MAHA report's errors are just start of its problems
Tribune News Service
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new Make America Healthy Again report offers a road to wellness for the nation's children paved not with the gold-standard science he promised, but with pyrite. The report, created by a MAHA commission that includes all of President Donald Trump's cabinet members, mixes nuggets of truth — like the idea that it's important to focus on kids' health — with gross misrepresentations of scientific research. Some of the studies are even made up. The nonprofit news organisation Notus first reported that some of the commission's findings relied on research that doesn't exist. The document, released last week, includes seven fabricated studies related to kids' mental health and the overprescribing of medications for ADHD, depression and asthma. The New York Times later identified several other fake citations.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt attributed the inclusion of phony publications to 'formatting issues' that would be corrected. An updated report that omits those studies and cleans up bizarre errors in several others has since been uploaded to the White House website. That version contained fresh errors, Notus reported. Many suspect that the fake citations are the product of AI. That alone should be disqualifying. Rather than the thoughtful, evidence-based assessment our kids deserve, the first major report on Kennedy's cornerstone initiative was a slapped-together treatise. But there's a bigger problem. If the MAHA team did rely on AI to generate supporting data — and it seems likely it did — it wasn't just cutting corners. It confirms this project was never a good faith effort to begin with. The team was assembling evidence to reinforce conclusions that supported Kennedy's well-known narrative.
That pattern is bolstered by the report's interpretation of the real studies it cites. Data is conveniently twisted to fit Kennedy's personal beliefs. A recurring tendency is to exaggerate the size of the current problem by minimising the significance of those in the past. For example, the report points to a fivefold rise in the rates of celiac disease since the 1980s but fails to acknowledge a dramatic increase in diagnosis and awareness of the autoimmune disorder. The same is true for the report's discussions of inflammatory bowel disease, childhood cancer and autism. None of this should be surprising. In nearly every interview he gives, Kennedy repeats the same inflated statistics to drive home the terrible state of our kids' health. His goal seems to be to scare the public into acquiescence. If the problem is this bad, if our kids are this sick, if health agencies have failed them this profoundly, why not blindly follow his ideas for fixing it?
Something more insidious is at play with all of the half-baked or made-up statistics. He is using them to undermine the real experts, making it increasingly hard for Americans to understand whose advice to trust. And ultimately, his willfully misleading analysis provides cover while he dismantles longstanding norms for scientific research and health policy. In just a few short months, the secretary has wielded his authority in unprecedented and dangerous ways. For example, amid the largest measles outbreak in 30 years, instead of emphasising vaccines — which can prevent the disease — he asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop guidelines for treatments. There are no proven treatments for measles. At least three people have died, and nearly 1,100 cases of the disease have been reported.
In another disturbing move, Kennedy said he would unilaterally change the CDC's COVID vaccine guidelines to preclude pregnant women and children from receiving shots. That upended the longstanding process that relies on outside experts' careful analysis and open debate before making such decisions. Days later, the CDC amended its regulations to incorporate some, but not all of Kennedy's proposed changes, leaving many confused not only about the actual policy but who sets it. We should worry that his approach to measles and COVID is a preview of how he will treat the value of other routine shots. One of the most alarming sections of the report questions the evidence behind and safety of the childhood vaccine schedule and — without evidence — suggests it could be linked to chronic disease.
Kennedy has also used his platform to push policy changes on the use of fluoride in drinking water, which he has repeatedly linked to lower IQs (a tenuous claim that experts say is based on fluoride levels not used in the US). Fluoridation is regulated by state and local municipalities, but Kennedy said he would direct the CDC to stop recommending the practice and the Food and Drug Administration — also under his purview — later banned fluoride supplements based on unsubstantiated claims that they harm gut health. His rhetoric on the topic appears to have emboldened the first two state bans on fluoride in public water. The MAHA report's agenda suggests more changes are to come. Meanwhile, new research in JAMA found that removing fluoride from drinking water would result in 25 million more cavities in children at a cost of $9.8 billion to the US healthcare system over five years.
