HHS probing hospital over firing of nurse who blew whistle on minors getting gender treatments
"The Department will robustly enforce federal laws protecting these courageous whistleblowers, including laws that protect healthcare professionals from being forced to violate their religious beliefs or moral convictions," Acting HHS OCR Director Anthony Archeval said in a statement.
While HHS has not confirmed the hospital's identity, it is believed to be Texas Children's Hospital (TCH) — the largest children's hospital in the U.S. — as the investigation follows whistleblower nurse Vanessa Sivadge's testimony on Capitol Hill. Sivadge first came forward publicly in June 2024 and was later fired in August 2024.
Sivadge told lawmakers that she had witnessed "disturbing trends and concerning practices" relating to the treatment of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria. She also said that she "observed the powerful and irreversible effects" of treatments that patients were told were "lifesaving."
"I witnessed firsthand how doctors emotionally blackmailed parents by telling them that if they did not affirm their child's false identity, their child would harm themselves. In particular, I was saddened to see young girls suffering from profound mental health struggles like depression and anxiety, many of whom had also suffered sexual abuse or trauma, persuaded by doctors at Texas Children's that a hormone would resolve their gender confusion," Sivadge told lawmakers.
Dr. Eithan Haim, who was accused of violating HIPAA while in surgical training at Baylor College of Medicine, which is affiliated with TCH, also blew the whistle on the hospital for "lying about the existence of its transgender program." The Biden DOJ brought charges against Haim for the alleged HIPAA violations, but the case was ultimately dropped under the Trump administration.
Haim claimed the hospital was engaging in fraudulent billing practices to hide the fact that it was carrying out transgender procedures on minors even though it was against Texas law. This included recording mastectomies as "breast reduction" surgeries and billing testosterone prescribed to a teen girl under a male diagnosis.
In her testimony, Sivadge said that federal agents came to her home when investigating the whistleblower, now known to be Haim, because of her objections to transgender medicine. She described the interaction as intimidating and said that one of the special agents "effectively asked me to compromise my Christian beliefs and made veiled threats regarding my career and safety if I didn't comply with their demands."
Sivadge's attorney filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on April 11, alleging that she "observed TCH doctors, after very little deliberation or critical analysis, embarking children on dangerous and often irreversible courses of 'gender-affirming' treatment."
According to the complaint, TCH "temporarily" paused "gender-affirming services" for minors after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in February 2022 that such treatments could constitute child abuse. The treatments were banned in the state following the passage of a bill in May 2023, which went into effect in September 2023. According to Sivadge's attorney, she asked to be transferred back to cardiology in May 2024, citing her religious beliefs.
Sivadge publicly blew the whistle on TCH on June 18, 2024, and was asked not to report to work the next day, according to the complaint. Just days later, on June 21, she was placed on administrative leave and was officially terminated in August 2024. TCH alleged that the termination of her employment was due to improper access to medical records.
On Jan. 28, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the "Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation" order, which prevents minors from undergoing transgender treatments. In accordance with this order, HHS has issued guidelines for prospective whistleblowers.
