RFK Jr.'s Disastrous MAHA Report Seems to Have Been Written Using AI
A report on children's health from Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' commission referenced fake research and misinterpreted studies to support their agenda. It also included citation errors, like crediting the wrong author on a study.
To make things worse, the report appears to have been written using artificial intelligence, according to The Washington Post. The revelation comes just weeks after Kennedy, the Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, touted the department's commitment to using AI liberally.
'The AI revolution has arrived,' Kennedy told lawmakers earlier this month. He said, 'We are very, very aggressively implementing AI,' adding: 'We brought very, very high-quality, caliber people from Silicon Valley.' Kennedy pledged to use AI to speed up clinical trials for drug testing and offering it as a way for people to avoid going to the emergency rooms in rural areas with shortages of doctors.
The 'MAHA Report: Make Our Children Healthy Again,' looks at diet, technology usage, medication usage, and other factors that contribute to children's health. A key consequence of children's health issues, the report argues, is the majority would not be able to serve in the military, 'primarily due to obesity, poor physical fitness, and/or mental health challenges.' The report also argues that children are on too many medications, which aligns with RFK Jr.'s longtime diatribes against vaccines and drugmakers.
The shoddy 'research' calls into question the report's validity. NOTUS first pointed out the study's many issues on Thursday, showing that seven cited studies don't exist. NOTUS also found issues with how the report interpreted its sources.
'The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with,' epidemiologist Katherine Keyes told NOTUS of a reference that named her. 'We've certainly done research on this topic, but did not publish a paper in JAMA Pediatrics on this topic with that co-author group, or with that title.'
Citations in particular show hallmark signs of AI usage, the Post found. These issues go beyond typical user error in writing somewhat annoying APA citations. For example, URLs in two citations include the term 'oaicite,' referencing OpenAI, which the Post calls a 'definitive sign' that the authors used AI.
The report also cites articles that do not exist. For example, 'Direct-to-consumer advertising and the rise in ADHD medication use among children' sounds like it could be a real article, but it was fabricated. The report cited an article from psychiatry professor Robert Findling on a topic that he writes about, but the article does not exist. This is a sign of AI usage, because chatbots 'hallucinate,' as the Post says, cite studies that could be real but are not.
Two citations for an article from U.S. News and World Report titled 'How much recess should kids get?' each credit a different author. But neither author is the one who actually wrote the article. Two citations for another article on recess do the same. AI chatbots are known to mix real references with false information, often described as hallucinations.
For a statistic about overprescription for children with asthma, the report cites an article that does seem to exist, but that does not include the statistic. The lead author for the article in the citation is correct, but the co-authors are not — another error.
The Post also identified a URL that no longer works. If AI is trained on older material, it can include outdated links.
Another citation includes a quotation from the reference material, an error only someone who does not conceptually grasp citations — or a bot — would make.
Rolling Stone also noticed that some citations are missing italicization and others are missing capitalization, which at the very least suggests an author without an academic background, a lazy author, or perhaps a bot.
On Friday, NOTUS found that the report had been updated, adding in entire new errors. In the hours since the Post's story came out Friday night, the White House appears to have edited the report again to remove some of the evidence the article referenced. For example, 'oaicite' no longer appears anywhere in the report.An HHS spokesman told the Post that 'minor citation and formatting errors have been corrected, but the substance of the MAHA report remains the same — a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic disease epidemic afflicting our nation's children.'
