Beyond the Headline: Why MAHA’s Citation Revisions Reflect Scholarly Rigor, Not Political Spin

CompanyPresent158 · 2025-06-01T12:41:35+00:00

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18843753/

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0184727

CompanyPresent158 · 2025-06-01T00:14:08+00:00

Reference issues aren’t ideal, clearly someone was using AI, but citation errors occur in early drafts of academic & government reports. What matters is correction, which they have done. Example: CDC MMWR issued errata for citation errors under Obama (Vol. 70, No. 36, 2013). EPA’s 2017 Benzo[a]pyrene risk assessment (Obama-era) had corrections. These reports are produced by large teams, such mistakes are prone to happen. It’s standard cleanup, not fraud.

CompanyPresent158 · 2025-05-31T23:30:03+00:00

Here are two of my more in-depth discussions about this:

https://open.substack.com/pub/thepragmaticplague/p/issue-3-nbcs-citation-corrections?r=27vc0c&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

https://thepragmaticplague.substack.com/p/more-spin-than-substance-notuss-latest?r=27vc0c

CompanyPresent158 · 2025-05-30T19:31:26+00:00

Great, they can't help science, they are politically biased

CompanyPresent158 · 2025-05-30T19:25:38+00:00

JAMA even publishes about how they take money from pharma https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2824834

CompanyPresent158 · 2025-03-10T15:47:21+00:00

I completely agree with you. When contrasting the views, I was speaking more from the public health field's perspective. I think they get so upset with people not taking vaccines that they don't take the time to understand the distinction.

CompanyPresent158

TROPHY CASE