Fox News has reached out to TCH and HHS for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Business News
an hour ago
- Time Business News
Opening a Rehab Facility: Step-by-Step to Success
A thriving rehab facility starts with a mission that defines both purpose and direction. This mission should be more than inspirational words—it must be a practical guide for decision-making and service design. Identify the specific population you intend to serve, whether it's individuals seeking detox, long-term residential care, or outpatient recovery. Align your treatment philosophy with evidence-based methods that meet their needs. A strong, clearly stated mission not only inspires your team but also attracts clients, partners, and funding sources. Starting a rehab facility requires careful planning, dedication, and an understanding of both regulatory and operational demands. Key elements include securing a suitable location, obtaining proper licensing, and hiring qualified staff with experience in behavioral health and addiction treatment. Financial planning is critical to ensure sustainability, including budgeting for equipment, therapy programs, and day-to-day operations. In addition, creating a safe and therapeutic environment that promotes recovery is essential. When considering what do I need to start a rehab facility, one must also focus on developing structured treatment plans, compliance protocols, and community partnerships to support patient outcomes. Before admitting a single client, your facility must meet a range of regulatory standards. State health departments oversee licensing for behavioral health facilities, with requirements covering staffing qualifications, safety protocols, and patient care standards. On the federal level, HIPAA rules protect patient privacy, while DEA registration is required for handling certain medications. Local zoning ordinances can also impact where your facility can operate. Gaining accreditation from organizations like CARF or The Joint Commission builds credibility and supports insurance reimbursement, making it a wise step early in the process. Sustainability is vital in the behavioral health industry. Develop a business model that balances compassionate care with financial stability. Determine your core revenue streams, such as residential treatment, intensive outpatient programs, aftercare support, and telehealth. Factor in all operating expenses—payroll, utilities, insurance, technology, and marketing—into your budget. Because initial client volumes may be unpredictable, secure adequate funding and maintain a contingency reserve. A well-designed business model ensures your rehab facility can maintain consistent, high-quality services. Quality treatment depends on a strong clinical framework and efficient operations. Choose an evidence-based treatment approach—such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, holistic recovery, or dual-diagnosis programs—and recruit a multidisciplinary team to deliver it. This should include therapists, physicians, case managers, and support staff. On the operational side, implement electronic health records, scheduling systems, and compliance monitoring tools. Establish clear protocols for admissions, care planning, medication management, and crisis intervention to ensure consistency and safety across all services. The physical environment plays a vital role in recovery outcomes. Select a property that offers both accessibility and a peaceful setting conducive to healing. Evaluate proximity to hospitals, transportation, and community resources. Renovations should prioritize safety compliance, ADA accessibility, and a therapeutic atmosphere. Natural lighting, comfortable furnishings, and welcoming communal spaces can help create an environment that feels safe and supportive from the moment a client walks in. To fill your programs, you need a strong marketing and referral strategy. Build a brand identity that conveys trust, professionalism, and empathy. A user-friendly website with search engine optimization (SEO) and targeted online advertising can help reach those seeking treatment. Community outreach—such as hosting informational sessions, partnering with healthcare providers, and engaging with advocacy groups—fosters credibility and trust. Establishing a referral network with hospitals, private practices, and legal professionals can generate a steady stream of client leads. Achieving excellence in behavioral health requires more than dedication; it demands adherence to rigorous quality benchmarks. JCAHO Accreditation for behavioral health plays a pivotal role in guiding organizations toward consistent, safe, and effective patient care. This accreditation evaluates clinical processes, safety protocols, and organizational management to ensure services meet nationally recognized standards. Facilities that attain this recognition not only enhance patient trust but also strengthen operational efficiency and staff accountability. By committing to these standards, behavioral health providers can foster a culture of continuous improvement, delivering care that is both ethical and evidence-based while standing out in a competitive healthcare environment. A phased launch strategy can help your facility adjust smoothly to operational demands. Start with core programs and gradually expand services as systems stabilize and demand increases. Regularly evaluate clinical outcomes, client satisfaction, and financial performance to guide improvements. Invest in ongoing staff training and explore innovative treatment approaches to keep your programs relevant. By remaining adaptable and focused on both quality care and operational efficiency, your rehab facility can grow into a respected leader in recovery services. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
