Jamie Reed’s Allegations Are Not Even Partially Confirmed
At Assigned Media we looked at every. single, one.
by Evan Urquhart
Earlier this week the New York Times published a biased and misleading story by Azeen Ghorayshi on the allegations of Jamie Reed, a former employee of the Washington University Pediatric Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital.
One paragraph in Ghorayshi’s story stood out. It claimed that while at least one of Reed’s claims contained factual inaccuracies, others had been corroborated. Based on the contents of the allegations and of the NYT piece, this didn’t seem to accurately reflect either what was in the allegations or what had been found in the reporting for the NYT piece.
screenshot from the New York Times
Accusing the NYT of not accurately representing what their reporting found is a big swing, and something we know many people will find difficult to believe. That’s why Assigned Media went through every claim made by Reed and coded them as either corroborated, uncorroborated, or refuted by reporting in either the NYT or other outlets. We believe this shows, conclusively, that none of Reed’s allegations of wrongdoing at the Center have been confirmed, and that the NYT misled readers by implying that they had.
A spreadsheet containing every claim and our coding of them is available in a view-only link at the bottom of this story.
The Allegations
In order to examine every allegation, we relied on Reed’s affidavit, as submitted to the Attorney General of MO. Reed also wrote an essay for Bari Weiss’ Free Press which contained many of the same allegations, but might differ from the formal affidavit in subtle ways. We decided to only consider the affidavit. This was partly to avoid introducing confusion or duplication, and also because, as a legal document, Reed’s affidavit contains numbered sections which could each be considered as an individual claim.
There are 86 numbered sections in the affidavit. Some, like the first few which describe Reed’s education and work history, cannot be considered allegations. Others detail specific patient histories of patients whose families are not known to have come forward or spoken with a reporter. A few make untrue statements about things like the contents of WPATH’s standards of care or the effects of specific drugs.
In order to be as fair as possible to Reed, we excluded statements from our analysis, true or untrue, that could not in any way be construed as describing something that happened at the Center. So, for example, “Medical transition practice for adolescents is based on a study from the Netherlands that excluded patients who presented with underlying mental health issues.” is a claim that misrepresents the research basis for treating gender dysphoria in youth. However, we coded it as not an allegation, rather than an allegation that has been found to be untrue. This left us with 69 total allegations.
The affidavit is publicly available and has been reported on in other outlets. However, out of concern for families who have shown no wish to be involved in this story, we removed from the spreadsheet any patient anecdotes that have never been the subject of any sort of news report seeking to corroborate or refute one of Reed’s claims. We coded those claims as uncorroborated, but left all details out. (For allegations that have figured into public news reports investigating Reed’s claims we left the specifics in.)
Our Coding Process
Assigned Media lightly summarized many of the allegations for our spreadsheet, in order to make the central claims in each one more clear. Seeking to be as fair as possible to Reed, and to the NYT, we color-coded every claim of Reed’s that has been even partially corroborated in green. We coded claims for which there is no reported confirmation in light gray. We coded claims where the reported evidence refutes or tends to refute Reed in orange. We originally did not include numbered sections of Reed’s affidavit that could not be considered allegations on the spreadsheet, but for clarity’s sake at the end we went back and added those in and coded “not an allegation” as dark gray.
Seeking to be as fair as possible to Reed, when there was evidence that merely cast doubt on a claim, but did not seem to largely refute it, we coded it as uncorroborated in light gray.
What We Found
Out of 69 claims Reed made about the Transgender Center, we found that the reporting in the New York Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Missouri Independent, or other outlets refutes or casts grave doubt over 22. (For one additional claim, we coded it as refuted by outside evidence because Reed misrepresented the contents of the WPATH Standards of Care versions 7 and 8.)
We found 34 allegations that have not been subject to reporting that we know of, 3 where some evidence exists that casts doubts on Reed’s claims, and 2 that are uncorroborated but we believe are likely to be true, though misleading. (In those, Reed misrepresents how prescribers ought to respond to black box warnings, and describes the routine practice of instructing therapists on how to phrase referral letters for insurance billing as if it were indicative of wrongdoing.)
