Silenced Science: Inside the AMA’s Gender Agenda

Charlie Sheen is an icon of decadence.

I lit the fuse and my life turns into everything it wasn't supposed to be.

He's going the distance.

He was the highest paid TV star of all time.

When it started to change, it was quick.

He kept saying, no, no, no, I'm in the hospital now, but next week I'll be ready for the show.

Now, Charlie's sober.

He's gonna tell you the truth.

How do I present this with any class?

I think we're past that, Charlie.

We're past that, yeah.

Somebody call action.

Yeah.

AKA Charlie Sheen, only on Netflix, September 10th.

We here at the Daily Wire have now obtained damning exclusive footage of a private hour-long meeting between the current president of the American Medical Association, Dr.

Bobby McCamala, Michigan Representative Brad Paquette, and former guest of the show, Dr.

Eitan Hain, who you may remember as the Texas Children's Hospital whistleblower.

This footage is pretty catastrophic for the AMA.

It proves beyond any doubt their support for trans healthcare is based on fake science, willful blindness, total abandonment of all evidence-based medicine, all of which are supposed to be antithetical to the existence of their organization, a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

That was an excerpt of a new expose from Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro, which pulls back the curtain on how one of the most powerful medical associations in the country is guiding doctors on gender transition treatments and procedures for children.

In this special Labor Day episode, we sit down with Dr.

Eitan Heim, who is featured in the expose on the AMA's alarming handling of these life-altering treatments.

I'm Daily Wire, Executive Editor John Bickley with Georgia Howe.

It's Monday, September 1st, and this is a special Labor Day edition of Morning Wire.

Joining us now to discuss a new Daily Wire expose on the American Medical Association is the man who's at the center of that report, Dr.

Eitan Heim.

Dr.

Heim, thank you so much for coming on.

Yeah, thank you for having me on.

So you played a central role in this new exclusive report on the AMA.

They're the most influential medical association in the U.S.

First, can you speak to the AMA's role in the United States?

So it's

the most prominent, most significant medical organization in the country.

And the reason is, there's multiple reasons for that.

Number one is it's the largest, around 250,300,000 members.

Number two is that their annual revenue is $500 million.

If you take organizations two, three, four, and five and add them all up, it doesn't come close to the AMA's annual revenue.

The third reason they're the most significant organization is because they run what's called the CPT codes in the country.

And the government has given them a monopoly on those CPT codes through HHS regulations.

So, anything a doctor codes for in the country, like what I was doing today as a doctor, the American Medical Association makes royalties every time.

Every time a medical code is entered, they get royalties.

So because of their financial base, they can pursue legislative policy.

They were, I think, number six lobbying organization in Washington, D.C.

And they can fund these other organizations.

They're essentially a quasi-governmental left-wing NGO.

And the important thing about the CPT codes is that they can influence what interventions are covered by insurance because the ones who write the CPT codes are the AMA.

So if they say, hey, this intervention should be covered for

some 14-year-old girl to get a mastectomy, the insurance companies are going to cover it.

Wow.

Now, the AMA has for nearly two decades now backed so-called gender-affirming care.

They adopted back in 2008 Resolution 122 that supports the use of drugs and surgeries for patients with gender confusion.

They cite a WPATH in that.

They also say, quote, they reject the myth that such treatments like hormone therapy, mastectomies, and vaginoplasties are experimental.

They called them, quoting again, safe and effective treatment for gender confusion.

Do they still stand by that?

Yes, they absolutely still stand by that.

And as evidenced by

Dr.

Bobby Mukamala's recent statement after the skirmatic decision.

And to give you context, you know, doc uh representative paquette and myself had that meeting with uh dr mccomla may 5th the skirmetti decision was after that and even after we informed him of all of these issues with wpath with the evidence he still released a statement after scrimeti saying it was evidence-based and medically necessary and and you know why those two phrases are so important is because those are the things the ama has to say in order for insurance companies to cover it.

And that's one thing that was pretty surprising.

I actually didn't know that, that the AMA had supported this in 2008.

For me, I thought this was more of a recent phenomenon, really over the past 10 years.

But for the AMA to

support that in 2008 goes to show how far the rot

extends in that organization.

Now, as for what was uncovered in these interviews, for those who haven't seen this Ben Shapiro expose on it, can you tell us how that unfolded?

You and Representative Paquette talked to AMA's President McCamala to present scientific data that debunks their stance on transgender treatments.