RFK Jr.'s anti-vaccine revolution
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made a dizzying amount of changes to federal health agencies in his first six months as HHS secretary, with yesterday's decision to revive a childhood vaccine safety panel that anti-vax groups sought being the latest in a long list. Why it matters: Kennedy has upended years of vaccine policy and cut biomedical research funding, and experts worry his revisions could result in a less vaccinated population and more disease outbreaks and deaths. "I see a potential here for the dramatic reduction in vaccine access for this country," said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. With all the rapid changes, it can be hard to track what Kennedy has done so far. Here are the actions that stand out for their impact. 1) Kennedy removed all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices in June, saying a "clean sweep" was necessary to "reestablish public confidence in vaccine science." Two days later, Kennedy named new members to ACIP, including some who have expressed anti-vaccine views or who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, which proposed letting COVID-19 spread among young, healthy people to reach herd immunity faster. Public health experts are concerned that the new ACIP could alter the routine infant and childhood vaccination schedule or restrict vaccines even further. 2) Kennedy straddled the line between recommending vaccinations and endorsing ineffective treatments during the Texas measles outbreak. He wrote in a Fox News op-ed that "vaccines not only protect individual children from measles, but also contribute to community immunity." But he included an important qualifier: "The decision to vaccinate is a personal one." Kennedy has also cited aerosolized budesonide, clarithromycin and vitamin A as "very effective" treatments for measles. There's no scientific evidence that aerosolized budesonide and clarithromycin treatments are beneficial, or that vitamin A can prevent or treat measles. 3) Kennedy announced in May that the CDC was changing its recommended immunization schedule and no longer recommending COVID shots for healthy children or pregnant women, citing a "lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children." 4. This month, Kennedy canceled $500 million in federal research contracts to develop new mRNA vaccines, in order to shift funding toward "safer, broader vaccine platforms." Scientific consensus is that mRNA vaccines are safe and effective. Scientists worry that halting research could result in fewer medical breakthroughs and less preparation for future pandemics. 5) In July, Kennedy proposed overhauling the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a federal court system that helps protect vaccine makers from liability and allows patients to receive compensation from vaccine injury claims. He could choose to change the official vaccine injury table, which could lead to more lawsuits. Or he could eliminate the court altogether, which could mean more lawsuits in the civil system and result in vaccine makers becomingliable for damages. 6) Kennedy pledged at an April Trump administration Cabinet meeting to investigate and find the root causes of autism by September, and later announced he's establishing an autism disease registry system. This is despite studies showing that increased levels of autism are likely due to improved screenings and earlier detection. Public health experts are concerned that Kennedy may still try to say there's a link between vaccines and autism, despite research showing no link. 7) HHS adopted a recommendation from the new ACIP panel to remove mercury-containing compound thimerosal from flu shots. Anti-vaccine groups have claimed thimerosal is linked to autism, though that claim has been widely discredited. The other side: "In just six months, Secretary Kennedy has taken bold, thoughtful steps to restore trust in public health and put families at the center of our decision-making," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement. "From strengthening vaccine oversight to expanding transparency and rethinking how we respond to chronic disease, his focus has been on delivering real outcomes for the American people — guided by evidence, transparency and the public interest." What we're watching: Some public health experts are concerned that Kennedy's actions are laying the groundwork for further restrictions on vaccines, which could result in more disease outbreaks in the U.S.
