'Make America Healthy Again' report cites nonexistent studies: authors

Very misleading title. They basically made formatting errors in their citations, but they want people to believe they just make stuff up.

But I'm not surprised, the MSM will never admit anything good about RFKjr, or the Trump administration.

Kick these unserious crackpots onto YouTube where they can tell morons to wake up and talk about big something or other.

Clowns.

The worm in his brain did the proofreading.

Citing authors who said they didn’t write something is a formatting error?

the MSM will never admit anything good about RFKjr

What is good about someone who has a worm in their brain and thinks that all vaccines cause autism?

Citing authors who said they didn’t write something is a formatting error?

I suppose you can be incompetent and dishonest.

What is it with conspiracy theory types and honesty? Is it an allergy?

Very misleading title. They basically made formatting errors in their citations, but they want people to believe they just make stuff up.

No, that false, there are formatting errors, the are broken links, there are misrepresented studies but there are also studies that the supposed authors say don't exist.

The article clearly describes this, for example:

Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, who was also listed as an author of the supposed JAMA study, told AFP she does research on the topic but does not know where the statistics credited to her came from, and that she "did not write that paper."

But I'm not surprised, the MSM will never admit anything good about RFKjr, or the Trump administration.

That becomes very difficult when they are fixed in doing wrong things all the time, lying in order to report something positive is not what people should be looking for in media.

This sort of thing is common in papers where 'AI' has been used to write it and has not been checked.

There is so much professionalism in trump team.... a new win for maga?

This is what happen when you hate sciences and start a war on education.

The report can be accessed here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/maha/

The report has 522 references. After combing through it carefully, they found 4 errors in the citations, so I guess the remaining 518 are good.

I hope we'll get to read about the revelations in the report and their conclusions....

Do this at an American university and you are likely to be referred to the student disciplinary committee.

Even if just four of the references are flawed, that still leaves 516 valid citations, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for the countless pharmaceutical industry-funded studies that have long propped up the broken, for-profit healthcare model in the U.S. These are the same "trusted studies" that have paved the way for insane rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, autoimmune diseases, anxiety, depression, and a host of other chronic conditions now plaguing American children.

WHERE is the outrage over those failures?

WHY is it that every time a challenge is posed to the status quo - a status quo that has demonstrably FAILED - the immediate response from defenders of the pharmaceutical orthodoxy is to nitpick and discredit, rather than engage with the substance of the argument? Could it be because real change threatens their profit model? Because keeping Americans perpetually sick and medicated is far more lucrative than actually addressing root causes?

If “doing what's always been done” had worked, we wouldn’t be in this fat mess of a health catastrophe in the first place. But instead of welcoming fresh scrutiny or new approaches, these conglomerates dig in their heels, smear dissenters, and cling to a crumbling narrative. Why?

Apparently, they submitted a corrected version of the MAHA report.

Similar to most of the disinformation and misinformation coming out of the Trumpian maladministration. After all, it’s headed by a convicted felon and former Insurrectionist-in- Chief.

The “Great March Backward” continues to cause havoc, not only in the United States of America, but throughout the globe.

The unsteady dunce, with the assistance of Faux News taking heads, election results deniers and other miscreants, has turned this proud nation into Absurdistan.

Jay, I agree that the status quo in the USA is a disaster, but the alternative can’t be driven by ideology before science.

The last generation to have lived through Polio, Smallpox epidemics and life before fluoridation is almost gone. They have been replaced by coddled, rich boomers who get their medical advice from anecdotes.

I don’t foresee this administration moving away from the “profit above all” model that has ruined the system. Until they try to fix the cost structure of the system everything else is playing to the whims of the crowd.

The report has 522 references. After combing through it carefully, they found 4 errors in the citations, so I guess the remaining 518 are good.

Even if just four of the references are flawed, that still leaves 516 valid citations

What? that is completely false. 7 of the studies do not exist, but those are only the most egregious flaws, many more are broken links and mistaken attributions as well as misrepresented studies.

This is taking into account that even one single fabricated study is enough to say this is a complete failure as a report. It is either gross incompetence or willful attempt to mislead people thinking that nobody would take the time to check the references (something that only people with severe ignorance of how scientific reports are consumed would ever think). Both are reasons to qualify this as a disaster.

If a surgeon cut 7 wrong legs out of 500 surgeries would that made his work acceptable? obviously not, since most surgeons do not make this gross mistake even once. This is a similar situation, even one false reference is a terribly serious mistake even for a report from a company, much more responsibility should be assumed from a report from the government. But it wont, because the people in charge have repeatedly accepted incompetence and they are trying to get away with an unacceptably low standard.

which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for the countless pharmaceutical industry-funded studies that have long propped up the broken, for-profit healthcare model in the U.S. 

Bring references to studies that support the policies in the US that have false studies that don't exist.

You can't? that is because your claim is false. This is a serious scandal precisely because it does not happen. The current administration made a point in putting incompetent and mentally handicapped people in charge of the public health, and hopes people don't put too much attention to the unacceptable mistakes they keep doing, but for the world in general this keeps being something that defies logic and should be severely punished.

Apparently, they submitted a corrected version of the MAHA report.

The corrected the most obvious mistakes, but the ones where the experts (including the authors of some of the references) say the studies do not support the claims made in the report are still there, because those are being misrepresented on purpose to "justify" unscientific claims.

