Questionable Research Methods in Child Health Report
US Authority Cites Non-Existent Research Findings
Washington D.C. – Questionable sources have allegedly been utilized in an official report on child health issues, as reported by investigations from the media. The U.S. online magazine "Notus," a division of the Allbritton Journalism Institute, discovered seven sources in the recently published "Make Our Children Healthy Again (MAHA)" report, which cannot be traced.
The "Notus" team discovered that these sources were either fabricated, non-existent, or included false interpretations. Three examples of these finding include:
- Epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, who is listed as the lead author of a study on youth anxiety in the MAHA report, stated that "the cited study is not a real study in which I or my colleagues were involved."
- Robert L. Findling, a researcher at the Virginia Commonwealth University, was reportedly listed as an author of a study he did not conduct on advertising psychoactive substances to youth, according to the university.
- Another lead author of a study on ADHD medication, "Shah, M.B.," does not appear to be a credible researcher in the field of ADHD when compared to relevant portals.
Margaret Manto, one of the journalists responsible for the investigation, said to Spiegel, "In addition to the approximately 20 sources where the content was taken out of context or the results were misrepresented, there were many citation errors, broken links, and substantive misinterpretations of study results." The New York Times also joined the investigation and discovered further inconsistencies.
Confronted with these allegations, the White House downplayed the errors, labeling them as "minor citation and formatting issues." The report's official statement remains, emphasizing, "a historic and transformative assessment by the government to understand the epidemic of chronic diseases under which the children of our nation suffer," according to Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services.
However, in a revised version of the MAHA report, the government has removed the seven references to non-existent sources, as reported by "Notus." Manto told Spiegel, "This is not about formatting errors, but serious flaws. The report would not pass a peer review." Peer review is a process by which scientific studies are evaluated by independent scientists before they are published in academic journals.
These findings raise concerns about the credibility of the MAHA report and the reliability of its findings regarding children's health issues in America.
- The controversy surrounding the "Make Our Children Healthy Again (MAHA)" report has expanded as the New York Times has uncovered additional inconsistencies, similar to those found by the "Notus" team from the Allbritton Journalism Institute.
- The questionable practices exposed in the MAHA report have also sparked debate in the realm of policy-and-legislation, as the report was relied upon by lawmakers to inform decisions affecting health-and-wellness and mental-health policies for American children.
- The scrutiny of the MAHA report has implications beyond just child health issues, as the use of inaccurate and fabricated sources in official government reports raises broader questions about the role of science and the importance of maintaining factual accuracy in general-news and political spheres.
