RFK Jr's 'Maha' report found to contain citations to nonexistent studies

2025-05-307:5417378www.theguardian.com

Failures uncovered as US health secretary touted ‘gold-standard’ science in health report ordered by Trump team

Robert F Kennedy Jr’s flagship health commission report contains citations to studies that do not exist, according to an investigation by the US publication Notus.

The report exposes glaring scientific failures from a health secretary who earlier this week threatened to ban government scientists from publishing in leading medical journals.

The 73-page “Make America healthy again” report – which was commissioned by the Trump administration to examine the causes of chronic illness, and which Kennedy promoted it as “gold-standard” science backed by more than 500 citations – includes references to seven studies that appear to be entirely invented, and others that the researchers say have been mischaracterized.

Two supposed studies on ADHD medication advertising simply do not exist in the journals where they are claimed to be published. Virginia Commonwealth University confirmed to Notus that researcher Robert L Findling, listed as an author of one paper, never wrote such an article, while another citation leads only to the Kennedy report itself when searched online.

Harold J Farber, a pediatric specialist supposedly behind research on asthma overprescribing, told Notus he never wrote the cited paper and had never worked with the other listed authors.

The US Department of Health and Human Services has not immediately responded to a Guardian request for comment.

The citation failures come as Kennedy, a noted skeptic of vaccines, criticized medical publishing this week, branding top journals the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and Jama as “corrupt” and alleging they were controlled by pharmaceutical companies. He outlined plans for creating government-run journals instead.

Beyond the phantom studies in Kennedy’s report, Notus found it systematically misrepresented existing research.

For example, one paper was claimed to show that talking therapy was as effective as psychiatric medication, but the statistician Joanne McKenzie said this was impossible, as “we did not include psychotherapy” in the review.

The sleep researcher Mariana G Figueiro also said her study was mischaracterized, with the report incorrectly stating it involved children rather than college students, and citing the wrong journal entirely.

The Trump administration asked Kennedy for the report in order to look at chronic illness causes, from pesticides to mobile phone radiation. Kennedy called it a “milestone” that provides “evidence-based foundation” for sweeping policy changes.

A follow-up “Make our children healthy again strategy” report is due in August, raising concerns about the scientific credibility underpinning the administration’s health agenda.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By justacrow 2025-05-308:173 reply

    What's obviously needed is for OpenAI to invest 4B in a CaaS (Citations-as-a-Service) startup that autogenerates the studies their AI makes up.

    • By OscarTheGrinch 2025-05-308:563 reply

      At a certain point all public communication will just be AIs making content for other AIs, and we can humans can assend to just talking to eachother again.

    • By hellotheretoday 2025-05-3010:032 reply

      A lot of times when I ask chatgpt for references on something it sends me dead links or links to something that do not have anything to do with what it claims to be citing. I point that out and then it sends me more of the same. I would not be surprised if they were already working on this to improve that aspect to convince people who actually bother to check sources. I also wonder how many people don’t bother to check and are convinced of its potentially flawed perspectives simply because it delivers some citations that are completely irrelevant

      It reminds me of a time I met some kook who was arguing the merits of this dumb bullshit they bought off instagram. It was $800 and claimed to cure anxiety with magnetic power. They sent a word document provided by the company and it was just a bunch of random studies about transcranial direct current stimulation, which is a real thing with some evidence, but was completely unrelated and is based on electrical currents and not magnetic woo woo bullshit.

      • By sshine 2025-05-3010:24

        That's very backwards. When I ask Kagi's Assistant for references, it provides the search queries that it crawled before answering. That behavior is independent of what LLM is being used, but the reference output format may vary depending on the LLM.

      • By pjc50 2025-05-3010:20

        The current situation is "The Triumph of the Woo" (Riefenstahl passim). There's a lot of such people, they vote, and their money has ended up in an industry which makes donations to ensure that it can continue to scam people.

    • By ChrisMarshallNY 2025-05-309:291 reply

      They could call it “MyFacts” (Doonesbury reference).

    • By thrance 2025-05-309:474 reply

      [flagged]

      • By dcminter 2025-05-3010:233 reply

        Probably because this is an obviously hot political topic, not new, and something that will indeed be sufficiently mainstream to be (heavily) covered in the usual news channels. Whereas the guidelines explicitly state:

        > "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics [...] unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. [...] If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."

        This story will just attract the usual partisan posturing and is very unlikely to bring any really interesting high value conversations.

        https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

        • By luke-stanley 2025-05-3012:362 reply

          The Guardian article is a new analysis about unchecked AI technology use by a government health official claiming to support science. Surely that’s HN-worthy, not off-topic? Is it fair to assume any element of politics involvement will be low-value or against the guidelines?

          • By AlecSchueler 2025-05-3016:161 reply

            "No politics" weighs heavier than even the combined power of "interesting," "emerging phenomenon" and "tech related."

            But only if the politics is related to the current regime in America. Can also be non-political news like something about Grok, because that's adjacent to Mr Musk and must also be flagged on sight.

          • By dcminter 2025-05-3012:421 reply

            Do you see a lot of high value political discussion? I see a lot of political posturing. I despise what's going on at the moment, it's not normal, and it's not OK. But discussing it here is utterly pointless and detracts from the stuff that is worth discussing here.

