White House health report included fake citations

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration released a report last week that it billed as a “clear, evidence-based foundation” for action on a range of children’s health issues.

But the report, from the presidential

Make America Healthy Again (MAHA)

Commission, cited studies that did not exist. These included fictitious studies on direct-to-consumer drug advertising, mental illness and medications prescribed for children with asthma.

“It makes me concerned about the rigour of the report, if these really basic citation practices aren’t being followed,” said Professor Katherine Keyes, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University, who was listed as the author of a paper on mental health and substance use among adolescents. Professor Keyes has not written any paper by the title the report cited, nor does one seem to exist by any author.

News outlet NOTUS first reported the presence of false citations, and The New York Times identified additional faulty references. By mid-afternoon on May 29, the White House had uploaded a new copy of the report with corrections.

Dr Ivan Oransky – who teaches medical journalism at New York University and is a co-founder of Retraction Watch, a website that tracks retractions of scientific research – said the errors in the report were characteristic of the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI), which has led to similar issues in legal filings and more.

Asked at a news conference on May 29 whether the report had relied on AI, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt deferred to the Department of Health and Human Services. Ms Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the department, did not answer a question about the source of the fabricated references and downplayed them as “minor citation and formatting errors”. She said that “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.”

Researchers previously told the Times that they agreed with many of the report’s points, like its criticism of synthetic chemicals in the US food supply and the prevalence of ultra-processed foods.

But doctors have disagreed with some of the report’s other suggestions, including that routine childhood vaccines may be harmful – which scientists say is based on an incorrect understanding of immunology.

The news that some citations were fake further undermines confidence in the report’s findings, Professor Keyes said. NYTIMES