Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Maddow Blog-HHS faces new accusations of presenting nonexistent research, adding to alarming pattern
Many people here and around the world need to be able to rely on U.S. health officials. That’s becoming increasingly difficult.
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/hhs-faces-new-accusations-presenting-nonexistent-research-adding-alarm-rcna215009
Vaccine advisers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reportedly prepared a presentation this week that included a dubious claim: An animal study, the presentation said, found that a vaccine preservative can have “long-term consequences in the brain.”
As CNN reported, the study in question “doesn’t appear to exist.”
CNN’s report, which has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, noted that the citation appeared to refer to Dr. Robert F. Berman, a professor emeritus at the University of California Davis, who told the network that the research included in the presentation, as far as he knows, “does not exist.”
If this problem sounds familiar, it’s not your imagination.
About a month ago, Donald Trump and Heath and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unveiled “The MAHA Report: Making Our Children Healthy Again,” and almost immediately problems emerged. The Washington Post reported, for example, that some of the report’s suggestions “stretched the limits of science” and offered “misleading representations” of scientific research.
A week later, a devastating report published by NOTUS advanced the underlying story considerably, highlighting the unambiguous fact that the MAHA document “misinterprets some studies and cites others that don’t exist, according to the listed authors.” Soon after, The New York Times identified “additional faulty references” in the report, including instances in which the document’s authors pointed to “fictitious studies.”......
A great many people here and around the world — physicians, researchers, international public health agencies, the public at large, et al. — need to be able to rely on federal health officials from the United States. That’s becoming increasingly difficult.
As CNN reported, the study in question “doesn’t appear to exist.”
Lyn Redwood, a former leader of Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine group that lists US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as a founder, is scheduled to give the presentation Thursday at a meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The slides, posted online Tuesday, cite a 2008 study in the journal Neurotoxicology by ‘Berman RF, et al,’ called ‘Low-level neonatal thimerosal exposure: Long-term consequences in the brain.’ The presentation claimed that results from a study in newborn rats suggest long-term ‘neuroimmune effects’ from the vaccine preservative.
CNN’s report, which has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, noted that the citation appeared to refer to Dr. Robert F. Berman, a professor emeritus at the University of California Davis, who told the network that the research included in the presentation, as far as he knows, “does not exist.”
If this problem sounds familiar, it’s not your imagination.
About a month ago, Donald Trump and Heath and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unveiled “The MAHA Report: Making Our Children Healthy Again,” and almost immediately problems emerged. The Washington Post reported, for example, that some of the report’s suggestions “stretched the limits of science” and offered “misleading representations” of scientific research.
A week later, a devastating report published by NOTUS advanced the underlying story considerably, highlighting the unambiguous fact that the MAHA document “misinterprets some studies and cites others that don’t exist, according to the listed authors.” Soon after, The New York Times identified “additional faulty references” in the report, including instances in which the document’s authors pointed to “fictitious studies.”......
A great many people here and around the world — physicians, researchers, international public health agencies, the public at large, et al. — need to be able to rely on federal health officials from the United States. That’s becoming increasingly difficult.