'Make America Healthy Again' report cites nonexistent studies: authors
US President Donald Trump (L) and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the release of the MAHA report at the White House on May 22, 2025
By Marisha GOLDHAMER and Bill McCARTHY
At least four of the studies cited in a flagship White House report on children's health do not exist, authors listed in the document told AFP Thursday, casting doubt on the paper outlining U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s agenda.
The highly anticipated "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) report was released on May 22 by the presidential commission tasked with assessing drivers of childhood chronic disease.
But it includes broken citation links and credits authors with papers they say they did not write.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the mishaps as "formating issues" during a press briefing Thursday and said the report will be updated to address them.
"It does not negate the substance of the report," said Leavitt, who expressed confidence in Kennedy and his team, and insisted that their work was "backed on good science."
The errors were first reported Thursday by NOTUS, a U.S. digital news website affiliated with the nonprofit Allbritton Journalism Institute.
Noah Kreski, a Columbia University researcher listed as an author of a paper on adolescent anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic, told AFP the citation is "not one of our studies" and "doesn't appear to be a study that exists at all."
The citation includes a link that purports to send users to an article in the peer-reviewed medical journal JAMA, but which is broken.
Jim Michalski, a spokesman for JAMA Network, said it "was not published in JAMA Pediatrics or in any JAMA Network journal."
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."
"I would be happy to send this information to the MAHA committee to correct the report, although I have not yet received information on where to reach them."
Guohua Li, another Columbia University professor apparently named in the citation, said the reference is "totally fabricated" and that he does not even know Kreski.
AFP also spoke with Harold Farber, pediatrics professor at Baylor College of Medicine, who said the paper attributed to him "does not exist" nor had he ever collaborated with the co-authors credited in the MAHA report.
Similarly, Brian McNeill, spokesperson for Virginia Commonwealth University, confirmed that professor Robert Findling did not author a paper the report says he wrote about advertising of psychotropic medications for youth.
A fourth paper on ADHD medication was also not published in the journal Pediatrics in 2008 as claimed in the MAHA report, according to Alex Hulvalchick, media relations specialist for the journal's publisher, the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declined to comment, referring AFP's questions to the White House.
At her briefing, Leavitt declined to answer how the report was produced and whether artificial intelligence tools may have been used to craft it, directing those questions back to HHS.
The Democratic National Committee blasted the report as "rife with misinformation" in a Thursday press release, saying Kennedy's agency "is justifying its policy priorities with studies and sources that do not exist."
Kennedy was approved as health secretary earlier this year despite widespread alarm from the medical community over his history of promoting vaccine misinformation and denying scientific facts.
Since taking office, he has ordered the National Institutes of Health to probe the causes of autism -- a condition he has long falsely tied to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
The report's chronic disease references appear to nod to that same disproven theory, discredited by numerous studies since the idea first aired in a late 1990s paper based on falsified data.
It also criticizes the "over-medicalization" of children, citing surging prescriptions of psychiatric drugs and antibiotics, and blaming "corporate capture" for skewing scientific research.
