The White House downplayed questions about its flagship report on children’s health, but edited the document Thursday after authors listed in the paper confirmed it cited studies that do not exist.The highly anticipated “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) report was released on May 22 by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the presidential commission tasked with assessing drivers of childhood chronic disease.But authors and publishers of at least four studies listed in the original document told AFP they or their organizations were credited with papers they did not write — or that never existed.White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the mishaps as “formatting issues” during a press briefing Thursday.”It does not negate the substance of the report,” said Leavitt, who expressed confidence in Kennedy and his team, and insisted that their work was “backed on good science.”- ‘Totally fabricated’ -The errors were first reported Thursday by NOTUS, a US digital news website affiliated with the nonprofit Allbritton Journalism Institute.Noah Kreski, a Columbia University researcher listed as an author of a paper on adolescent anxiety and depression during the Covid-19 pandemic, told AFP the paper is “not one of our studies” and “doesn’t appear to be a study that exists at all.”The initial citation included a link that purported to send users to an article in the peer-reviewed medical journal JAMA Pediatrics, but it was broken. Jim Michalski, a spokesman for JAMA Network, said it “was not published in JAMA Pediatrics or in any JAMA Network journal.”Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, who was also listed as an author of the supposed JAMA study, told AFP she does research on the topic but does not know where the statistics credited to her came from, and that she “did not write that paper.”Guohua Li, another Columbia University professor apparently named in the citation, said the reference is “totally fabricated” and that he does not even know Kreski.AFP also spoke with Harold Farber, pediatrics professor at Baylor College of Medicine, who said the paper attributed to him “does not exist” nor had he ever collaborated with the co-authors credited in the original MAHA report.Similarly, Brian McNeill, spokesperson for Virginia Commonwealth University, confirmed that professor Robert Findling did not author a paper the report says he wrote about advertising of psychotropic medications for youth.A fourth paper on ADHD medication was also not published in the journal Pediatrics in 2008 as claimed, according to the journal’s publisher, the American Academy of Pediatrics.- ‘Rife with misinformation’ -The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declined to comment, referring AFP’s questions to the White House.At her briefing, Leavitt declined to answer how the report was produced and whether artificial intelligence tools may have been used to craft it, directing those questions back to HHS.All of the citations investigated by AFP were replaced with links to real sources in the updated version, though in one case, purported research was supplanted by an article from The New York Times.The Democratic National Committee on Thursday blasted the report as “rife with misinformation,” accusing Kennedy’s agency of “justifying its policy priorities with studies and sources that do not exist.”Kennedy was approved as health secretary earlier this year despite widespread alarm from the medical community over his history of promoting vaccine misinformation and denying scientific facts.Since taking office, he has ordered the National Institutes of Health to probe the causes of autism — a condition he has long falsely tied to the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.The report’s chronic disease references appear to nod to that same disproven theory, discredited by numerous studies since the idea first aired in a late 1990s paper based on falsified data.It also criticizes the “over-medicalization” of children, citing surging prescriptions of psychiatric drugs and antibiotics, and blaming “corporate capture” for skewing scientific research.

A US federal appeals court has temporarily halted a ruling that found many of President Donald Trump’s tariffs illegal, but the chance it could ultimately back the original decision looms over the White House.What is in the US Court of International Trade’s original ruling — which the Trump administration is appealing — and what options does the administration have?- Which tariffs were affected? -The three-judge trade court ruled Wednesday that Trump overstepped his authority in imposing blanket tariffs by invoking emergency economic powers.The judgment — although temporarily halted — affected levies unveiled on April 2, which involve a 10-percent tariff on most trading partners and higher rates on dozens of economies including China and the European Union. These higher levels are currently suspended while negotiations take place.The ruling also applies to tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico and China over their alleged roles in allowing an influx of drugs into the United States.But it left intact sector-specific levies like those on steel, aluminum and auto imports.- Why a pause? -The ruling by the little-known court, which has nationwide jurisdiction over tariff and trade disputes, initially gave the White House 10 days to complete the process of unwinding the levies.But the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday granted a temporary stay “until further notice” while the Trump administration’s appeals process plays out.This means the tariffs can remain in effect for now, while a longer-term outcome is yet to be determined.National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett told Fox News the administration is “very pleased with the ruling,” dubbing it a victory.- What are Trump’s alternatives? -The appeals court could eventually uphold the trade court’s original decision to block Trump’s sweeping tariffs.The president, however, has other means to reinstate his tariff agenda, said Thibault Denamiel, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.These include Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, “which is intended to deal with a balance of payments emergency but does not require a formal investigation,” Denamiel told AFP.The authority restricts tariffs to 15 percent and they can only last 150 days.But it is among the policy levers that Trump could pull as he seeks a “bridge” towards more lasting actions, said KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk.Another option is Section 338 of the Trade Act of 1930, allowing the administration to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent on countries that discriminate against the United States, Denamiel said.- Does this affect trade talks? -The US trade court’s ruling did not remove the threat of US tariffs for Europe or end the need for negotiations, said Andrew Kenningham, chief Europe economist at Capital Economics.This is because the threat of reciprocal tariffs remains if the White House wins its appeal, he said.Trump could also turn to sector-specific means as he did in his first term or seek congressional approval for tariffs, though this is less likely, Kenningham said.It is not clear if negotiations will lose steam, Swonk added, given that the administration wants to leverage the threat of tariffs “very aggressively.”Even if the original ruling is eventually upheld, US officials could still buy time to exert pressure on other economies including the European Union and China.- What about the broader economy? -The court process “introduces greater ambiguity around the future direction of US trade policy,” especially because the appeal is ongoing, said EY chief economist Gregory Daco.”This legal development amplifies longer-lasting uncertainty for businesses navigating cross-border supply chains,” he added in a note.US stocks closed higher Thursday, but economic fallout has already occurred in recent months with Trump’s see-sawing approach to unveiling tariffs and pausing them selectively.Financial markets have been roiled by policy shifts, and shipping halts due to high tariffs bring disruptions that cannot be cleared overnight, analysts said.”The fate of the economy remains precarious even if we avert a recession,” Swonk said on social media.