How did this Zoom call come about and how did it go?

Yeah, so for people who aren't familiar with my story, I blew the whistle on Texas Children's Hospital's secret transgender program back in May of 2023, and the government tried to send me to prison for 10 years because of it.

It's a long story.

It was dismissed with prejudice, but it was a big deal.

And now I'm free.

That's the rundown.

But during that time, I got to know Representative Brad Paquette.

He became a friend.

I had advised him on a few different things.

So we knew each other at the time.

And two weeks before our meeting on May 5th with the president of the AMA, Representative Paquette had a hearing in Michigan because he's a Michigan representative.

And Dr.

McCamala was one of the individuals testifying at that hearing.

And it was really interesting.

There's a four-minute clip of it.

And when you watch it, Dr.

McCamla actually seems like a very reasonable person.

Like he actually uses the term transsexual twice.

Is it possible to change somebody's DNA in every cell from XX to XY?

No.

But does that mean that they don't identify with a particular sex as a transsexual?

No.

And if you're familiar with that term, you know that it's highly offensive by modern standards.

So the fact that he used it was actually reassuring to us that, you know, maybe this guy isn't completely captured by this ideology.

So Representative Paquette reaches out and says, hey, I would like to have an extension of this hearing to fulfill my oversight role as a representative.

And he set up a meeting.

And then, you know, Representative Paquette asked me to be on.

So I knew Brad, Brad knew him.

Before you know it, we're all on a phone call together.

And

the whole phone call was just to discuss

the issues surrounding quote-unquote gender-affirming care, these interventions on children and adults.

And

we approached it with good faith because we were actually very hopeful that we were going to find some common ground.

And this guy is in a very powerful position in the medical community.

So we were very, very hopeful that we can create

some some bridges and come to some mutual understanding.

But it was immediately apparent once I started asking questions about

some AMA resources about gender identity and blockers and some of the effects and some of the research that he was not having any of it.

I suspect that in the time between the hearing, which was like April 14th or 15th, earlier this year, and then our meeting on May 5th, that he was probably coached by whoever is at the AMA.

And he just wasn't ready to be challenged on it.

And it was, but what was really shocking was the level of,

you know, disregard for an alternative viewpoint.

Because as a surgeon, you take people to the operating room, right?

They're naked, paralyzed, unconscious on a table, surrounded by strangers.

And as surgeons, we carry that responsibility.

We know what it means to operate on someone and to talk to to another surgeon, right?

And for him to so callously disregard these consequences.

I'm telling you,

it was like,

it was shocking.

It was truly shocking.

You know, I actually wanted to play a clip from the interview that really stuck out to me about Dr.

McCamala's behavior.

At one point, in this very incredibly unprofessional, dismissive way, he used a hand gesture as you're talking about the scientific facts that refute his case.

Here's some of that moment.

I'm not an expert at all in the science that you're talking to me about.

I defer to the experts.

If you would like an opinion from an expert on this, feel free to talk to an expert.

So infertility is a result of puberty blockers being used in Tanner Sage 2.

A micropenis is a absolute.

I'm sitting in the same place where I had that meeting.

I remember sitting here and seeing that on the screen where he made that gesture and just thinking, like, this is a different universe.

How can someone

act so disrespectfully towards a colleague, especially when the thing we're talking about, I know,

like, he knows this, right?

Like, he knows that this is a big deal, that these blockers result in significant physiological impacts.

He knows it.

Every doctor knows it.

The effects are self-evident in the name, puberty blockers, right?

Like, the name is self-evident, just like anti-hypertensives, lower blood pressure, blood thinners, thin blood.

And I think it's this sense of

power that these doctors have had for so long, right?

They have had

generational trust built up, and they abuse that trust and just think they can call themselves experts, and we're supposed to believe them.

And it's just, it's awful because this is the reason that no one trusts doctors anymore.

And he's in a position to do something about it.

And I

always go back and think about these people who are being harmed, just like my patients.

Like

every time I take care of someone, I have to treat them like a family member of my own because I'm a doctor, right?

That's my job.

I have to treat him that way.

I can never

absolve myself of that responsibility.

And here you have the president of the AMA, who, for lack of a better term, term, is acting like a complete prick when he has such a significant role in taking care of America's sick citizens.

Now, to be clear, what you presented to Dr.

McCamala, can you summarize that for the audience?

You're presenting the latest studies, large reviews like the CASH review.

