Mary Gilleece
Mary Gilleece is an education support worker and her name is a pseudonym.
Buckle up if you dare and read Wolves in White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of ‘Gender Medicine’, released by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on August 13th. It deserves to be read widely and with deep contrition by anyone implicated in the previous decades of trans madness, and with trepidation by those currently involved in the medication of children for mental health conditions. The American version of the Cass Report details the political and financial incentives that encouraged the proliferation of ‘sex-rejecting’ medical interventions in American healthcare. It makes for grim reading and has ramifications beyond so-called ‘trans’ medicine.
The introduction states:
In the late 2010s and early 2020s, healthcare providers began subjecting children to experimental sex-rejecting procedures in rapidly increasing numbers, despite a paucity of adequate evidence for long-term safety and efficacy for these interventions.
The authors of the report examine the creation of “captive patients”. These formerly biologically healthy children enter what was once termed “gender-affirming care” – now known as “sex-rejecting procedures” – thus becoming lifelong cash cows for hospitals and individual medical doctors.
Financial incentives may explain at least some of this development. Pediatrics remains the lowest paid medical specialty, with average physician compensation significantly below that of surgical or procedural fields… Gender clinics changed that calculus by introducing a novel source of revenue: they promised a new stream of continuous revenue for pediatrics, endocrinology and surgical specialties by taking physiologically healthy young people – who otherwise would not need to seek medical attention – and rendering them dependent for life on the medical system.
The details are gruesome:
Surgical interventions dramatically amplify the financial upside. “Top surgery” (mastectomy with chest masculinisation for females) carries a per-procedure mean health-plan-paid cost of $12,680, with additional out-of-pocket costs of $2,244. Similarly, mammoplasty costs insurers $17,426 per patient with an additional $1,223 out of pocket. “Bottom surgeries” – vaginoplasty for males and phalloplasty for females – are more complex and often staged over multiple episodes. Average total costs per person reach $53,645 for vaginoplasty and $133,911 for phalloplasty. These represent mean health-plan-paid amounts (payer perspective), excluding out-of-pocket costs, which added roughly $2,624 for vaginoplasty and $3,982 for phalloplasty on average. In addition, these procedures may require revisions for complications (urethral strictures, fistulas, loss of sensation, or cosmetic adjustments), each generating additional operating-room time, hospital stays, and follow-up care. These one-time or multi-staged interventions deliver high-margin procedural revenue to surgical specialties that otherwise might see fewer elective cases in paediatric settings.
When releasing the report on X, the Assistant Secretary for Health ADM Brian Christine said:
The report found more than 225 hospitals and health systems established paediatric gender programmes nationwide where they preyed on vulnerable children and told families that their kids needed life-altering medical treatments when what they really needed was compassion and counselling. So many of these people got rich not by doing what was good for the patient, but by actually mutilating these kids. It was disgraceful. And if someone broke the law, we are going to hold them accountable.
Investigations are beginning into whether hospitals used false diagnostic codes in order to secure insurance funding for unnecessary medical procedures. As well as the financial motives, the report examines the ideological bias of so-called medical bodies.
All told, WPATH [World Professional Association for Transgender Health] is not, and does not seriously pretend to be, a neutral arbiter of the evidence for and against sex-rejecting interventions. Rather, its “lodestar is ideology, not science.”
The section concerning personal testimonies from mutilated children is grotesque to read. Stories are heartbreakingly familiar: a child who has experienced something upsetting – sexual assault, family breakdown, social isolation – latches onto a social meme. Concerned parents seek out what they believe to be high-quality care and wolves in white coats pathologise, medicate and, in these cases, mutilate children. It is the stuff of nightmares.
Such medically wicked approaches are not limited to ‘sex-rejecting care’. In my view, based on my experience of working with British out-of-school students, the expansion in the numbers of children medicated with anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and amphetamines for over- and mis-diagnosed mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD is equally deserving of brisk and savage examination. The playbook is identical: anxious parents try to do the right thing, their children get ensnared with dubious medical definitions, financial motivations from private healthcare practitioners come into play and strange political encouragement of such issues oversees everything.
As such, the Wolves in White Coats report’s conclusions could equally apply to the psychiatric drugging of six million children in America and approximately 400,000 children in the UK for medically vague conditions that even experts are querying and some decent doctors are now encouraging. Let us hope this report is just the beginning of a reappraisal of what makes for a happy and healthy childhood.
When a child is in distress, many parents will go to any length to find help and to relieve the pain. These parents count on America’s paediatric hospitals, medical associations, and federal regulatory agencies to value science over ideology and people over profit when recommending medical procedures. Instead, parents encountered wolves in white lab coats who pushed vulnerable children down a path towards irreversible harm from sex-rejecting procedures [psychiatric medication]. Financial incentives from the medical industry and lobby; political and ideological pressures; and failure of oversight at the local, state, and federal levels have all contributed to the rapid medicalisation of these procedures and resulted in long-term physical and psychological consequences for many patients.
This article was originally published by the Daily Sceptic.
