The first report from the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, released last week, appears to be rife with errors, including some studies that don’t exist. Touted by US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a milestone, the report lays out the government’s priorities for addressing chronic health problems in children, which it ascribes to poor diet, lack of exercise, stress, overprescribing of drugs and exposure to environmental chemicals. The sweeping 78-page document was produced in a little more than three months after it was ordered by President Donald Trump. It contained 522 references to studies, government reports and news articles. But some of these references were wrong or don’t appear to exist. In other cases, studies in the report were misrepresented, according to the researchers who conducted them. The citation errors were first reported by NOTUS, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news site created by former Politico Publisher Robert Allbritton. An updated version of the report was posted online Thursday with some changes to the text and the works cited. “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,” HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard said in a statement. Dr. Robert Findling, chair of the Department of Psychiatry at Virginia Commonwealth University, said he didn’t write a study that was credited to him in the first version of the report, according to university spokesperson Michael Porter. The study was used to suggest that pharmaceutical ads rely on vague symptom lists that overlap with normal teenage behaviors and could be driving overprescription of drugs to teens. “Dr. Findling did not author the article you cite and would not be able to address the report or its findings,” Porter wrote in response to a question from CNN. There’s also no study by that name listed in the issue of the journal that was cited, The Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, and no evidence of such a paper in PubMed, the database of medical studies maintained by the National Library of Medicine. The reference citing Findling was removed from the updated report. Two studies initially attributed to the journal Pediatrics also don’t exist, according to Lisa Robinson, media relations manager for the American Academy of Pediatrics, which publishes the journal. There was no record of a study with the title “Overprescribing of Oral Corticosteroids for Children With Asthma.” The journal had published a study called “Oral Corticosteroid Prescribing for Children With Asthma in a Medicaid Managed Care Program” in 2017. It had the same first author as the study listed in the MAHA report but different co-authors. In other cases, studies were attributed to the wrong journal or the wrong authors and sometimes even the wrong year. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the problems “formatting issues.” “I understand there were some formatting issues with the MAHA report that are being addressed, and the report will be updated, but it does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government,” Leavitt said in a briefing Thursday. Dr. Ivan Oransky, a journalism professor at New York University who runs Retraction Watch, a website that tracks fraud and errors in medical publishing, said the nature of the discrepancies seems to indicate that they were generated by artificial intelligence. “I’m speculating here. I don’t know this. The only people who would know that are the ones who actually created the paper,” Oransky said, adding that an article by him and his coauthor on Retraction Watch, Adam Marcus, had been cited in a research paper submitted to the Australian government last year. However, the article didn’t exist. Leavitt deferred questions about the use of AI in the report to HHS, which did not respond to CNN’s questions about how the report was created. The larger issue, as Oransky sees it, is that nobody caught these errors before the report was released. “Either nobody checked this or nobody was looking very carefully at this before it was published,” he said. Typically, official government reports go through layers of review, including critical reviews that questions their conclusions, before they are released. This report doesn’t seem to have followed that same kind of vetting process. The citations in the report were “most likely an AI error” and not a formatting error, said Dr. Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics and founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU’s Grossman School of Medicine. “AI is not sophisticated enough to be trustworthy and accurate in surveying science, and that would appear to be what’s going on here, which is unacceptable. It’s the kind of thing that gets a senior researcher into deep trouble, potentially losing their funding. It’s the kind of thing that leads to a student getting an F. It’s inexcusable,” he said. “And this is coming from people promising gold-standard science but delivering tin.” The errors came to light barely a week after Trump issued an executive order declaring that science has a reproducibility crisis – meaning scientists can’t follow the methods of other scientists and come to the same conclusions – and promising to restore trust in the federal government’s research. The order pledges a return to “Gold Standard Science,” promising “that Federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available.” Kennedy said on “The Ultimate Human” podcast this week that the National Institutes of Health would devote about a fifth of its budget to “replication” and would stop publishing research in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as JAMA, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet. “We are going to stop NIH scientists from publishing there,” Kennedy said. “We’re going to create our own journals in-house in each of the institutes. “They will become the preeminent journals.”