We found just 7 claims that could be considered corroborated by the NYT or anyone else. None of the corroborated claims include allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the Center.
A Deeper Look
As we’ve said, we found 7 of 69 claims Reed made that could be called corroborated, or partially corroborated. On its face, this would seem to provide a basis for the NYT’s claim to have corroborated some of what Reed has said. So it’s important to look at the specifics of the 7 claims we coded true.
Claim 10: The affidavit reads: “That is not true. The Center says that it has four practice areas: Endocrinology, Adolescent Medicine, Psychiatry, and Psychology. But the Center placed such strict limits on Psychiatry and Psychology that I was almost never allowed to schedule patients for those practices. Those practices were advertised as available, but most of the time they were not in fact available. Even when psychology was available, it was only to write a letter of support for the medical transition treatments and never for ongoing therapy. And psychiatry was allowed, but only on an extremely limited basis.”
The NYT found that the Transgender Center frequently referred patients to outside therapists. They did not find that Reed was “almost never” allowed to schedule patients for Psychiatry and Psychology. They did not find that when in-house psychologists were available it was only to write a letter of support for medical transition treatments, and never for ongoing therapy. In other words, the NYT only corroborated the unremarkable fact that the center didn’t have enough in-house therapists for every patient, and instead referred out.
Claim 17: “These serious comorbidities were not treated by the Center, and doctors would prescribe puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones while patients were struggling with these comorbidities.”
There is nothing unethical or inappropriate about prescribing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to patients with other mental or physical diagnoses, and nothing in the standards of care that would prevent this being done. So, while the NYT found the Transgender Center treated a patient with cross-sex hormones who was also diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and that the patient was not treated for bipolar at the Center itself, this is not an allegation of wrongdoing on the Center’s part.
The NYT’s reporting on this patient, who they call Alex, is not terribly specific. However they do say that Alex had consistently identified as transgender for 3 years at the time when her therapist referred her to the Center. It seems likely, though by no means certain from the NYT’s reporting, that an adolescent who was diagnosed with bipolar had psychiatric treatment outside the Center as well. There is nothing in the NYT’s reporting that suggests this patient, who now identifies as nonbinary and no longer uses cross-sex hormones but does not regret having taken testosterone, was not being treated for her bipolar disorder by outside providers. There is nothing to suggest that she was inappropriately referred to the Center, or that her gender dysphoria was wrongly diagnosed.
Claim 18: “The psychiatry services were limited and could only serve patients who were ‘not too severe,’ which meant that many patients were being sent to the already overburdened emergency rooms for suicidal ideations, for self-harm, and for inpatient eating disorder treatment.”
An outpatient clinic does not provide emergency inpatient care. It is normal for patients whose symptoms are severe enough to require emergency treatment to be referred by such a clinic to an ER. The NYT found patients from the Center were referred to the ER. That the ERs were overburdened, and that better options weren’t often available for youth in severe crisis, is a sad reality of the U. S. mental health system. It is not something that can reasonably be laid at the feet of an outpatient service for a vulnerable group of young people that everyone agrees is at a higher risk of suicide.
Claim 20: “Toward the end of my time at the Center, it became clear that many children coming to the Center had gender identities that were likely the result of social contagion. When I first started in 2018, the Center would receive between 5 and 10 calls a month. By the time I left, that number was more than 40 calls a month.”
The NYT did not confirm that many children coming to the Center had gender identities that were likely the result of social contagion. A recent article in Scientific American quoted numerous experts as saying there is no evidence whatsoever that social contagion is the cause of increased gender dysphoria in youth. All the NYT confirmed was that referrals to the Center had increased.
Claim 48: “Other centers who prescribe cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers require parents to issue written consent. Several times, I asked the doctors to require written consent. They repeatedly refused. The entire time I worked there the Center had no written informed consent, and none that was provided to or signed by patients.”
Reporting on the results of an internal investigation of the Center, which found Reed’s allegations were unsubstantiated, found the Center has changed its policies to require written proof of informed consent. However, there was nothing inappropriate about their previous procedures where doctors documented parents’ verbal consent. Written consent is not routinely required for medical treatment.
