RFK’s Health Report Is a Mess

Summary

Bulwark Takes: RFK’s Health Report Is a Mess

Release Date: May 29, 2025
Host: Sam Stein
Guest: Margaret Manteau, Reporter at Notice

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "RFK’s Health Report Is a Mess," hosted by Sam Stein of The Bulwark, the discussion centers around a critical investigation conducted by Margaret Manteau of Notice. The conversation delves into the recently released Maha Report, spearheaded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and uncovers significant issues within the report's citations.

---

Investigative Findings

Margaret Manteau revealed that her team meticulously reviewed the Maha Report, which encompasses 522 citations. Over the weekend, Margaret and her colleague Emily identified seven citations that were either non-existent or inaccurately referenced.

Margaret Manteau [02:21]: "Yeah, but for seven citations, seven out of 522 we found that we couldn't find the study that it was supposedly citing at all."

This thorough examination highlights potential credibility issues within the report, raising questions about its overall integrity.

---

Significance of Citation Errors

The presence of non-existent or misrepresented citations undermines the report's reliability. Margaret compared the situation to academic standards, emphasizing the gravity of such errors.

Margaret Manteau [01:48]: "I know if I had tried to turn in a paper with these issues in college, would have not gone well for me."

Sam Stein echoed the concern, likening the errors to "bad homework," which could significantly tarnish the report’s credibility.

Sam Stein [05:56]: "But it has to be completely damaging to the credibility of the report itself to have citations that just don't exist."

---

Background on the Maha Report

The Maha Report, a 73-page document, was produced under the aegis of the Make America Healthy Again Commission, established by President Trump in February through an executive order. The commission comprises key figures, including RFK Jr., the heads of the NIH and FDA, and other White House officials.

Margaret highlighted the short timeframe in which the report was compiled, raising concerns about its depth and accuracy.

Sam Stein [04:08]: "Is that normal? Two months to put together a report of this magnitude for a government study?"
Margaret Manteau [04:21]: "It is a big report to put together in two months."

---

Mixed Reception and Scientific Community’s Take

The Maha Report has received mixed reactions. While some aspects, such as the analysis of processed foods and pesticides, have been commended, other sections deviate from the established scientific consensus. Notably, the report raises concerns about vaccinations, though it does not align entirely with RFK Jr.'s previous stances.

Margaret pointed out that parts of the report are anchored in genuine scientific research, but discrepancies exist in other areas, diminishing its overall authority.

Margaret Manteau [05:17]: "A lot of scientists... see a lot of value in this level of oversight... but there are definitely other areas where the report veers away from the scientific consensus."

---

Potential Use of AI and Its Implications

The conversation touched upon the possibility that AI or Large Language Models (LLMs) may have been utilized in drafting the Maha Report, potentially leading to the generation of fake citations—a phenomenon known as "hallucination" in AI terminology.

Margaret Manteau [06:37]: "This is the kind of thing that AI can do when you ask it to generate scientific citations. It can sometimes hallucinate studies that don't exist."

While there's no concrete evidence confirming AI's involvement, the errors observed are consistent with known AI limitations in generating accurate references.

---

Institutional Response and Future Implications

As of the podcast recording, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had not responded to Queen's report issues. Margaret expressed anticipation for an official response.

Sam Stein questioned the potential fallout within the Maha movement, wondering whether supporters would condemn the report or overlook the discrepancies.

Margaret Manteau [08:10]: "I don't think we've seen fully what the response from the Maha crowd will be to this."

The unresolved issues suggest that the situation may evolve as more stakeholders weigh in and as responses from official bodies emerge.

---

Personal Reflections and Conclusion

Margaret shared insights into the rigorous process of verifying the report's citations, humorously recounting how the investigation consumed her Memorial Day weekend.

Margaret Manteau [09:27]: "It was a really fun time. Yeah."

Sam Stein concluded the episode by emphasizing the importance of the investigative work and encouraging listeners to engage with the story.

Sam Stein [09:15]: "Look, thank you for doing this. It's a great story."

---

Takeaways

• Credibility Concerns: The Maha Report contains several non-existent or misrepresented citations, undermining its reliability.
• Rapid Compilation: The report was assembled swiftly, raising questions about its thoroughness.
• Scientific Divergence: While some sections align with scientific consensus, others, especially on vaccinations, do not.
• Potential AI Involvement: The nature of the citation errors suggests possible use of AI in report creation, though unconfirmed.
• Awaiting Responses: Official bodies like HHS have yet to respond, and the Maha movement’s reaction remains uncertain.

