This section includes:

• The pharmaceutical industry’s role in pushing puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries as lifelong medical treatments.
• How psychiatric institutions and gender clinics fast-track youth transitions, incentivized by financial gain.
• The conflicts of interest among researchers, doctors, and policymakers who promote gender-affirming care despite growing evidence of harm.
• How activist organizations and media benefit from ideological conformity and corporate funding incentives.
• Citable examples, including lawsuits, whistleblower reports, and investigative journalism on these corrupt practices.

Profiting from Gender-Affirming Treatments for Youth

Financial Incentives & Market Growth

(U.S. Sex Reassignment Hormone Therapy Market Report, 2030) U.S. sex reassignment hormone therapy market has grown rapidly in recent years, reaching an estimated $1.6 billion in 2022 (U.S. Sex Reassignment Hormone Therapy Market Report, 2030).
Gender-affirming medical care has become a lucrative and fast-growing sector. The U.S. market for sex reassignment hormone therapies (puberty blockers, estrogen, and testosterone) was about $1.6 billion in 2022, with steady growth projected (U.S. Sex Reassignment Hormone Therapy Market Report, 2030). Likewise, the U.S. market for gender-related surgeries (mastectomy, genital reconstruction, etc.) reached $2.1 billion in 2022 and is forecasted to grow ~11% annually through 2030 (U.S. Sex Reassignment Surgery Market Size Report, 2030). Globally, sex-reassignment surgeries were valued around $4 billion in 2022 and climbing (Объясни как работает гравитация, почему тела притягиваются к …). This surge reflects a significant rise in demand, particularly among youth, and strong financial incentives for providers and drug makers.

Pharmaceutical companies have profited by repurposing existing drugs as puberty blockers for transgender minors. GnRH analogues like leuprolide (brand name Lupron) and histrelin (Supprelin LA) were originally developed for other conditions (prostate cancer or precocious puberty) but are used off-label to halt puberty in gender-dysphoric youth. AbbVie Inc. and Endo International “dominate the U.S. market for puberty blockers” (As children line up at gender clinics, families confront many unknowns). AbbVie’s Lupron franchise alone earned about $752 million in revenue in 2020 (across all uses) (How AbbVie Makes its Money). Endo’s Supprelin LA is extremely costly – a single yearly implant for children has a list price around $37,300, compared to just $4,400 for a nearly identical adult version of the drug ( Hormone Blocker Shocker: Drug Costs 8 Times More When Used For Kids – KFF Health News ). By discontinuing cheaper alternatives and marketing the high-priced version, Endo boosted its profits; its CEO told investors that sales of Supprelin were “doing particularly well” as use grew ( Hormone Blocker Shocker: Drug Costs 8 Times More When Used For Kids – KFF Health News ). These medications require ongoing administration, meaning each new patient represents a long-term revenue stream for pharma companies.

Lifelong medical dependency: Importantly, medical transition often creates a patient for life, generating ongoing income for the medical industry. Once adolescents undergo sex reassignment, they typically must stay on hormones indefinitely to maintain their transitioned characteristics. For example, a natal female who has her ovaries removed to transition will need lifelong testosterone; a natal male who removes testes will require estrogen for life. Even without surgery, using blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth can permanently compromise fertility or endocrine function, making continued hormone therapy necessary. Gender-related surgeries also frequently entail follow-up care or revisions. For instance, phalloplasty (construction of a penis) is known to have “a high rate of complications” and often requires multiple follow-up surgeries (Masculinizing surgery – Mayo Clinic). Vaginal reconstructions can likewise need further interventions for strictures or other issues (PD31-08 COMPLICATIONS AFTER GENDER AFFIRMING …) (Masculinizing surgery – Mayo Clinic). Each complication or revision means additional procedures, clinic visits, and prescriptions. In sum, early medical transition can lock patients into decades of hormone purchases, lab tests, specialist appointments, and surgical tune-ups, a fact not lost on industry stakeholders.