More from Rolling Stone
John Oliver Slams RFK Jr.: 'Clearly in Way Over His Worm-Riddled Head'
RFK Jr. Made Promising Statements on Long Covid. Too Bad the Rest of His Plans Undercut Them
GOP Senator Blames Americans for Most of Their Health Problems
Best of Rolling Stone
The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign
Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal
The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Business News
21 minutes ago
- Time Business News
When to Choose Strattera Over Adderall
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) affects millions of people worldwide, leading to difficulties with focus, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. While stimulant medications like Adderall are often the first line of treatment, non-stimulant options such as Strattera (atomoxetine) can be a more appropriate choice in certain situations. Understanding when to choose strattera vs adderall involves evaluating factors such as the patient's medical history, potential side effects, risk of substance abuse, and overall treatment goals. When managing depression and anxiety, selecting the appropriate medication is crucial for effective treatment. Both medications in question are popular SSRIs that help balance serotonin levels in the brain, improving mood and emotional stability. In the middle of this discussion, Lexapro vs zoloft often arises as a common comparison due to their similar uses but distinct side effect profiles and dosing schedules. While some patients respond better to one, others may experience fewer adverse effects or more rapid relief with the alternative. Consulting a healthcare provider is essential to tailor the choice to individual needs and medical history. Strattera and Adderall are both approved by the FDA for treating ADHD but function in very different ways. Adderall is a stimulant composed of amphetamine salts that work by increasing the levels of dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain. This results in improved attention, reduced impulsivity, and greater overall concentration. On the other hand, Strattera is a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI), which means it primarily boosts norepinephrine without significantly impacting dopamine levels. Unlike Adderall, Strattera is not a controlled substance and carries a much lower risk of abuse. One of the primary reasons to choose Strattera over Adderall is when there's a concern about substance misuse or a history of addiction. Adderall is a Schedule II controlled substance due to its high potential for abuse and dependency. For individuals with a history of substance use disorder, Adderall may pose a serious risk. Strattera, being non-stimulant and non-addictive, offers a safer alternative. It allows for effective ADHD management without the risk of reinforcing addictive behaviors, making it particularly useful in populations vulnerable to stimulant misuse. Many individuals with ADHD also suffer from comorbid mental health conditions like anxiety or depression. In such cases, Strattera may be a better option than Adderall. Stimulants like Adderall can exacerbate anxiety symptoms in some patients, leading to increased restlessness, jitteriness, or panic attacks. Strattera, on the other hand, has shown some efficacy in improving symptoms of anxiety and may also provide mild antidepressant effects due to its norepinephrine-enhancing properties. Choosing Strattera can help manage both ADHD and accompanying mood or anxiety disorders without worsening either condition. Adderall, especially the immediate-release version, has a relatively short duration of action, requiring multiple doses throughout the day. Even the extended-release versions may wear off by late afternoon or evening. In contrast, Strattera is taken once daily and offers 24-hour symptom coverage. This can be particularly advantageous for individuals who need consistent control over their ADHD symptoms throughout the day and into the evening. Students, working professionals, or parents managing multiple responsibilities might find this steady effect preferable to the peaks and troughs associated with stimulant medications. While stimulants are effective for many people, they also come with a host of potential side effects, including insomnia, appetite suppression, irritability, increased heart rate, and elevated blood pressure. For some individuals, these side effects can be intolerable or even dangerous, particularly if they have underlying cardiovascular issues. Strattera generally has a milder side effect profile and is not associated with the same degree of appetite suppression or cardiovascular stimulation. Although it has its own set of side effects, such as nausea or fatigue, these are often more manageable and tend to lessen over time. In some clinical scenarios, a non-stimulant medication like Strattera is the preferred first-line treatment. For example, in younger children (especially those under six years of age), stimulants may not be recommended due to potential side effects and lack of data on long-term safety. Pediatricians may opt for Strattera as a gentler initial approach. Additionally, parents who are concerned about the stigma or potential long-term effects of stimulant use may feel more comfortable starting their child on a non-stimulant option. Stimulants such as Adderall can interfere with sleep, especially if taken later in the day. Sleep disturbances are a common complaint among stimulant users and can contribute to irritability, mood swings, and worsening of ADHD symptoms. Strattera is less likely to cause sleep disruption and may even help improve sleep quality for some patients. For individuals who already struggle with insomnia or erratic sleep patterns, Strattera may be the better treatment choice. One of the key differences between Adderall and Strattera is how quickly they take effect. Adderall typically produces noticeable results within hours, making it ideal for patients seeking immediate symptom relief. Strattera, however, requires several days to weeks to build up in the system and reach full therapeutic effect. For patients and clinicians willing to adopt a slower, more gradual treatment approach, this delayed onset can be worthwhile, especially given Strattera's longer-term stability and lower side effect profile. Because Adderall is a controlled substance, it comes with regulatory burdens such as limited refills, stricter prescribing rules, and potential stigma. Some patients or caregivers may prefer a treatment that does not involve these complications. Strattera, being non-controlled, can be prescribed more freely and refilled more easily. This can improve medication adherence and reduce the hassle associated with frequent doctor visits or pharmacy restrictions. In some cases, clinicians may not be completely certain whether a patient's symptoms are primarily due to ADHD or another condition such as anxiety, depression, or trauma-related disorders. Since stimulants can exacerbate certain psychiatric symptoms or produce euphoria, starting with a non-stimulant like Strattera can be a safer way to assess a patient's response without clouding the diagnostic picture. If symptoms improve with Strattera, it may confirm that norepinephrine imbalance plays a role in the condition, guiding future treatment decisions. Choosing between Strattera and Adderall requires a personalized approach that considers the individual's medical history, lifestyle, comorbid conditions, and treatment preferences. While Adderall remains highly effective for many, Strattera presents a viable and often safer alternative for those with substance abuse risks, anxiety, sleep disturbances, or cardiovascular concerns. It is also a strong option for patients seeking all-day symptom coverage or those who prefer to avoid controlled substances. Consulting with a knowledgeable healthcare provider is crucial in determining which medication best aligns with the patient's needs and long-term goals. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Forbes