© 2025 AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Tokyo Weekender
15 hours ago
- Tokyo Weekender
Japanese Scientists Develop Artificial Blood Compatible With All Blood Types
A critical component of healthcare, blood transfusions play a vital role in saving lives around the globe every day. Maintaining an adequate blood supply, though, is no easy task, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The demand for O – negative blood — the universal donor type — often exceeds supply and donations have a limited shelf life. Looking to address the issue are a group of Japanese scientists led by Hiromi Sakai at Nara Medical University . They've developed a new type of artificial blood that can be used in patients of any blood type. The artificial blood is created by extracting hemoglobin — a protein containing iron that facilitates the transportation of oxygen in red blood cells — from expired donor blood. It is then encased in a protective shell to create stable, virus-free artificial red blood cells. As these artificial cells have no blood type, there is no need for compatibility testing. The synthetic blood can reportedly be stored for up to two years at room temperature and five years under refrigeration. That is a significant improvement over donated red blood cells, which can only be stored under refrigeration for a maximum of 42 days . Artificial Blood Trials Small-scale studies began in 2022. Three groups of four healthy male volunteers aged 20 to 50 received a single intravenous injection of hemoglobin vesicles — artificial oxygen carriers that mimic the structure of red blood cells — in increasing amounts, up to 100 milliliters. While some participants experienced mild side effects, there were no significant changes in vital signs, including blood pressure. Building on that success, Sakai announced that his team was accelerating the process last July. In March, it started administering between 100 and 400 milliliters of the artificial blood cell solution to volunteers. If no side effects are confirmed, the trial will shift to examin ing the treatment's efficacy and safety. It aims to put the artificial red blood cells into practical use by around 2030. While these studies are taking place, Professor Teruyuki Komatsu of Chuo University's Faculty of Science and Engineering is also working on the development of artificial oxygen carriers, using albumin-encased hemoglobin to stabilize blood pressure and treat conditions like hemorrhage and stroke. So far, animal studies have shown promising results. As a result, researchers are now eager to move to human trials. Related Posts Japanese Researchers Develop Peptide To Counter COVID-19 Viruses 'Flesh Eating' STSS Infections Reach Record Numbers in Japan Eating Disorders on the Rise in Japan
Japan Times
19 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump's WHO withdrawal could cost the U.S. dearly
While the COVID-19 pandemic is firmly in the past for many Americans, U.S. households continue to bear the costs of infectious-disease outbreaks. A few months ago, the price of eggs in the United States soared to a record high, largely owing to the spread of H5N1 bird flu. Since March 2024, the virus has ravaged U.S. chicken farms, leading to tens of millions of poultry deaths from infection or culling. More ominously, at least 70 human cases of bird flu have been identified in the U.S., with one death reported in Louisiana. In a recent report about enhancing the response to H5N1 in America and globally, the Global Virus Network, a consortium of the world's top virologists, warned of 'the terrible consequences of underreacting to current threats.' But while bird flu poses the most immediate risk to Americans, it is by no means the only one. Virulent infectious-disease outbreaks in other countries, such as mpox in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ebola in Uganda, Marburg in Tanzania and multicountry outbreaks of cholera do not respect borders and thus are a threat to people everywhere — including in the U.S. Without the efforts of the World Health Organization to contain these outbreaks, the risks of wider transmission would be much greater. This underscores the need for a global agency like the WHO to supervise cross-border cooperation — and the shortsightedness of U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the organization. Despite being the world's richest and most powerful country, America is not immune to another COVID-19-style calamity and abandoning multilateralism and neglecting pandemic preparedness (such as the stockpiling of treatments and vaccines) will make it all the more vulnerable. One might think that the deadly spread of COVID-19, prolonged by the emergence of new virus strains, would convince policymakers to strengthen the world's public-health architecture — especially as experts warn that future pandemics could be even worse. But with other leaders indicating that they may follow Trump's example and leave the WHO, the resources for pandemic prevention and control could dwindle to the point that global outbreaks become more frequent and difficult to overcome. If Trump follows through with the move, his administration will become increasingly isolated and impotent. American officials, including at U.S. military installations abroad, will lose access to the WHO-led and -facilitated global networks that collect and share information about infectious-disease threats and respond to outbreaks. Moreover, the U.S. government will have no say in developing new solutions (which will almost invariably be less effective) for controlling the spread of diseases across borders — including its own. Trump has suggested that he may change his mind, presumably if the grievances set out in his executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the organization are addressed. This implies that the WHO should apply pressure on China to identify the pandemic's origins. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, for his part, has refused to accept the Chinese government's prevarications. If Trump can propose a way to determine the cause of COVID-19, I am sure that the WHO's leadership would gladly hear it. Trump's second condition is that the WHO undertake reforms and use its resources more effectively at the local level, with a greater focus on stopping the spread of infectious diseases. This is a demand that can and should be met. To that end, Tedros has already promised more targeted use of funds and implemented other measures to transform the organization. In addition, under Tedros, the WHO has transformed the way it raises funds. Its member states have sharply increased their annual contributions and it has diversified its donor base to share the funding load more widely. This is all part of the WHO's drive to be more sustainably financed, a plan launched as part of Tedros's effort to transform the organization's operations after he took office in 2017. Back then, he and member states assessed that the departure of a major donor could leave the WHO's programs and independence vulnerable to funding shocks. Who knew it would be the U.S. But, had those changes not been made, we can only imagine how much more challenging the WHO's current financial situation would be. The Trump administration should welcome these changes, not least because it benefits from having a seat at the table. If the U.S. ultimately abandons the WHO, developing evidence-based guidance and regulations for chronic-disease prevention and management will be significantly harder, undermining the administration's goal of addressing America's chronic-disease epidemic. The U.S. will also no longer be a part of the WHO's medicine prequalification process, a program that opens a host of new markets for drug producers in a cost-effective manner. Instead, U.S. pharmaceutical companies will be forced to sell their prequalified products to each country individually, putting them at risk of losing access to highly profitable multibillion dollar markets. Twenty-first-century trends — including more mobility and international travel, greater urbanization and increasing human encroachment on nature — fuel the global spread of infectious diseases, to the detriment of everyone. U.S. officials would be better positioned to protect their citizens if they joined — and perhaps even led — a discussion on how the WHO and other global health organizations, such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, can meet the world's needs. One such initiative, in which the U.S. had been a strong partner until Trump took office, was to negotiate a WHO Pandemic Agreement, which WHO member states adopted by consensus at the World Health Assembly on May 20. This historic compact, based on the principles of equity, collaboration and the reaffirmation of national sovereignty in public-health decision-making, will make the world safer from future pandemics. The U.S., bolstered by its world-class medical professionals and substantial public investment in medical research, has long exerted considerable influence on global health priorities. But withdrawing from the WHO places America on the outside, unable to shape the agency's policy agenda and reforms. When the next pandemic strikes, the U.S. will be left watching from the sidelines, as the WHO and its remaining member countries manage the global response and pick up the pieces as they see fit. Gordon Brown, a former prime minister of the United Kingdom, is U.N. Special Envoy for Global Education and Chair of Education Cannot Wait. © Project Syndicate, 2025.
The Mainichi
20 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Editorial: With WHO Pandemic Agreement, global cooperation needed to raise its efficacy
Member countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted an agreement at a general meeting that sets forth a response the international community should take in the event of a future pandemic. Multilateral cooperation must be strengthened and measures to protect lives must be advanced. During the coronavirus pandemic, which claimed more than seven million lives, WHO was delayed in its initial response, leaving developing countries unable to secure sufficient vaccine supplies due in part to hoarding by developed nations. The Pandemic Agreement aims to address these shortcomings and create a global environment in which everyone can benefit equally from medical care. Under the initiative, advanced nations support developing countries in securing medicinal products and procuring funds. In exchange for collecting information on pathogens necessary for drug development and providing it to pharmaceutical companies WHO will receive at least 10% of vaccines produced as a donation. These vaccines will then be distributed to developing countries. The detailed design of the system will be finalized over the next year. WHO member states will also work to develop domestic laws to request pharmaceutical firms to supply vaccines. The agreement will take effect upon ratification by 60 countries. The question is how effective the agreement will prove. The United States, a pharmaceutical powerhouse, was absent from the General Assembly after President Donald Trump's administration announced the country's withdrawal from the WHO. Unless major U.S. drugmakers, which led the world in the development of COVID-19 vaccines, participate in the donation program, meaningful results cannot be expected. A system to encourage companies to join the initiative must be established. Washington has also stopped contributing operating funds to WHO, compelling the latter to significantly slash its budgets and undergo restructuring. This is likely to hinder efforts to secure personnel for assisting developing countries. The negotiations, which began in 2022, came to a brink of collapse after the rift between developed and developing nations deepened. Yet, the world has no alternative to WHO as a control tower when a pandemic arrives. It deserves credit that member countries came together and drew up the new rules after extending negotiations by a year amid the U.S. absence. False information over the agreement, such as that WHO will forcibly vaccinate people, became viral worldwide via social media. There is no such clause, and the agreement stipulates that the sovereignty of member states will be respected. Both the WHO and its members should exhaust all efforts to send out correct information. A new pandemic could occur at any time. Countries must take the adoption of the agreement as an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of international cooperation.