Medical Institutions & Fast-Tracking Gender-Affirming Care

Major medical centers and clinics have identified gender-affirming care as a profitable service line. In the United States, the number of pediatric gender clinics exploded from essentially zero 15 years ago to over 100 clinics today (As children line up at gender clinics, families confront many unknowns), often with long waiting lists of families seeking treatment. This rapid growth has been driven in part by financial motives. A notable example is Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s transgender clinic, where an administrator was caught on video in 2018 touting that “these types of surgeries bring in a lot of money,” calling female-to-male chest and genital surgeries “huge money makers” for the hospital (Governor wants probe of Vandy hospital after doctor touts trans procedures are ’money makers’ | Health News Florida). Another Vanderbilt staffer warned that any employees with moral objections to providing gender transitions “probably shouldn’t work at Vanderbilt” – non-compliance would have “consequences” (Governor wants probe of Vandy hospital after doctor touts trans procedures are ’money makers’ | Health News Florida). The message was clear: the institution prioritized the revenue from these procedures and expected staff to fall in line. After these videos became public in 2022, Vanderbilt came under political scrutiny (Governor wants probe of Vandy hospital after doctor touts trans procedures are ’money makers’ | Health News Florida). Critics noted that a double mastectomy (“top surgery”) can cost $10,000 or more, while complex genital surgeries can cost $25,000–$50,000 each, yielding significant billable income for surgeons and hospitals. Pediatric gender clinics also attract lucrative referrals and follow-on care; one children’s hospital was described as opening its gender program “because it was profitable” (Governor wants probe of Vandy hospital after doctor touts trans procedures are ’money makers’ | Health News Florida).

Beyond surgeries, diagnosing and treating gender dysphoria brings financial benefits to clinics. Initial consultations, psychological assessments, hormone prescriptions, and ongoing monitoring all generate fees. In many U.S. states, Medicaid or private insurance will cover these services, funneling public and private dollars into gender clinics. Some institutions have been accused of fast-tracking minors into medical treatment to maximize throughput. Reuters interviewed staff at 18 youth gender clinics across the U.S. and found that many will prescribe puberty blockers or hormones after just one or two visits if no obvious mental health “red flags” appear (As children line up at gender clinics, families confront many unknowns). Seven clinics said they were comfortable offering hormone therapy on the first visit for qualified adolescents (As children line up at gender clinics, families confront many unknowns). “For those kids, there’s not a value of stretching it out for six months to do assessments,” explained one gender program physician, noting that if a teen and their parents have done research and consent, the team moves quickly (As children line up at gender clinics, families confront many unknowns). This approach contrasts with the more cautious, months-long evaluations that early gender clinicians (like the pioneering Dutch team) once recommended (As children line up at gender clinics, families confront many unknowns) (As children line up at gender clinics, families confront many unknowns). Fast-tracking means more patients can start treatment sooner, benefiting clinic volume. However, it raises ethical questions if financial incentives are implicitly encouraging minimal psychological evaluation before irreversible interventions.

Institutions also benefit from aligning with influential guidelines. Organizations like the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) issue internationally followed Standards of Care that increasingly support early intervention. Clinics that adopt WPATH’s “affirmative” model may gain reputational prestige and fend off liability by claiming adherence to prevailing standards. However, WPATH itself has been critiqued for possible bias (as discussed below). In practice, once a clinic positions itself as “affirming,” the internal culture often pushes toward quickly validating a young patient’s trans identity and proceeding to treatment. This can translate to more prescriptions and procedures (and thus more billing). Some clinicians have admitted feeling pressure to “over-diagnose” and medicalize children rapidly – for example, at the UK’s Tavistock youth gender clinic, staff feared being labeled “transphobic” if they did not unquestioningly affirm every case (NHS ’over-diagnosing’ children having transgender treatment, former staff warn | UK News | Sky News). A former Tavistock psychologist said there was effectively “only one pathway… a medical one” for patients, with little time to thoroughly explore other mental health factors (NHS ’over-diagnosing’ children having transgender treatment, former staff warn | UK News | Sky News). In summary, financial and institutional incentives (in concert with activist pressure) have fostered an environment where quick affirmation and treatment are the norm, to the benefit of clinics’ bottom lines but potentially at the expense of due diligence.