This episode underscores the critical need for transparency and accuracy in governmental reports, especially those influencing public health policies.

Transcript

[Sam Stein]

Hey guys. Me. Sam Stein, managing editor at the Bulwark and I am back again. I'm joined by Margaret Manteau, who is a reporter at Notice. Margaret is joining us from what is a conspicuous looking D.C. office space, I presume. I don't know if that's Notice headquarters, but thank you for joining us. We're here to talk about her excellent story which is getting a ton of attention in DC circles and frankly outside of it. It's called the Maha Report site studies that don't exist. For those that don't know, the Maha report is what the administration has put out under Rober F. Kennedy's leadership. It came out a couple days ago. It looks at the classic Kennedy issues. We're going to dive into it before we do subscribe to our YouTube feed. We really appreciate that. All right, Margaret, tell us a little bit about your story.

[Margaret Manteau]

So I have been following the Maha report since it came out. I read it closely last week and you know, there's a lot to get into. But over the weekend I got a tip that there were maybe some issues with some of the citations within the report. So this story was looking at every single one and we found that a couple did not exist.

[Sam Stein]

I just want to be clear. There's 522 citations in this report. Not everyone is like a medical journal or anything like that. There's news reports. You look at all 522?

[Margaret Manteau]

We did, yeah.

[Sam Stein]

Was it just you clicking on it? Because it's like small font. I found it very difficult to even look at it.

[Margaret Manteau]

Yeah, it was me and my colleague Emily. Okay. We did basically click on all of them.

[Sam Stein]

Okay, so let's talk about the, talk about sort of the broad picture here. So in certain cases, when you say that some of the citations were to reports that didn't exist, some were just broken links. How significant a deal is it to do this?

[Margaret Manteau]

Well, I know if I had tried to turn in a paper with these issues in college, would have not gone well for me.

[Sam Stein]

But.

[Margaret Manteau]

But yeah, it really depends, I think on the specific citation. You know, some of them, like you said, just had broken links or you know, maybe said that the study was in the wrong journal or had the wrong authors, which, you know, is, is an issue. It's an error in the citation.

[Sam Stein]

Yeah, sure. It's bad homework. It's, it's sloppy work. It's a, it calls into question the, you know, who constructed the report. But it's clerical.

[Margaret Manteau]

Yeah, but then for seven citations, seven out of 522 we found that we couldn't find the study that it was supposedly citing at all. And we reached out to the supposed authors of these studies, who are real researchers, and a couple of them got back to us and said, wow, I have never heard of this paper that I've supposedly written, so wow.

[Sam Stein]

And there were other occasions where there were citations that went to proper studies, but it misrepresented the actual conclusions of the studies too.

[Margaret Manteau]

Yeah, we did find some that where the studies that they were citing said something different than what the report was saying. And so that's definitely something that we, we want to look into because again, it's a lot of studies.

[Sam Stein]

You reached out to hhs, actually, let's step back for a second, talk about, let's talk about who put together this report and why it was put together.

[Margaret Manteau]

So this report was put together by the Make America Healthy Again Commission, which President Trump put together via executive order. It's headed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Other cabinet members are on the commission, the head of nih, head of fda, they're all on the commission along with other White House figures who have contributed.

[Sam Stein]

And why do they decide they need to put together this report?

[Margaret Manteau]

So Kennedy has a lot of concerns about chronic disease in kids. And so this report basically outlines all of the things that he thinks are causing chronic disease in children.

[Sam Stein]

It's a 73 page report. How much time did they take to put it together?

[Margaret Manteau]

The commission was set up, I believe in February, so just a couple of months.

[Sam Stein]

Is that normal? Two months to put together a report of this magnitude for a government study?

[Margaret Manteau]

It is a big report to put together in two months. I can say that a lot of scientific studies and reviews, which this basically is a type of review, could take significantly longer.

