RFK Jr.'s Ketamine Confessions Is His Campaign Going Down the Rabbit Hole?

RFK Jr.’s MAHA Hallucinations

By Andrew Egger

As political alliances fracture and embarrassing leaks accelerate, it's easy to feel overwhelmed by the constant stream of news. Just when you think you’ve seen it all, another head-scratching story emerges, reminding us that the unexpected is, perhaps, the only thing we can truly expect. From firing and rehiring nuclear safety scientists to accidentally including journalists in war-plans group chats, the current political climate continues to deliver surprises.

Yesterday brought us another addition to the pantheon of unbelievable controversies, this time concerning Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s much-touted “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) report. As NOTUS first reported, the report, intended to champion a new vision for public health, is riddled with a rather glaring problem: it cites studies that simply don’t exist.

"The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with," one researcher, whose work was allegedly cited, told NOTUS.

Ouch. For any researcher, such sloppiness would be deeply embarrassing, potentially ruining their credibility. But for a MAHA movement that positioned its report as a groundbreaking exposé of suppressed truths, this is a truly disastrous start. It’s like tripping on the first step of a grand staircase.

And the attempts at damage control? They've only deepened the hole.

White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt dismissed the blockbuster revelation as mere "formatting issues" that "will be updated."

"But it does not negate the substance of the report," Leavitt insisted, "which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government and is backed on good science that has never been recognized by the federal government." She then added that she didn't know if AI had been used to research or write the report.

HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon echoed this sentiment, stating that "Minor citation and formatting errors have been corrected, but the substance of the MAHA report remains the same."

To truly grasp the absurdity of these defenses, let's examine a specific passage. The initial MAHA report argued that pharmaceutical ad campaigns were distorting drug prescription rates for American children:

While many more studies exist on drugs used by adults, two specific studies on children are broadly illustrative of the problem: Direct to Consumer (DTC) advertising for ADHD drugs in children were found to use vague symptom lists including typical childhood behaviors; the ads led parents to overestimate ADHD prevalence and to request ADHD drugs inappropriately.
Similarly, DTC advertising for antidepressants in teenagers were found to employ vague symptom lists that overlap with typical adolescent behaviors; this was also associated with inappropriate parental requests for antidepressants.

The problem? Both bullets pointed to nonexistent studies. After the inconvenient truth surfaced, the report was updated (emphasis added):

While many more studies exist on drugs used by adults, the impact of Direct to Consumer (DTC) advertising on children is also highly concerning: DTC advertising for ADHD drugs in children have been suggested to use vague symptom lists including typical childhood behaviors, potentially leading parents to overestimate ADHD prevalence and to request ADHD drugs inappropriately.
Similarly, DTC advertising is believed to encourage greater use of psychotropic medications in adolescents, including antianxiety, antipsychotic, and antidepressant classes.

As Leavitt and Nixon claim, the "substance" remains, if "substance" solely refers to the rhetorical point. However, the supposed evidence underpinning the argument has vanished. The authors previously asserted a science-backed causal link – "the ads led parents to overestimate... and to request drugs inappropriately" – now they rely on passive voice and weasel words to suggest a correlation: "have been suggested," "potentially," "is believed."

Is it plausible that pharmaceutical ads contribute to overprescription? Absolutely. The report's authors, and many others, believe it. But the critical distinction is that this link is hypothesized, not proven through rigorous research. To data-driven researchers, this is a monumental difference. Only someone determined to retrofit pre-existing beliefs with a veneer of scientific legitimacy would dismiss this as a mere "formatting" error.

This encapsulates the inherent danger RFK Jr. presents. He has a documented history of distorted views on science, ranging from COVID to chemtrails. Remember his promise to uncover "what has caused the autism epidemic" "by September"? He intends to leverage the authority of the federal government to legitimize his own fringe beliefs as official policy.

How bleak is the prospect that the best we can hope for is that he implements his policies with the same level of carelessness demonstrated in this report?

Key Takeaways:

• RFK Jr.'s MAHA report cited studies that don't exist.
• White House attempts at damage control have been unconvincing.
• The incident highlights RFK Jr.'s potential to promote unsubstantiated beliefs through official channels.

This situation serves as a potent reminder of the importance of critical thinking and fact-checking, especially when evaluating information presented as scientific truth. It underscores the need for vigilance and a commitment to holding public figures accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their claims, particularly when those claims carry significant weight in shaping public health policy.

Tags: Elon Musk, drug use, ketamine, Ecstasy, Adderall, NYT report, political leaks, campaign trail, medication box, AI Hallucinate, RFK Jr., MAHA, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., public health, misinformation, scientific integrity, White House, Caroline Leavitt, Andrew Nixon

Source: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/rfk-jr-maha-hallucinations-report-ai-fake-citations-errors-sloppy-embarrassing