Conflicts of Interest & Industry Corruption

Significant conflicts of interest have been documented among the professionals and organizations setting the standards for gender-affirming care. The WPATH, which publishes the leading medical guidelines in this field, is led and staffed by many individuals who personally profit from transition services. According to court documents from a recent Alabama trial, WPATH President Dr. Marci Bowers (a gender surgeon) acknowledged earning over $1 million in a single year from performing transgender surgeries, and stated it is “absolutely” important that those writing the guidelines be advocates for these procedures (WPATH medical guidelines plagued by conflicts of interest  – UnHerd). In the same case, Dr. Eli Coleman – lead author of WPATH’s Standards of Care version 8 – admitted under oath that “most participants” involved in drafting the new guidelines had financial or personal conflicts of interest in this area (WPATH medical guidelines plagued by conflicts of interest  – UnHerd). In other words, the very doctors declaring these treatments safe and necessary for minors were often the same people profiting from increasing their use. Despite this, WPATH claimed no conflict was “significant” enough to affect the outcome, even as they removed minimum age recommendations for hormones and surgeries in their latest standards (WPATH medical guidelines plagued by conflicts of interest  – UnHerd) (WPATH medical guidelines plagued by conflicts of interest  – UnHerd). This raises serious ethical questions. As one investigative report dryly noted, “Transgender medicine for minors is a lucrative industry” (WPATH medical guidelines plagued by conflicts of interest  – UnHerd), and those writing the playbook had a direct stake in its expansion.

Beyond guideline-setters, pharmaceutical ties to advocacy groups also present conflicts. For example, pharma companies that manufacture puberty blockers and hormones have sponsored LGBT organizations and medical societies. AbbVie, maker of Lupron, has been a prominent corporate sponsor of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) ([PDF] AbbVie – 1792 Exchange) ([PDF] SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP – SEC.gov). HRC in turn advocates strongly for insurance coverage of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, even incorporating this as a criterion in their Corporate Equality Index. (Notably, to earn a perfect HRC score, companies must cover puberty blockers for employees’ children ().) This cozy relationship means that corporate interests and activist agendas can align: drug companies gain a larger customer base, while activist groups receive funding and political support. There have even been allegations (under investigation by the Texas Attorney General) that drug makers may have promoted puberty blockers off-label to parents without adequate disclosure of risks (Texas demands drug companies turn over documents on ’puberty blocking’ drugs for children | Reuters) (Texas demands drug companies turn over documents on ’puberty blocking’ drugs for children | Reuters). While companies deny wrongdoing, the fact that Texas felt compelled to probe AbbVie and Endo for potentially deceptive marketing highlights the level of concern about industry influence in this area (Texas demands drug companies turn over documents on ’puberty blocking’ drugs for children | Reuters) (Texas demands drug companies turn over documents on ’puberty blocking’ drugs for children | Reuters).

Another element of potential corruption is the suppression of negative evidence. When the scientific evidence has not aligned perfectly with an affirmative approach, some stakeholders appear to have tried to bury or spin it. In 2021, WPATH commissioned an independent systematic evidence review from researchers at Johns Hopkins University as it prepared new guidelines. Emails later revealed that WPATH executives pressured the researchers to withhold or alter findings that were not favorable (The BMJ investigates dispute over US group’s involvement in WHO’s trans health guideline – BMJ Group) (The BMJ investigates dispute over US group’s involvement in WHO’s trans health guideline – BMJ Group). The Hopkins team complained of “this sponsor trying to restrict our ability to publish” and noted WPATH was worried that fully transparent evidence would put them “in an untenable position” in defending pediatric treatments (The BMJ investigates dispute over US group’s involvement in WHO’s trans health guideline – BMJ Group). Despite these revelations (published by The BMJ), WPATH leaders who interfered remained on a World Health Organization panel developing trans care guidelines (The BMJ investigates dispute over US group’s involvement in WHO’s trans health guideline – BMJ Group) (The BMJ investigates dispute over US group’s involvement in WHO’s trans health guideline – BMJ Group). Such incidents suggest a willingness among some experts to prioritize ideology or profit over scientific rigor, effectively sidelining data on harms. Indeed, long-term, high-quality studies on puberty blockers and adolescent hormone use are still lacking. Reuters found that these life-altering treatments have “little scientific evidence of their long-term safety and efficacy” (As children line up at gender clinics, families confront many unknowns). Internal discussions among clinicians (later made public) show many are acutely aware of the weak evidence base and potential for “a medical scandal” (NHS ’over-diagnosing’ children having transgender treatment, former staff warn | UK News | Sky News). Yet the treatments continue to be pushed, raising concerns that financial and reputational interests have eclipsed the precautionary principle that normally guides pediatric care.