Kennedy's next move appears to be wresting control of health and science research altogether. 'We're probably going to stop publishing in the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and those other journals because they're all corrupt,' he said on a recent podcast with wellness influencer Gary Brecka. Unless those top-tier journals 'change dramatically,' health agencies will 'create our own journals in-house,' he added. In other words, he'll have a ready-made platform to showcase data that justifies whatever policy he wants to roll out next. In another troubling sign of how data could be warped to fit a political agenda, President Donald Trump signed an executive order after the report was released directing a restoration of 'gold standard science.'
The goal sounds reasonable enough: to ensure research is reproducible and reverse a decline in public trust in science and health agencies. But the language of the directive is concerning. It not only challenges the credibility of several agencies — including the CDC — but suggests someone like Kennedy could exploit the language of research integrity to crack down on findings that don't fit his personal agenda. Kennedy has called the MAHA report 'the diagnosis' and says he will 'deliver the prescription' in the next 60 days. Given what we've seen over the last few months, we should worry what form that takes — and the far reaching consequences it could have on both American kids and the health infrastructure designed to protect them.
Earlier, serious followers of healthcare policy in the US didn't expect much good to emerge from its takeover by President Donald Trump and his secretary of Health and Human Services, the anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But the agency and its leadership managed to live down to the worst expectations May 27, when HHS released a 73-page 'assessment' of the health of America's children titled 'The MAHA Report' (for 'Make America Healthy Again'). A sloppier, more disingenuous government report would be hard to imagine. Whatever credibility the report might have had as a product of a federal agency was shattered by its obvious errors, misrepresentations and outright fabrications of source materials, some of it plainly the product of the authors' reliance on AI bots. At least seven sources cited in the report do not exist, as Emily Kennard and Margaret Manto of the journalism organisation NOTUS uncovered. HHS hastily reissued the report with some of those citations removed, but without disclosing the changes — an extremely unkosher action in the research community.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Dubai Eye
a day ago
- Dubai Eye
Aid foundation says two of its workers injured in Gaza
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation said on Saturday that two American aid workers had suffered non-life-threatening injuries in a targeted attack at a food distribution site in Gaza. The US and Israeli-backed GHF said in a statement that the injured Americans were receiving medical treatment and were in a stable condition. "The attack – which preliminary information indicates was carried out by two assailants who threw two grenades at the Americans – occurred at the conclusion of an otherwise successful distribution in which thousands of Gazans safely received food," the GHF said. In addition to aid workers, the GHF employs private US military contractors tasked with providing security at their sites. It was not immediately clear who was behind the attack. The Israeli military had no immediate comment when contacted by Reuters. Gazan authorities separately reported dozens of Palestinians had been killed by the Israeli military in the past 24 hours, including near aid distribution sites. The Hamas-run interior ministry in Gaza on Thursday had warned residents of the coastal enclave not to assist the GHF, saying deadly incidents near its food distribution sites endangered hungry Gazans. The GHF began distributing food packages in Gaza at the end of May, bypassing traditional aid channels, including the United Nations which says the U.S.-based organisation is neither impartial nor neutral. The GHF has said it has delivered more than 52 million meals to Palestinians in five weeks, while other humanitarian groups had "nearly all of their aid looted". Since Israel lifted an 11-week aid blockade on Gaza on May 19, the UN says more than 400 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid handouts. A senior UN official said last week that the majority of people killed were trying to reach aid distribution sites of the GHF. Footage released by GHF has shown at least one aid site to be overrun with no clear distribution process. Palestinians have described the sites as chaotic. According to Gaza's health ministry, at least 70 people have been killed in the territory by the Israeli military in the last 24 hours, including 23 near aid distribution sites. The ministry did not specify where or how exactly they had been killed.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
The Supreme Court's majority is playing the long game
