8 billion.
Kennedy said the restructuring won’t affect the agency’s critical services. When combined with HHS’ other efforts, including early retirement, the changes are expected to reduce the agency’s headcount from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees. The restructuring will also align the department with Kennedy’s goals for a healthier U.S. population.
“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” Kennedy said. “This Department will do more – a lot more – at a lower cost to the taxpayer.”
Kennedy also said the restructuring of the department’s 28 divisions will get rid of redundant units, consolidating them into “15 new divisions, including a new Administration for a Healthy America, or AHA, and will centralize core functions such as Human Resources, Information Technology, Procurement, External Affairs, and Policy.” Regional offices will be reduced from 10 to 5.
The overhaul will implement the new “HHS priority of ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness by focusing on safe, wholesome food, clean water, and the elimination of environmental toxins. These priorities will be reflected in the reorganization of HHS.”
Kennedy also said the restructuring would improve taxpayers’ experience with HHS by making the agency more responsive and efficient. He also said the changes would ensure that Medicare, Medicaid, and other essential health services remain intact.
The Administration for a Healthy America will combine multiple agencies – the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Health Resources and Services Administration, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health — into a single, unified entity, Kennedy said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will get the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, which is responsible for national disaster and public health emergency response.
“Over time, bureaucracies like HHS become wasteful and inefficient even when most of their staff are dedicated and competent civil servants,” Kennedy said. “This overhaul will be a win-win for taxpayers and for those that HHS serves.”
Among the cuts: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will shed about 3,500 full-time employees. Officials said the reduction won’t affect drug, medical device, or food reviewers, nor will it impact inspectors. The CDC will drop about 2,400 employees. The National Institutes of Health will cut about 1,200 employees. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will cut about 300 employees. The reorganization won’t affect Medicare and Medicaid services, officials said.
Now seated at the helm of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is poised to reshape not only the agency’s research priorities but the very culture that pushed him to the fringe.
Imagine spending your career studying infectious diseases, only to find that the real virus spreading uncontrollably is censorship. That was the reality for Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford epidemiologist who committed the unpardonable sin of questioning the COVID-19 lockdown orthodoxy. His punishment? Digital exile, courtesy of Silicon Valley’s Ministry of Truth.
In December 2022, the Twitter Files exposed what many had long suspected: Twitter had quietly placed Bhattacharya’s account on a Trends Blacklist. This ensured that his posts, often critical of lockdowns and mask mandates, would never see the light of day on the platform’s trending topics. In other words, Twitter’s algorithm worked like a digital bouncer, making sure his dissenting opinions never made it past the velvet rope.
And Twitter wasn’t alone. Facebook, ever eager to please its government handlers, scrubbed the Great Barrington Declaration from its pages. That document, co-authored by Bhattacharya and other esteemed scientists, dared to suggest that maybe, just maybe, locking down entire populations wasn’t the best strategy. Instead, it proposed focused protection for the most vulnerable while allowing the rest of society to function. For this, it was sent to the digital equivalent of a gulag.
These experiences took center stage during Bhattacharya’s Senate confirmation hearing for the directorship of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Republican lawmakers, who suddenly found themselves cast as the last defenders of free speech in scientific discourse, saw his nomination as a win.
During his testimony, Bhattacharya didn’t mince words. He detailed how the Biden administration played an active role in orchestrating the suppression of alternative views. It wasn’t enough for officials to push their own pandemic policies — they needed to ensure that no one, regardless of expertise, could challenge them in the public square.
The Science™ vs. The Science
Bhattacharya’s testimony laid bare an uncomfortable truth: the pandemic was a crisis of speech. “The root problem was that people who had alternative ideas were suppressed,” he told Sen. Ashley Moody (R-Fla.). “I personally was subject to censorship by the actions of the Biden administration during the pandemic.”
In a functioning society, that statement would spark bipartisan outrage. Instead, it barely registered. The people who spent years chanting “trust the science” were never interested in science at all.
Real science thrives on debate, skepticism, and the understanding that no single expert — no matter how credentialed—holds absolute truth. But during COVID, science became The Science™ — a government-approved doctrine enforced by Silicon Valley moderators and federal bureaucrats. Deviate from it, and you weren’t just wrong. You were dangerous.
A government-sanctioned muzzle
Bhattacharya wasn’t silenced in some haphazard, accidental way. The Biden administration actively leaned on social media companies to “moderate” voices like his. In practice, that meant tech executives — most of whom couldn’t tell a virus from a viral tweet — decided which epidemiologists the public was allowed to hear.
He responded with a lawsuit against the administration, accusing it of colluding with Big Tech to crush dissent. But in a ruling as predictable as it was revealing, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, arguing that Bhattacharya and his fellow plaintiffs lacked standing. Meaning: Yes, the government may have pressured private companies into silencing critics, but unless you can prove exactly how that harmed you, don’t expect the courts to care.
The real role of science
Despite everything, Bhattacharya didn’t argue for scientists to dictate policy. Unlike the public health bureaucrats who spent the pandemic issuing commandments from their Zoom thrones, he made it clear: “Science should be an engine for freedom,” he said. “Not something where it stands on top of society and says, ‘You must do this, this or this, or else.’”
That distinction matters. Science informs, but policy is about trade-offs. The problem wasn’t that officials got things wrong — it’s that they refused to admit the possibility. Instead of allowing open debate, they silenced critics. Instead of acknowledging uncertainty, they imposed rules with absolute certainty.
Bhattacharya wasn’t censored because he was wrong. He was censored because he questioned people who couldn’t afford to be.
His confirmation hearing made one thing clear: science wasn’t about data. It was about power. And in Washington, power doesn’t like to be questioned.
Science, money and power
At the heart of the hearing was a fundamental question: Who controls science that people are allowed to talk about? The NIH, with its $48 billion budget, is less a research institution and more a financial leviathan, shaping the direction of American science through the projects it funds (or doesn’t) fund.
Bhattacharya’s nomination comes at a moment when the battle lines around scientific freedom, government intervention, and public trust in research are more entrenched than ever. The pandemic shattered the illusion that science was above politics. Instead, it exposed just how much political and corporate interests shape what counts as “settled” science.
The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife. The man once branded too dangerous for social media, blacklisted for questioning lockdowns, and effectively erased from mainstream discourse is now being handed a key role in the very government that tried to silence him. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, once forced to the margins, is now at the center of power.
A new administration has decided that maybe — just maybe — silencing dissenting scientists wasn’t the best pandemic strategy. And in a twist no Hollywood scriptwriter would dare to pitch for being too on-the-nose, Bhattacharya wasn’t being welcomed back into the conversation — he’s being put in charge of it.
Bhattacharya was confirmed following a party-line vote Tuesday evening. The decision came after a similarly partisan endorsement from the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), clearing the final hurdle for President Donald Trump’s nominee.
Equally central to his testimony was Bhattacharya’s call for a sweeping shift in NIH priorities. He proposed a decentralization of research funding, stressing the need for greater inclusion of dissenting voices in the scientific process, an apparent rebuke of the consensus-driven culture that dominated during the pandemic. He emphasized targeting resources toward projects with a clear and measurable impact on public health, dismissing other NIH initiatives as “frivolous.”
Now seated at the helm of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is poised to reshape not only the agency’s research priorities but the very culture that pushed him to the fringe. His confirmation, hard-won and unapologetically political, is already shaking the scaffolding of a scientific establishment that long equated conformity with consensus.