Media & Activist Influence

Media outlets and activist organizations have played a key role in shaping the public narrative – often in ways that protect the financial interests in gender medicine. Major medical centers and pharma companies contribute significant advertising revenue and sponsorships to media and nonprofits, which can create a friendly bias. For instance, some of the largest funders of U.S. news advertising are pharmaceutical companies, and many news programs (even those covering healthcare controversies) are sponsored by drug ads. Advocacy groups similarly receive corporate donations: as noted, companies like AbbVie have openly partnered with LGBTQ+ advocacy campaigns ([PDF] AbbVie – 1792 Exchange). This financial entanglement may help explain why critical coverage of gender-affirming treatments has been muted until recently. Publications that eagerly profile the success stories of transgender youth often hesitate to report on complications, regrets, or industry profiteering. According to two trans-identified academics writing in The Atlantic, mainstream outlets and LGBTQ activists tend to “downplay… the reality of detransition” and gloss over negative outcomes (Take Detransitioners Seriously – The Atlantic). They observed that when a famous detransitioner (former Navy SEAL Chris Beck) spoke out about feeling misled, “most of the outlets” that had celebrated his transition “have yet to cover” his reversal (Take Detransitioners Seriously – The Atlantic). In their view, media silence on such stories is driven by political correctness and fear of aiding “anti-trans” narratives (Take Detransitioners Seriously – The Atlantic). The result is a skewed information environment where only the positive or profitable side of youth transitions is amplified.

Activist organizations have also employed strategies to silence dissenting voices in medical and academic communities. Professionals who question the prevailing “affirmation-only” approach risk public vilification and career consequences. As mentioned, clinicians at the UK GIDS clinic felt unable to openly challenge protocols for fear of being labeled transphobic and jeopardizing their jobs (NHS ’over-diagnosing’ children having transgender treatment, former staff warn | UK News | Sky News) (NHS ’over-diagnosing’ children having transgender treatment, former staff warn | UK News | Sky News). In academia, researchers who publish findings that complicate the affirmative narrative have faced intense backlash. A notable example is Dr. Lisa Littman, who in 2018 published a study on rapid-onset gender dysphoria. Activists mounted campaigns against her and pressured Brown University to remove a press release about the study. The journal was forced into a review process (which ultimately upheld Littman’s work with minor corrections), but the chilling effect was clear. Likewise, when a prominent Toronto gender clinician, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, took a cautious therapeutic approach for youth, activists accused him of “conversion therapy.” He was fired in 2015 amid the controversy, even though an external review later found the allegations were unfounded and he eventually won a settlement. These cases show how internal and external critics are often discredited or muzzled before their concerns can gain traction. In the U.S., a recent whistleblower described how even center-left media seemed more interested in questioning her motives than investigating her claims about poor practices at a trans clinic (Whistleblower Jamie Reed: The Courage to Admit You’re Wrong) (Whistleblower Jamie Reed: The Courage to Admit You’re Wrong). Institutions sometimes directly intervene to quash dissent: for example, internal forums of WPATH revealed leaders discouraging discussion of rising detransition rates, and a children’s hospital reportedly told staff not to publicly question its gender care model. Such suppression not only harms scientific debate but may also protect the financial and ideological investments that powerful groups have made in gender medicine.

Nonetheless, cracks in the silence are starting to appear. Some journalists and outlets have begun publishing in-depth investigations, despite activist pushback. In late 2022, The New York Times ran a feature on the unknowns and risks of puberty blockers, and Reuters published a multi-part investigative series highlighting the scant evidence behind pediatric transition and the stories of families who felt misled (As children line up at gender clinics, families confront many unknowns). These pieces faced criticism from trans advocacy groups, yet they represent a shift toward more balanced reporting. Whistleblowers and patient testimonies, often amplified by independent or conservative media, have forced mainstream outlets to acknowledge controversies they once ignored. Still, advocates for cautious care argue that a “truth deficit” persists in popular media – with well-funded activist campaigns branding almost any critique as hate, many professionals and reporters self-censor. Dissenting viewpoints are frequently marginalized on social media as well: users who share detransitioner stories or question drug safety may find themselves dogpiled or even banned for “hate speech.” Behind the scenes, Big Tech companies partner with LGBTQ organizations to flag “misinformation,” which can include medically accurate but critical content. All these factors contribute to an atmosphere in which challenging the affirmative model is professionally and socially perilous. In effect, ideology and corporate interest have aligned to suppress scrutiny, ensuring that the public hears far more about the supposed benefits of gender-affirming treatments than the risks or conflicts of interest that accompany them.