            • By luke-stanley 2025-05-3013:08

              High value comments / posts are good to look for, though high value political discussion is almost an oxymoron. The post about it here was the first I heard of it, which is valuable to me. Zombot's comment (44133962) quotes TFA: "He outlined plans for creating government-run journals instead." this is important context to highlight, especially given the already demonstrated flaws that makes me want to read the article. The quote is instantly insightful and the commentary "There once was a time when we fought an entire Cold War to stop ideas like that." is a fair point. I come for the gems among the rough, and I'm really glad HN exists, even though it could use Slashdot style comment categories or a personal spam and ranking system! Maybe I should make a UserScript for spam and ranking.

              I don't agree that it's pointless.

        • By JeremyNT 2025-05-3020:18

          > Probably because this is an obviously hot political topic, not new, and something that will indeed be sufficiently mainstream to be (heavily) covered in the usual news channels.

          I submit that prominent US government agencies generating bogus propagandistic scientific papers to justify its policies is, in fact, new.

        • By kragen 2025-06-0111:41

          Dunno, I got one of my misconceptions about Archimedes corrected: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44134348

      • By Scarblac 2025-05-309:541 reply

        It's very easy to accidentally click flag instead of the title (on mobile anyway), I hope it doesn't immediately do something serious.

        • By thrance 2025-05-3010:121 reply

          You can always unflag them if you go to your profile and see the list of flagged submissions. But anyway, these type of links get flagged uniquely often, I think it has nothing to do with bad UI. And in my experience, it didn't use to be this way.

          • By AlecSchueler 2025-05-3016:17

            You don't even need to go to your profile, flagging something doesn't hide it. But you're right that this is clearly politically motivated and the pattern is too strong to put the blame on the HN UI, but at least it was good for a chortle.

      • By csomar 2025-05-309:541 reply

        Some flagging transparency has to be implemented a la lobste.rs and also mod boosting or demotion. This really hurts HN reputation when it comes to neutrality.

        • By nathanaldensr 2025-05-3013:012 reply

          Neutrality has nothing to do with it. HN should not be for political discourse; therefore, neutrality is orthogonal to the site's character. Many of us agree, hence the flags.

          • By poly2it 2025-05-3017:06

            Isn't so much of what we're doing in tech inherently political?

          • By yencabulator 2025-05-3014:251 reply

            I thought we were discussing the unreliability and improper application of LLMs.

            • By AlecSchueler 2025-05-3016:18

              The unreliable LLM was used by a member of the US government. It could make them look bad if it's discussed here.

      • By pjc50 2025-05-3010:211 reply

        Lot of people flag anything political, and there's still a lot of Trump supporters with the flag power reading HN.

        • By nathanaldensr 2025-05-3013:031 reply

          [flagged]

          • By thrance 2025-05-3015:022 reply

            Everything is political, get over it. If we can't talk about a very damaging misuse of LLMs because it was done by the administration, then what even is allowed on this site anymore?

            Is it leftist to state basic facts about the government's use of technology?

            • By AlecSchueler 2025-05-3016:22

              Yeah especially with LLMs. It's easy to say "it will get discussed everywhere" but everywhere else has very basic misunderstandings of the technology, so I appreciate being able to discuss it with relatively trusted peers. But unfortunately the Venn diagram of LLM-related news and politics resembles a circle more and more every day.

              I also find it laughable that it's always "no politics of any kind" when we have regular posts about the famine in Ireland, cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands, digital identification in Estonia etc etc. -- what is meant by "any kind" is "related to the current regime in the US."

            • By ndsipa_pomu 2025-05-3015:20

              Reality has a well-known liberal bias - Stephen Colbert

  • By zombot 2025-05-3011:152 reply

    > He outlined plans for creating government-run journals instead.

    There once was a time when we fought an entire Cold War to stop ideas like that.

    • By sillyfluke 2025-05-3012:411 reply

      Did we though?

      The triangle design for the stealth plane (I'm not arguing the merits of the design or the plane) to come out Skunkworks came from a radar paper from a Soviet journal -- at least according to book on the topic. As I recall from the book, the Soviet author of the paper, who emigrated to the States in the 90s (?), said he wasn't too surprised that it was the States and not the Soviets who took his paper seriously.

      And here we are revoking visas of international students.

      This tells me that in a couple iterations down the road the MAGA admin is not going to take its own government journals seriously either.

      • By philistine 2025-05-3014:211 reply

        You cannot actually believe that a triangle shape for a stealth plane is a novel idea that warrants reducing the work of the cold war era US?

        What other shape would it have had? Square?

        • By sillyfluke 2025-05-3015:20

          I'll quote the story, since you don't want to google it:

          >> While Overholser himself described Ufimtsev’s work as, “so obtuse and impenetrable that only a nerd’s nerd would have waded through it,” he quickly recognized that a creative interpretation of the book could offer a means by which one could calculate how electromagnetic energy would reflect off of a two-dimensional shape.

          Overholser then reasoned that if they could break down the design of an aircraft into a collection of two-dimensional triangles, it could be possible to calculate an aircraft’s complete radar return without having to actually build it and stick it in front of a radar array for testing like Boeing’s Quiet Bird. <<

          It was a book, not a journal paper apparently.

    • By IAmBroom 2025-05-3012:42

      By "we" do you mean the TLAs? Cuz all I did was hide under my desk when I saw bright flashes of light.

HackerNews