[Sam Stein]

The news reports around the report have been sort of, I guess, mixed and interesting. For example, there are some stuff that people are complimentary of how it looks at processed foods, for instance, what we're doing in terms of diet and health. There are some things that are unexpected. For instance, they assume that there are going to be more attacks around pesticides, but in fact the report, you know, praised American farmers. And there are suggestions, for instance, that industry got in the way of that. And then there's, of course, the question of vaccines, which kind of haunts Kennedy no matter what. And the report does raise concerns about vaccinations and over vaccinations. But it doesn't go quite as far as Kennedy has gone in his prior, prior life around this stuff. What was the sort of larger Scientific community takeaway about what this report did and said.

[Margaret Manteau]

Yeah, I think a good portion of the report is based on real science and you know, a lot of scientists who have been studying things like ultra processed foods or, you know, the dangers of chemicals that have been approved for use on crops or in our foods or our cosmetics, I think see a lot of value in this level of oversight and kind of this language coming from the highest levels of the government. But yeah, there are definitely other areas where the report veers away from the scientific consensus. So it really just depends on the specific issue and the language.

[Sam Stein]

But it has to be completely damaging to the credibility of the report itself to have citations that just don't exist. I mean, I'm just, just going to be honest about it. If that were to, if anything like this were to appear in JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine, they would have to remove the report. They would have to retract it.

[Margaret Manteau]

Yeah, I, I think you are totally right that, that this kind of issue is a big concern right now when it comes to scientific community. And, and you know, Kennedy has said that he wants more transparency and credibility in science. So yeah, this, this would not lend itself to that conclusion.

[Sam Stein]

You don't say it in the story, but it's the logical conclusion, which is that some of this was put together with LLMs or AI. Do you have any indication that that is the case?

[Margaret Manteau]

So we don't have any indication right at this moment that this report was put together in any form by AI. Certainly a possibility. You know, this is the kind of thing that AI can do when you ask it to generate scientific citations. It can sometimes, sometimes hallucinate studies that don't exist. So we know it can happen. We don't know if that's what's happened here.

[Sam Stein]

Did HHS get back to you at all?

[Margaret Manteau]

Not yet. Hopefully soon.

[Sam Stein]

Yeah, it feels like something that they're going to have to answer for at some point.

[Margaret Manteau]

Yeah, well, hopefully they will respond to my email soon because I'm very curious to see what they have to say.

[Sam Stein]

Is there. I mean, and where do you think it goes from here? I mean, the MAHA movement obviously has adherents. Have you picked up any sort of anger within the movement that their first big report ultimately backfired to the degree that it has because they relied on studies or they cited, I should say, a handful of studies that frankly didn't exist or misrepresent others? Or is this a case where they're just sort of like willing to look past the stuff because frankly they often have looked past similar things where similar misrepresentations.

[Margaret Manteau]

It's a really good question. I don't think we've seen fully what the response from the Maha crowd will be to this.

[Sam Stein]

So, yeah, what's the response you're seeing? It's your story. I mean, surely you're online. You've been. You've been calling people, I'm sure. Yeah. What's going on? Tell me more.

[Margaret Manteau]

Yeah, I. I think they're keeping quite quiet on it for now, maybe waiting for some. Some response from hhs, like we all are. So, yeah, I think it will have to play out a little bit more before we see any big, big response.

[Sam Stein]

Can you reveal a little bit more about the tipster? I know this is getting into sensitive territory, but were you shocked when you got a little tip? Like, how. What was it? Were you intrigued by. Were you concerned? Do you think it was a deep fake? What was going on in your head?

[Margaret Manteau]

To be totally honest, I was like, oh, my gosh, there goes my Memorial Day weekend.

[Sam Stein]

What are you talking about? That seems like a great Memorial Day weekend to go through 520 citations on a Maha report.

[Margaret Manteau]

It was a really fun time. Yeah.

[Sam Stein]

No, it wasn't. Get the. You're lying.

[Margaret Manteau]

Hey, I used to be a scientist in a past life, so in some ways, it was kind of muscle memory. But, yeah, it was. It was a time to go through them all. Fortunately, I had help, so it wasn't me alone.

[Sam Stein]

Well, look, thank you for doing this. It's a great story. I encourage everyone to read it. It's the Maha report. Cite studies that don't exist. It's on notice. Margaret Monto, thank you so much. Appreciate it so much. And thank you guys for watching our feed. Really appreciate that. As I said earlier, subscribe to the feed so you can get great interviews like this and we'll talk again soon.