Real-World Cases & Whistleblower Reports

A growing number of lawsuits, whistleblower accounts, and investigative reports have begun to expose unethical practices and profit-driven motives in gender-affirming medicine. These real-world cases illustrate the human cost of an industry that, according to critics, puts business and ideology ahead of patient well-being. Below are several notable examples, documented by reputable sources:

• Tavistock Gender Clinic Scandal (UK) – The NHS’s only youth gender clinic, Tavistock GIDS in London, became the subject of intense scrutiny after dozens of clinicians resigned in protest. At least 35 psychologists quit in a three-year span, warning that children were being “over-diagnosed and then over-medicalised” without proper oversight (NHS ’over-diagnosing’ children having transgender treatment, former staff warn | UK News | Sky News) (NHS ’over-diagnosing’ children having transgender treatment, former staff warn | UK News | Sky News). One departing clinician said they felt they had had “front row seats to a medical scandal.” Internal reports (e.g. by Dr. David Bell in 2018) detailed how gender-dysphoric youths were fast-tracked to hormones despite complex mental health issues, and staff felt unable to challenge the aggressive approach. This culminated in a lawsuit by Keira Bell, a former patient who regretted her teenage transition. Bell testified she was put on puberty blockers at 16 after only a short evaluation and later suffered irreversible changes (NHS ’over-diagnosing’ children having transgender treatment, former staff warn | UK News | Sky News). In 2020, the High Court initially ruled in her favor that minors likely cannot give truly informed consent to such treatments. Although that decision was overturned on appeal, the independent Cass Review subsequently found Tavistock’s model unsafe – citing “insufficient evidence” for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones – and the NHS shut down Tavistock in 2023-24 (Cass Review – Wikipedia) (Cass Review – Wikipedia). This case exposed how a trusted institution allowed potentially harmful, experimental treatments on minors to continue unabated, raising alarms about medical ethics and oversight.
• Vanderbilt “Money Maker” Video (USA) – In 2022, leaked videos from a 2018 session at Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s transgender clinic showed an administrator openly emphasizing the financial rewards of gender surgeries. She explained to colleagues that “these surgeries bring in a lot of money,” noting that a phalloplasty (creation of a penis) could net $100,000 and that chest surgeries are “huge money makers” (Governor wants probe of Vandy hospital after doctor touts trans procedures are ’money makers’ | Health News Florida). The video also captured a warning that any conscientious objectors would face “consequences” (Governor wants probe of Vandy hospital after doctor touts trans procedures are ’money makers’ | Health News Florida). After these revelations, Vanderbilt’s pediatric gender program faced public outcry and a government inquiry (Governor wants probe of Vandy hospital after doctor touts trans procedures are ’money makers’ | Health News Florida). Vanderbilt announced a pause on adolescent gender surgeries, and officials demanded to know if profit motives were clouding clinical judgment. The incident provided stark evidence of profit-driven decision making – effectively confirming that some hospitals see transitioning minors as a lucrative business opportunity. It also raised ethical questions about patient consent (were families aware that they were viewed as revenue sources?) and the internal culture at such clinics.
• Whistleblower Jamie Reed (USA) – In early 2023, Jamie Reed, a former case manager at the Washington University Transgender Center (St. Louis Children’s Hospital), went public with a detailed account of ethically troubling practices at her clinic. In a sworn affidavit and a published expose, Reed – who describes herself as a queer liberal – said she witnessed children receiving drastic treatments with minimal assessment. According to her, every patient who came to the center “was quickly put on hormones,” even those with serious psychiatric issues or a history of trauma, without adequate therapy or scrutiny. She described clinicians cheerleading transition and downplaying the risks, and instances of parental consent being bypassed or coerced. For example, Reed recounted one case where a minor with severe autism was started on hormones despite clear inability to consent. Her reports also noted that the side effects of puberty blockers and hormones (such as sterilization, sexual dysfunction, bone loss) were not properly explained to families. Reed’s allegations were significant enough to trigger investigations by the Missouri Attorney General and health authorities (Therapists, social workers face scrutiny in Missouri AG investigation of transgender care • Missouri Independent). In fact, her testimony and documentation helped lawmakers in Missouri push through stricter regulations on youth gender medicine (Whistleblower Jamie Reed: The Courage to Admit You’re Wrong) (Whistleblower Jamie Reed: The Courage to Admit You’re Wrong). Reed’s claims were largely corroborated by The New York Times in an August 2023 follow-up (the Times spoke with patients and clinic records that supported her story) (Whistleblower Jamie Reed: The Courage to Admit You’re Wrong). Her courageous whistleblowing, at great personal cost, suggests that behind closed doors, some gender clinics have been operating with shockingly poor safeguards, essentially rushing minors into life-altering medical decisions – and that staff felt they had to leak information to force accountability.
• Detransitioners’ Lawsuits and Testimonies – An increasing number of young adults – often biological females in their teens – are coming forward to say that they regret the medical transitions they underwent as minors and that medical professionals failed them by pushing affirmation without caution. One high-profile example is Chloe Cole, a California girl who was put on puberty blockers and testosterone at 13 and had a double mastectomy (breast removal) at age 15, before ultimately discontinuing male identification. Now 19, Chloe has filed a malpractice lawsuit against the doctors and hospital (Kaiser Permanente) that facilitated her transition (’Detransitioner’ sues doctors after being given irreversible gender …) (’Detransitioner’ sues doctors after being given irreversible gender treatments as child). Her legal complaint states the providers “blindly ramrodded” her through treatment without proper mental health evaluation or informed consent (’Detransitioner’ sues doctors after being given irreversible gender treatments as child). Medical records show Chloe had autism, ADHD, and body image issues – red flags that were never meaningfully addressed (’Detransitioner’ sues doctors after being given irreversible gender treatments as child). She alleges that alternatives to medical transition (like talk therapy) were not offered, and that as a vulnerable adolescent she simply trusted the doctors’ advice that transitioning was the only solution. Chloe’s story is unfortunately not unique. Others, such as Layla Jane (who is suing medical providers in California for approving a double mastectomy at age 13), and several anonymous young adults in Canada and the UK, have also taken legal action after detransitioning. Their testimonies often echo the same themes: perfunctory assessments, pressure to transition quickly, and failure to disclose the permanence and risks of treatment. These cases put a human face on what can happen when profit and ideology eclipse prudent medicine. They also pose a looming financial risk to the industry itself – if courts begin to find clinics liable for negligence or lack of informed consent, the “gender-affirming” business model may face a wave of costly litigation.