Noah Feldman, Tribune News Service Many legal commentators apparently believe that, in the term that just ended, the Supreme Court further enabled President Donald Trump. The court did, in fact, issue a series of conservative decisions that Trump likes. However, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the court also simultaneously pursued a careful strategy aimed at preserving the rule of law in the face of Trump's unprecedented challenges to it. The court picked its battles, upholding a meaningful number of lower court orders that blocked unlawful Trump initiatives. At the same time, the justices worked hard to avoid a direct confrontation in which Trump might overtly declare his intention to ignore a court ruling. Even its most controversial recent decision — ending the Trump-era judicial practice of issuing universal injunctions against presidential action — may be understood as an effort to prevent lower courts from creating a direct conflict with the administration that might lead to a showdown the courts would lose. On this interpretation, Roberts wants to exercise his own careful judgment about when to go toe-to-toe with Trump. His goal is to avoid a constitutional crisis that could undermine the power of the judiciary for generations. Let me be crystal clear: I disagree strongly with essentially all of the ideologically conservative decisions the court issued this term. (You can read my columns on each of them to see why.) Yet these decisions, wrong though they are, were not the most important element of the Supreme Court's job since Trump took office. No, since Jan. 20, 2025, the court's essential function has been to fight for the preservation of the rule of law. That fight cannot be won simply by bluster, for a very specific constitutional reason: The Supreme Court has no direct enforcement power and no power of the purse. It is, as Alexander Hamilton famously wrote, 'the least dangerous branch' — which also means it is the least powerful. In the end, the Supreme Court has power only because the executive obeys it. If the president defies the courts, the only constitutional remedies available are congressional attempts to withhold funds (which is not going to happen under this Congress) and impeachment (good luck). Maybe — one can only hope — millions of people would go into the streets in defense of the rule of law. Maybe the financial markets would decline sharply. But these are extreme contingencies, and they might not work. Trump, more than any president before — even Abraham Lincoln in wartime — has shown he is prepared to openly violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States. His attacks on the judiciary, echoed by his vice president, are clearly intended to signal his openness to outright defiance. And in a direct constitutional crisis triggered by defiance of judicial orders, it's hard to say with confidence that Trump wouldn't win. So the job of the court over the last six months has been to hold the line. It has done so — not resoundingly, but cautiously, as befits judges who aren't politicians and don't have a constituency to rely on. When the lower courts blocked some of the president's efforts to freeze federal grant money and fire career government employees, the Supreme Court mostly left those orders in place. When District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been deported to El Salvador without due process, the justices upheld the order — and he is now back in the US, albeit facing new criminal charges. When other detainees slated for deportation sought their day in court, the justices affirmed their due process rights. Of course, the court's majority hasn't stood up to the Trump administration in every instance. Sometimes that has been for technical legal reasons. But it is also because Roberts wants, ideally, to avoid a situation where Trump directly defies a court order. And if the confrontation must happen, Roberts and the other justices want it to be on an issue where the court's legal and rhetorical power is at its maximum. That means trying to pick an issue where the law is clearly against Trump; all nine of the justices agree; and no foreign actors outside the court's jurisdiction are necessary to effectuate the court's judgment.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
In a democracy protest is good for the soul
Austin Sarat, Tribune News Service For the last several months, I have organised a weekly 'Stand-Up for Democracy' rally/protest on the busiest street corner in my hometown. On Fridays at 5:30 pm., students, teachers, townspeople, and senior citizens come together, hold signs, and wave at passing drivers, some of whom honk their horns in solidarity. I live in a very progressive town, where last November, Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, beat President Donald Trump by a margin of more than nine to one. Some of my friends ask, 'Why bother?' They think that we are preaching to the choir or that the president and his colleagues are impervious. These are, in a sense, the wrong questions. Protest is a democratic practice, valuable everywhere, regardless of its immediate impact. That is why it was so important that millions of Americans did their own Stand Up for Democracy events on June 14. While liberals took heart at those numbers, some conservative commentators called them 'utter nonsense.' Writing in The Hill, law professor Jonathan Turley argued, 'The well-funded protests are being fueled by Democratic leaders, who are resuming their claims that citizens must either protest... or accept tyranny in the U.S. Turley went on to call the No Kings day rallying cry, 'Democracy is dying'... an absurdity...., since every indication is that our constitutional system is operating precisely as designed.' 