Claim 66: “Because I was concerned that the doctors were giving cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers to children who should not be on them, I created a “red flag” list of children where other staff and I had concerns. The doctors told me I had to stop raising these concerns. I was not allowed to maintain the red flag list after that.”
The New York Times and other outlets have corroborated the existence of a red flag list, created by Reed. According to local reporting in St. Louis, parents of patients fear their right to medical privacy may have been violated by Reed’s behavior surrounding this list. The existence of the list, at most, provides evidence of wrongdoing by Reed herself.
Claim 74: “One doctor at the Center, Dr. Chris Lewis, is giving patients a drug called Bicalutamide. The drug has a legitimate use for treating pancreatic cancer, but it has a side effect of causing breasts to grow, and it can poison the liver. There are no clinical studies for using this drug for gender transitions, and there are no established standards of care for using this drug.”
The New York Times found a patient who had been treated with Bicalutamide. There is no evidence that this drug was inappropriate, or that it has caused any patient harm. In fact, a subsequent claim of Reed’s that gave details about a patient she said had been harmed by Bicalutamide was found by the NYT to have been completely misrepresented by Reed. The Times found evidence that Bicalutamide was not the most likely cause of the patient’s liver problems, contradicting Reed’s claim about the case.
Evidence of False and Wild, Uncorroborated Claims
The seven claims above are the only ones that can be said to have been corroborated, by the NYT or anyone else. As you’ve seen, none of what’s been corroborated in Reed’s affidavit involves specific wrongdoing on the part of the St. Louis Center. So, what about the claims that seem to have been refuted, or the ones for which no evidence has been found?
In allegation 6, Reed claims she witnessed the Center cause permanent harm to many patients. Neither the NYT or any other outlet has found a single patient with permanent harm. To the contrary, the Times and others have found overwhelming evidence of grateful families who say their treatment was essential to their children’s wellbeing. In allegation 7, Reed claims she witnessed providers lying and that the Clinic provided puberty blockers and hormones without informed consent. No example of a patient who was treated without informed consent has been found, and a large number of parents have carefully described to the NYT and other outlets the lengths the Center went to to ensure that parents and patients were thoroughly informed about the treatment options and the risks.
Reed claims all children were automatically given puberty blockers or hormone therapy. Reporting indicates fewer than half of the Center’s patients started medical transition. Reed claims patients were approved after being seen for a total of 2 hours, 1 hour with a therapist, and 1 with an endocrinologist. Patients have come forward to report the Center required them to have at least 6 months of therapy before medical treatment would even be considered.
In allegation 59, Reed claimed “Children come into the clinic using pronouns of inanimate objects like ‘mushroom,’ ‘rock,’ or ‘helicopter.’” Even sympathetic bloggers seeking to vindicate Reed have produced evidence that calls this absurd bit of nonsense into doubt.
Taken as a whole, Reed’s allegations paint a picture of extreme wrongdoing and contempt for the safety of patients on the part of the St. Louis Center. It is a very serious thing for the NYT to have represented them as partially corroborated. Yet none of the evidence in Ghorayshi’s stories paints a picture of wrongdoing on the part of the Center at all. Instead, they seem to be considering Reed’s claims “partially corroborated” in the sense that not every single thing contained in her allegations is a lie.
It’s true: Not every single thing contained in Reed’s allegations is a lie. But everything that suggests specific wrongdoing on the part of the Center seems to be untrue. As the purpose of Reed’s allegations was to accuse the Center of wrongdoing, they cannot truthfully be said to have been corroborated, even in part, by an NYT story that provides no evidence for any of those types of claims.
Already, the right-wing press has taken Ghorayshi’s story as a vindication of Reed. The National Review wrote that the NYT confirmed that adolescents were rushed into care. It seems clear that the NYT has gravely misled readers as to what Reed actually alleged, and what has been confirmed.
Would you like to examine the evidence for yourself? Every allegation Jamie Reed made, along with Assigned Media’s coding of each one and links to relevant news stories, can be found on our full spreadsheet, which is viewable by the public here.