Major investigative journalism efforts have also bolstered these accounts with hard evidence. Aside from Reuters and the NYT, BBC’s Newsnight and the BBC podcast “File on 4” have uncovered internal concerns at Tavistock and highlighted stories of regretful young patients. Swedish and Finnish television documentaries in 2021–2022 featured whistleblowers and detransitioners, which contributed to those countries reversing course on pediatric hormone treatments. Even some medical journals are now publishing more critical analyses of the affirmation-only approach. All of this accumulating evidence – from insider leaks, to patient lawsuits, to international health authorities reversing policy – points to a pattern of systemic problems and possible corruption in how gender-affirming care for youth has been sold and implemented. While transgender advocacy groups and industry-backed experts continue to defend the prevailing model, these real-world cases and investigations are forcing a reevaluation of practices that, until recently, were portrayed as unassailably compassionate and safe. The tension between the big money involved and the unresolved medical uncertainties is now at the center of a heated public debate. Going forward, the hope of whistleblowers and reformers is that greater transparency and accountability will protect vulnerable youth – even if it means certain powerful interests in the “gender industry” must sacrifice some profits and prestige for the sake of ethics and evidence-based care.

Sources: Investigative reports and testimony from Reuters (As children line up at gender clinics, families confront many unknowns) (As children line up at gender clinics, families confront many unknowns), The Associated Press (Governor wants probe of Vandy hospital after doctor touts trans procedures are ’money makers’ | Health News Florida), KFF Health News ( Hormone Blocker Shocker: Drug Costs 8 Times More When Used For Kids – KFF Health News ), Sky News (NHS ’over-diagnosing’ children having transgender treatment, former staff warn | UK News | Sky News) (NHS ’over-diagnosing’ children having transgender treatment, former staff warn | UK News | Sky News), The BMJ (The BMJ investigates dispute over US group’s involvement in WHO’s trans health guideline – BMJ Group), UnHerd (WPATH medical guidelines plagued by conflicts of interest  – UnHerd) (WPATH medical guidelines plagued by conflicts of interest  – UnHerd), and other reputable outlets have been used to compile the above information. These sources include on-record statements, court documents, and whistleblower accounts that shed light on how financial incentives and institutional dynamics intersect with the treatment of gender-dysphoric youth.