7 of the studies do not exist, but those are only the most egregious flaws, many more are broken links and mistaken attributions as well as misrepresented studies.

No, the broken links are included in the 7, together with simply using the wrong reference. The 7 citations have been corrected.

But I'm sure they'll come up with another excuse to dismiss the report's content.

It also criticizes the "over-medicalization" of children, citing surging prescriptions of psychiatric drugs and antibiotics, and blaming "corporate capture" for skewing scientific research.

Indeed, from the report:

The pharmaceutical industry, from 1999 to 2018, spent $4.7 billion on lobbying expenditures at the federal level, more than any other industry. In addition, 9 out of the last 10 FDA commissioners—and approximately 70% of the agency’s medical reviewers—have gone on to work for the pharmaceutical industry. Over 80% of clinical departments and teaching hospitals at U.S. medical schools receive some degree of pharmaceutical funding, while half of the total costs for continuing medical education (CME) is funded by industry. Between 2010 and 2022, industry provided $6 billion to over 20,000 patient advocacy organizations.

No, the broken links are included in the 7, together with simply using the wrong reference. The 7 citations have been corrected.

That is false, the original report by NOTUS explicitly mentions that 7 studies references do not exist, they are also listed in several reports.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/29/health/maha-report-errors

But I'm sure they'll come up with another excuse to dismiss the report's content.

You are the one that is using excuses clearly not true to excuse something that is inexcusable in the first place. And even had to left unaddressed that the report make false claims about other studies as well,

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/29/rfk-jr-maha-health-report-studies

For example, one paper was claimed to show that talking therapy was as effective as psychiatric medication, but the statistician Joanne McKenzie said this was impossible, as “we did not include psychotherapy” in the review.

The sleep researcher Mariana G Figueiro also said her study was mischaracterized, with the report incorrectly stating it involved children rather than college students, and citing the wrong journal entirely.

Indeed, from the report:

This is the part where the supposed references proving the point were two studies about ADHD that don't exist, and make false claims about other studies that the own authors disqualify.

This means that the claim that the scientific research is skewed completely depends on false claims they are making, not on the existing literature.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, should be remotely surprised by this.

Trump's only rationale for nominating people for roles was, and still is, how much it will "trigger the libs" and how well the person in question will do exactly what Trump wants. The candidate's actual suitability for the position is 100 per cent irrelevant.

I would have been way more surprised if the report was actually cogently argued, properly sourced, and generally written as if someone who actually knew what they were doing was behind it.

Propaganda Barbie and the MAGA people are completely immune to shame, so pointing this stuff out to them has very little practical value.

@Vanillasludge

Jay, I agree that the status quo in the USA is a disaster, but the alternative can’t be driven by ideology before science.

The last generation to have lived through Polio, Smallpox epidemics and life before fluoridation is almost gone. They have been replaced by coddled, rich boomers who get their medical advice from anecdotes.

You raise some valid concerns - yep, ideology must never come before science. And if we’re going to hold that standard, then let’s apply it evenly.

Could you start by justifying one of the most bizarre holdovers of 20th-century public health policy, ie the fluoridation of our drinking water?

Fluoride has been widely available in dozens of toothpastes, mouthwashes, and dental treatments for over a hundred years, tailored to individual need and used directly on the teeth where it might actually have an effect. WHY we still mass-medicating the entire population by adding it to the water supply - a method so indiscriminate that it exposes infants, the elderly, people with kidney disease, and everyone in between to the exact same dose, regardless of their actual dental health, weight, or vulnerability?

Even more illogically, the fluoride in drinking water barely even touches the teeth before being swallowed. If that was actually about science, we’d be asking: WHY are we swallowing a substance that supposedly works topically?

It’s not “anti-science” to question outdated policies. It’s anti-science to preserve them without re-evaluation - especially when international health bodies in Japan and countries across Europe have flatly rejected water fluoridation on both scientific and ethical grounds.

If we’re serious about moving past the failed status quo, NOTHING should be off-limits for evidence-based scrutiny.

You raise some valid concerns - yep, ideology must never come before science. And if we’re going to hold that standard, then let’s apply it evenly.

So this report, that tries to misrepresent science in favor of an ideology that rejects scientific conclusions when they don't support the current government interests should be just retracted.

Could you start by justifying one of the most bizarre holdovers of 20th-century public health policy, ie the fluoridation of our drinking water?

WHY we still mass-medicating the entire population by adding it to the water supply

The scientific evidence does a very good job in this

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9542152/

As you can notice exactly zero of the references in this scientific report are imaginary things, also zero are being misrepresented.

Even more illogically, the fluoride in drinking water barely even touches the teeth before being swallowed

Yet it has perfectly well validated protective effects and zero identifiable risks at the concentrations used in the water in the US.

It’s not “anti-science” to question outdated policies

It is when this "questioning" is based on ignoring the evidence available and repeating false claims well debunked.

when the pharmaceutical conglomerate-backed public health system

So what prevents HIV from turning into AIDS? Vitamin C? It seems RFK Worm people think so.

More regulation is needed like they do in Japan or Germany (they don't give out opioids like candy in either country). And expand government healthcare (works well in Japan and even MAGAs in Japan know this)