'Precisely as designed'? While I respect Prof. Turley, who is a well-published legal scholar, I don't share his Panglossian view of our current situation. And neither do millions of other Americans. New York Times columnist David Brooks spoke for many of them when he wrote that 'over the centuries, people built...(c)onstitutions to restrain is threatening all of that. It is primarily about acquiring is a multifront assault to make the earth a playground for ruthless men, so of course any institutions that might restrain power must be weakened or destroyed.' While Brooks admitted that 'I don't naturally march in demonstrations or attend rallies that I'm not covering as a journalist,' he concluded, 'this is what America needs right now.' I agree. Developing a coordinated national movement to preserve democracy is an urgent priority. In the meantime, however, people should not wait to make their voices heard. But they need to be realistic about what protesting can and cannot do. That realism requires that those who protest understand that no matter how many of us hold rallies to express our devotion to democracy, we are unlikely to change the minds of those who support Trump. Some, like Turley, will continue to believe he is operating within the bounds of our constitutional system; others are happy with his autocratic tendencies. Conversion is, however, not the point, at least not at this time. Commentators who urge people 'who are demonstrating to reach out to those who are not yet protesting and persuade them to join local groups that are fighting for our democracy' are offering a limited metric. Protesting is a democratic practice in and of itself. In some ways, it is like voting. It is a way of expressing an opinion, standing up for a point of view, rather than trying to change anyone's mind. Think of protest as a regular form of democratic participation, not an aberration or a departure from the routines of democratic life. Protest, Harvard's Stephen Jones says, 'inform(s) politicians of voters' concerns. Protest is an educational process which combats passivity.' If it is non-violent, Jones argues, 'it can deepen democracy's reach.... (and) at the heart of every democracy there is always a history of protest.' Vanessa Williamson, Senior Fellow at Brookings, puts it this way: 'Protest as an essential part of democracy, and...a critical political tool. So if you're thinking to yourself that in any given political fight, there's maybe a stronger party and a weaker party, for the weaker party, the way for them to win is to get people off the sidelines, right?' That's what protests do, even when they are small and carried out in places like the progressive town in which I live. They are important because they make 'grievances and concerns and problems visible to others.' They are a way of being with others in a public arena. Courts have traditionally recognized that and accorded protests First Amendment protections. Gatherings on public streets, sidewalks, or parks constitute, they say, are a 'traditional public forum' where speech cannot be prohibited, except through reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Protests enable members of a democratic community to express their thoughts, cheer on their side, make their voices heard, and combat despair. As the psychologist Radhule Weininger suggests, 'Taking action, especially collectively, can reduce feelings of helplessness....' Weininger notes that 'when joining a rally, participants often report a stronger sense of control over their circumstances and future. Being surrounded by people with shared convictions creates a vital sense of community. Formerly frightened people feel less isolated and cultivate more agency. Moods are elevated and can transform from disheartened to energised and even joyful.' Unlike elections, where votes can be counted and the results known quickly, protests have a long and uncertain time horizon. That is as true for the No Kings protests as it is for any other. That fact is another reason why protesting is so important in a democracy. It helps people practice commitment, discipline, and patience. For those who want more, there is empirical evidence that non-violent protests ultimately yield results. Looking at demonstrations over the last century, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan Chenoweth found that nonviolent protests led to significant 'political change' 53% of the time compared to 26% for the violent protests. But they remind us that it takes 'around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.' Protest works, Professor Zeynep Tufekci explains, 'because they can undermine the most important pillar of power: not repression, is the bedrock of resilient power.' Losing legitimacy, she adds, 'is the most important threat to authorities can do only so much for so long to hold on to power under such conditions.' Protests, on her account, 'are a grab for attention: They are an attempt to force a conversation about the topic they're highlighting.... Successful protests are the ones that win that conversation and in the framing of the issue...' Protests are good for the soul. They can 'change the protesters the cause is so powerful that the protesters don't calculate whether it works or not, but feel morally compelled to show up and be counted.' Showing up and being counted, that's what democracy demands. That's why I'll be back, with whoever shows up, for Friday afternoons Stand Up for Democracy rallies/protests on a street corner in my progressive town.
