100%. The chain of trust is necessary for the well-functioning of modern medicine. It's why the true scandal here, in my view, is not the existence of doctors like Jack Turban or Johanna Olson-Kennedy. Every profession has its quacks and charlatans, and it would be irrational to assume medicine is immune from these problems, human nature being what it is. What matters are the institutions--especially the epistemic ones--that gatekeep knowledge and correct or deter the "bad apples." The Jason Arday saga is a good example of that. When institutions function properly, they mold human beings; when they are dysfunctional, they serve as platforms for the self-expression or personal ambitions of individuals. (See, e.g., Yuval Levin's A Time to Build). In the case of "gender-affirming care," the dysfunctional institutions are primarily medical journals, medical associations, medical schools, and legacy media (esp. science journalism). The latter is perhaps the most important, because a watchdog for the former. I continue to believe that a single, in-depth, front-page investigative story by the New York Times that actually looks into the history, research, and institutional support for gender medicine would be enough to force a broad and serious reexamination, especially within elite/academic medicine. In the American context in particular, our decentralized and fragmented political and medical systems de-facto delegate a huge amount of professional and epistemic authority to organized medical groups, health systems, insurance companies, and the like. These entities have interests of their own and do not always act in the interest of patients (not that government does either). There are no solutions, only trade-offs.