Trump administration’s MAHA report on children’s health filled with flawed references, including some studies that don’t exist
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump Administration's Children's Health Report Criticized for Citation Errors and Misattributed Studies"
CNN
6.0
TruthLens AI Summary
The recent report from the Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission, which aims to address chronic health issues among children, has been criticized for containing numerous errors and inaccuracies. Released by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the 78-page document outlines concerns related to children's health, attributing issues to poor diet, insufficient exercise, stress, overprescription of medications, and environmental toxins. However, the report, which includes 522 references to various studies and articles, has been found to contain misattributed studies, citations that do not exist, and claims that have been misrepresented. NOTUS, a nonprofit news organization, first highlighted these citation issues, prompting an updated version of the report that corrected some minor errors but maintained the original content's substance, according to HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard. Notably, a study attributed to Dr. Robert Findling was identified as nonexistent, raising concerns about the credibility of the report's findings and the accuracy of its references.
In addition to the specific misattributions, experts have speculated that some discrepancies may stem from the use of artificial intelligence in compiling the report. Journalism professor Dr. Ivan Oransky suggested that the nature of the errors indicates a lack of thorough review prior to publication, which is typically expected for government reports. The White House has downplayed the citation errors as mere formatting issues, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt asserting that they do not detract from the report's overall value. However, critics, including bioethics professor Dr. Art Caplan, have emphasized that reliance on AI for such critical documents is unacceptable, especially given the potential implications for scientific integrity. The report's release comes on the heels of an executive order by Trump addressing the reproducibility crisis in science and promising a return to 'Gold Standard Science.' Kennedy has announced plans for the National Institutes of Health to shift its publishing strategy away from prominent journals to create in-house publications, raising further questions about the future of scientific communication and trust in federal research.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The report from the Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again Commission has come under scrutiny due to numerous errors and questionable references. It highlights the administration's focus on children's health issues, attributing the rise of chronic diseases to various factors including diet, exercise, and environmental chemicals. However, the credibility of the report is diminished by the discovery of inaccuracies in citations and the inclusion of studies that either do not exist or have been misrepresented.
Intent Behind the Publication
The intention behind releasing this report seems to be to position the Trump administration as proactive in addressing children's health concerns. By framing the issues as a national epidemic and proposing a comprehensive approach, the administration aims to garner public support for its health initiatives. This could also be seen as an attempt to divert attention from other controversies surrounding the administration by focusing on a critical public issue.
Public Perception and Potential Manipulation
The article may evoke skepticism among the public regarding the integrity of government reports and studies. By emphasizing flaws in the MAHA report, the article creates an impression that the administration is either incompetent or deliberately misleading in its efforts. This could lead to a broader distrust in government health policies and recommendations, affecting public compliance with health initiatives.
Hidden Agendas
There may be underlying issues that the report's deficiencies are attempting to obscure. The administration's focus on children's health can be perceived as a way to distract from other political failures or to shift the dialogue away from pressing issues, such as economic conditions or social unrest.
Comparative Analysis with Other Reports
In comparison to other health-related reports, this one stands out due to its significant citation errors. Such discrepancies might suggest a broader trend of misinformation or lack of rigorous study validation in governmental communications. This could also connect to ongoing criticisms of the administration's handling of scientific data.
Impact on Society and Politics
The fallout from this report could influence public opinion on health policies and potentially affect legislative agendas regarding children's health. If trust in the administration's health initiatives declines, it might lead to decreased public support for funding and resources aimed at addressing chronic diseases in children.
Target Audience
This report and its subsequent analysis may resonate more with communities that are already critical of the Trump administration, particularly those concerned with public health and transparency in government. Health advocates and researchers might find the issues raised particularly pertinent, as they highlight the need for accurate data in public health discussions.
Market Implications
While the immediate impact on stock markets may be limited, companies involved in pharmaceuticals and healthcare could be affected if public perception shifts towards skepticism regarding prescribed treatments for children. If the administration's credibility continues to be questioned, it might influence investor sentiments in healthcare sectors.
Geopolitical Relevance
Though the report primarily addresses domestic health issues, it reflects broader themes of governance, transparency, and public trust that can influence international perceptions of U.S. policy. In today's context of global health, such reports play a role in how the U.S. is viewed concerning its commitment to addressing health crises.
Use of Artificial Intelligence in Reporting
It's possible that AI tools were employed in the drafting or editing process of this report, particularly in compiling references or formatting. If AI models were utilized, they might have contributed to the inaccuracies noted, particularly if they relied on flawed data sources or algorithms that did not verify the existence of studies cited.
The article ultimately raises significant concerns about the credibility of government reports and the implications of misinformation on public health policy. The findings suggest that while the intentions may be noble, the execution has been flawed, leading to questions about the reliability of such assessments.