Time Magazine
3 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Cutting mRNA Research Could Be Our Deadliest Mistake Yet
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced it will wind down funding for mRNA vaccine development—which could prove to be one of the costliest, deadliest decisions HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will make during his tenure. HHS has already scaled back access to and recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines—a decision experts are deeply concerned about—and Kennedy's frequently misinformed views on vaccines continue to fan the flames of anti-vaccination attitudes. Now, Kennedy's failure to fully explore the potential of mRNA vaccines could stagnate research that has the potential to save millions of lives around the world. The dark cloud of COVID-19, one of the deadliest infectious disease outbreaks in history, can hardly be thought of as having a silver lining. But the nearest thing to a glimmer of a positive would be that the fast development of COVID-19 vaccines helped prevent many more deaths and led to rapid progress in our understanding and use of mRNA technology. This greater understanding is now being explored as potential preventions or therapies for a wide range of diseases, from H5N1 bird flu and HIV to cancer. Terminating 22 mRNA projects will not only directly set back research on mRNA vaccines for infectious diseases including flu; it will also arguably have negative knock-on effects for researchers the world over exploring personalized treatments for noncommunicable diseases like cancer. Early research on some novel uses of mRNA is promising. For example, a preliminary trial of an mRNA HIV vaccine found that 80% of participants generated neutralizing antibodies, which in theory could help block HIV—pending further research and development. A melanoma mRNA vaccine, when combined with existing treatment, reduced the risk of death or disease recurrence by nearly 50%. (The vaccine is currently being tested further in a full scale Phase 3 clinical trial). Even more amazingly, personalized vaccines—where vaccines are created specifically for an individual using information from their cancer to optimize their immune response—using mRNA technology have even been proposed as a universal vaccine adaptable for all cancers. Read More: The CDC Shooting is a Dark Sign for Science and America Much of the research on personalized mRNA cancer vaccines is in some way indebted to gains in knowledge made from COVID-19 research, and it stands to reason that pulling such a large amount of funding from mRNA projects will slow down further progress in these areas. Approximately $500 million worth of research funding would almost certainly have advanced the scientific community's fundamental understanding of how, and to what extent, mRNA technology works and how it could be applied to prevent and fight disease. Also problematic is the manner in which HHS under Kennedy conveys their decisions. In announcing the funding withdrawal, HHS states it 'will focus on platforms with stronger safety records and transparent clinical and manufacturing data practices.' This implies that mRNA vaccines have not been properly or transparently tested—which is not true. The safety of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines has been demonstrated in numerous studies and systematic evidence reviews. Like pretty much all vaccines and treatments, mRNA vaccines are not without side effects, but evidence shows that any adverse events are nearly always mild and short-lived. COVID-19 vaccines have already saved millions of lives globally, with mRNA vaccines accounting for a significant majority of all doses administered in many countries. Kennedy's claim that 'mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits' is almost farcical in light of scientific evidence. Moreover, the whole purpose of clinical research is to test whether new scientific innovations—like novel applications of mRNA into different diseases—are safe and effective in the first place. Kennedy has long spoken of how we need more evidence and testing on mRNA vaccines, and so it is painfully ironic that he is pulling funding for research which would enable the scientific community to do just that. Read More: An mRNA Melanoma Vaccine Shows Promise Perhaps most concerning is the caliber of evidence upon which decisions with such massive implications are being made. In an HHS announcement of the termination of mRNA projects, Kennedy claims 'the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.' The truth is, initial vaccines and booster doses have been shown to be very effective against reducing infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. Kennedy does not even provide links or citations to systematic reviews or meta-analyses in reputable journals, the gold standard methods for scientific evidence. Rather, he simply links to an online evidence review which cherry picks studies searching only for the harms—and not the overall safety, effectiveness, or cost-benefit analysis—of the mRNA vaccines. The report does not describe the methods used to select and review studies, nor does it appear itself to have been peer-reviewed by other scientists. It almost certainly wouldn't be publishable in a scientific journal, yet it is being used as evidence to justify the fate of half a billion dollars of research funds. This is another example of how fringe viewpoints on mRNA technology, instead of the best available scientific evidence, are under Kennedy and HHS becoming the new mainstream. The U.S. has been at the forefront of developing mRNA technology for the past few decades, from the Nobel Prize-winning research of professors Katalin Kariko and Drew Weissman at the University of Pennsylvania on mRNA, to the key role of U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies in vaccine production and rollout. Perhaps other countries, companies, and funding sources will offset this funding loss and lead the development of mRNA vaccine innovations. Large investments are already being made in the U.K. and China, for example. That would be to the detriment of U.S. scientific innovation and progress. Kennedy is right to scrutinize the potential overreach of the pharmaceutical industry, and to ensure their research and development is ethical and transparent. However, his seemingly personal war against "Big Pharma" and ideological opposition to mRNA risks stunting research that could one day help prevent the next pandemic or even provide cures for hitherto incurable cancers.