22 minutes ago
- Forbes
Artificial Intelligence Collaboration and Indirect Regulatory Lag
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 16: Samuel Altman, CEO of OpenAI, testifies before the Senate Judiciary ... More Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law May 16, 2023 in Washington, DC. The committee held an oversight hearing to examine A.I., focusing on rules for artificial intelligence. (Photo by) Steve Jobs often downplayed his accomplishments by saying that 'creativity is just connecting things.' Regardless of whether this affects the way you understand his legacy, it is beyond the range of doubt that most innovation comes from interdisciplinary efforts. Everyone agrees that if AI is to exponentially increase collaboration across disciplines, the laws must not lag too far behind technology. The following explores how a less obvious interpretation of this phrase will help us do what Jobs explained was the logic behind his genius The Regulatory Lag What most people mean when they say that legislation and regulation have difficulty keeping pace with the rate of innovation because the innovation and its consequences are not well known until well after the product hits the market. While that is true, it only tells half of the story. Technological innovations also put more attenuated branches of the law under pressure to adjust. These are second-order, more indirect legal effects, where whole sets of laws—originally unrelated to the new technology—have to adapt to enable society to maximize the full potential of the innovation. One classic example comes from the time right after the Internet became mainstream. After digital communication and connectivity became widespread and expedited international communication and commercial relations, nations discovered that barriers to cross-border trade and investment were getting in the way. Barriers such as tariffs and outdated investment FDI partnership requirements—had to be lowered or eliminated if the Internet was to be an effective catalyst to global economic growth. Neoliberal Reforms When the internet emerged in the 1990s, much attention went to laws that directly regulated it—such as data privacy, digital speech, and cybersecurity. But some of the most important legal changes were not about the internet itself. They were about removing indirect legal barriers that stood in the way of its broader economic and social potential. Cross-border trade and investment rules, for instance, had to evolve. Tariffs on goods, restrictions on foreign ownership, and outdated service regulations had little to do with the internet as a technology, but everything to do with whether global e-commerce, remote work, and digital entrepreneurship could flourish. These indirect legal constraints were largely overlooked in early internet governance debates, yet their reform was essential to unleashing the internet's full power. Artificial Intelligence and Indirect Barriers A comparable story is starting to unfold with artificial intelligence. While much of the focus when talking about law and AI has been given to algorithmic accountability and data privacy, there is also an opportunity for a larger societal return from AI in its ability to reduce barriers between disciplines. AI is increasing the viability of interdisciplinary work because it can synthesize, translate, and apply knowledge across domains in ways that make cross-field collaboration more essential. Already we are seeing marriages of law and computer science, medicine and machine learning, environmental modeling, and language processing. AI is a general-purpose technology that rewards those who are capable of marrying insights across disciplines. In that sense, the AI era is also the era of interdisciplinary boundary-blurring opportunities triggered by AI are up against legal barriers to entry across disciplines and professions. In many professions, it requires learning a patchwork of licensure regimes and intractable definitions of domain knowledge to gain the right to practice or contribute constructively. While some of these regulations are generally intended to protect public interests, they can also hinder innovation and prevent new interdisciplinary practices from gaining traction. To achieve the full potential of AI-enabled collaboration, many of these legal barriers need to be eliminated—or at least reimagined. We are starting to see some positive movements. For example, a few states are starting to grant nurse practitioners and physician assistants greater autonomy in clinical decision-making, and that's a step toward cross-disciplinary collaboration of healthcare and AI diagnostics. For now, this is a move in the right direction. However, In some other fields, the professional rules of engagement support silos. This must change if we're going to be serious about enabling AI to help us crack complex, interdependent problems. Legislators and regulators cannot focus exclusively on the bark that protects the tree of change, they must also focus on the hidden network of roots that that quietly nourish and sustain it.
Bloomberg
22 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Why the ‘TACO' Trade Is Tempting Investors Amid US-China Talks
On May 30, US President Donald Trump accused his Chinese counterpart, President Xi Jinping, of breaking a trade truce that brought down tariffs from extreme highs in early May. Investors saw the writing on the wall: tariffs would spike again, hurting the economy. Stocks fell more than 1%. But later the same day, Trump said he'd have a conversation with Xi, and optimism – and stock prices – were restored. When the call finally happened on June 5, the S&P 500 Index again briefly surged. The early months of Trump's second term have been marked by this pattern: The president threatens to impose sky-high tariffs and stocks tumble, then he relents and markets recover. Wall Street has learned to capitalize on this by buying into the S&P 500 when it first drops, anticipating the president will backtrack on tariffs and send markets higher.
