Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A signature federal report spearheaded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is under fire after an investigation revealed it contains multiple references to nonexistent or misrepresented scientific studies. The 72-page “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) report, intended to guide a sweeping new child health initiative, has drawn sharp criticism from scientists, former health officials, and watchdogs.
Digital news outlet NOTUS reported Thursday that at least seven of the studies cited in the report appear to have never been published. One researcher listed as an author of a study on childhood anxiety said she was incorrectly credited and had no involvement with the cited material.
Other citations in the MAHA report, which focuses on chronic childhood illnesses, misrepresented or distorted scientific findings around screen time, prescription drug use, and anxiety. The findings raise questions about the credibility of a report that the Biden administration has hailed as “historic and transformative.”
False Citations and Scientific Misuse
The MAHA report was released earlier this year as the foundation for Kennedy’s $500 million children’s health initiative. It cites over 500 studies, but scrutiny from independent researchers and media has exposed flaws in its academic grounding.
In addition to citing fabricated studies, critics say the report selectively downplays well-established causes of chronic disease, such as air pollution, poverty, and inadequate healthcare access. Instead, it largely blames diet, screen time, overmedication, and vaccines — themes that echo RFK Jr.’s controversial views.
White House and HHS Defend the Report
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to the revelations during Thursday’s press briefing, saying the administration was aware of “some formatting issues” and that the report would 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.
Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic who was appointed as HHS Secretary by President Trump in 2025 as part of a cross-party coalition deal, has promised to bring “radical transparency” and “gold-standard science” to public health. Yet, he has refused to disclose the authorship of the MAHA report or the scientific review process behind it.
Health Experts Sound the Alarm
Public health experts say the report’s scientific flaws are troubling — especially given that it is meant to guide future policy.
“This is not just sloppy,” said a former senior CDC official who spoke on background. “If you’re going to question the scientific consensus and propose a new path forward, the bare minimum is to use verified, peer-reviewed sources.”
Funding and Policy Implications
Despite the controversy, the White House is standing behind the MAHA initiative. It has requested $500 million in new funding from Congress to support Kennedy’s vision for reducing childhood chronic illness. The report is expected to inform formal policy recommendations later this year.
In an emailed statement, HHS Spokesman Andrew Nixon confirmed that “minor citation and formatting errors have been corrected,” but emphasized that the report remains a “historic and transformative assessment by the federal government.”
A Controversial Legacy in the Making
Kennedy’s report outlines an ambitious — and controversial — diagnosis of American childhood health. It links rising rates of obesity, diabetes, autism, ADHD, cancer, allergies, and autoimmune disorders to ultra-processed foods, sedentary lifestyles, and pharmaceutical overuse — including vaccines.
But the scientific community has warned that this narrative risks undermining public trust in childhood immunizations and established health strategies. The CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics have not endorsed the report.
With policy development still underway and a major funding battle looming in Congress, the future of Kennedy’s initiative may hinge not just on his health philosophy, but on the accuracy of the science he uses to justify it.