What exactly did you present that he was dismissing?

Yeah, so the CASH review had come out, I think, a couple months before, maybe a year before.

That's what's called a systematic review, which takes a look at all of the clinical guidelines, the evidence that's used in them, and makes a determination about the quality of the evidence used.

So

the conclusion was the evidence they were using was the lowest quality evidence, which means

it's valueless.

There's nothing to take from it.

You can't even use it to inform any decision.

We're trained to look at this evidence and know if a study's bad, you just don't use it, right?

You don't make any decision based on that evidence.

That was a CAS review, and the HHS report came out four days before, four days before.

It was all over the news.

Now, we also saw footage of Representative Paquette speaking to Dr.

Jesse Krikorian.

That's a family medicine doctor and apparently the AMA's sort of go-to expert on gender-affirming care.

Krikurian actually considers herself transgender.

What did you glean from their their exchange?

So the significant part about those conversations is during the first phone call with the three of us, me, Representative Paquette, and then Dr.

McCamala, the president of AMA, the whole time he was, well, he would try to make these activist arguments.

Once I would push back, he would immediately fall back on, well, I trust the experts, trust the experts.

I don't read the studies themselves.

I don't know anything about it, right?

Who are the experts, right?

Well,

Representative Paquette reached out to Dr.

McCammala after that phone call and said, you know,

Dr.

McCamala, I would like to speak with your expert.

The person that the president of the AMA had referred Representative Paquette to was Dr.

Kikorian,

a woman, right, who believes she's a man, who's right, believes she's transgender is taking all of these hormones.

And you can tell because she has a full beard, right?

Totally bald.

And during those conversations, it is as clear as day

that this person has no idea what she's doing, how to evaluate the evidence,

has no ethical framework

that instructs her care of these patients.

And that's terrifying.

because these patients are vulnerable.

I don't know how many pediatric patients she sees, but this is at the University of Michigan, supposedly one of our country's most prestigious academic teaching hospitals, the University of Michigan.

And this person's working there, and the hospital supports it.

It's completely unconsciable.

Final question here to wrap up.

Are there steps that need to be taken that actually can be taken related to this association for accountability?

Yes.

And I think it's actually something that is doable.

So when you look at the AMA right now, it's not hyperbolic to say they have a government sanctioned monopoly on medical coding.

It's with

the current procedural terminology, CBT coding.

So after passage of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1980s, HHS regulations had deemed the AMA CBT coding as what they're going to use as the standard for medical coding.

That was entrenched even more in the 2000s with the advent of electronic medical records, another regulation which says we're going to use the CPT codes in order to determine the procedures and the numbers and how we're going to bill insurance.

So, the reason the AMA makes money from that and the reason they've been able to fight back against legal challenges is because it was copyrighted in the 1960s.

So,

they were able to make about $400 million a year, $350 million a year from that.

So the way to change that is RFK has to develop another coding system, which can easily be done within the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

They already handle a huge amount of health information.

So this, you know, everyone always kind of gripes about moving things to the government.

Well,

it's whether it's with the AMA or the government, it's better right with the government because at least you don't have this organization like the AMA making hundreds of millions of dollars a year and then manipulating these

CPT codes in order to like serve ideological interests.

So he can easily, it can be done.

It would probably take a while to develop that, maybe two, three years.

It have to be done carefully, slowly, thoughtfully.

But

he can by executive order, RFK could change that regulation.

And this is even more important because the United States recently shifted to something called ICD-10.

The ICD system is for the diagnosis side.

The CPT is for the treatments.

ICD is for the diagnosis.

So it's what doctors do and then

why they do it, right?

So

who does the ICDs?

The World Health Organization.

And for the new ICD-10 system, they have that copyrighted.

So I,

yeah, they were like getting,

you know, royalties and money from the copyright.

So we should get these financial interests out of our medical system.

I mean, that's RFK's primary goal when he came into HHS.

So I think it's politically viable.

It's,

you know, you know, like administratively viable.

So that's what needs to happen.

Well, it sounds like something definitely needs to change here in terms of oversight and accountability.

Dr.

Heim, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us.

Yeah, thank you for having me on.

That was Dr.

Aitan Heim, and this has been a special Labor Day edition of Morning Wire.

Packages by Expedia.

You were made to occasionally take the hard route to the top of the Eiffel Tower.

We were made to easily bundle your trip.

Expedia, made to travel.

Flight-inclusive packages are at all protected.