A piece published last week in The Atlantic argued for the necessity of a new public health initiative known as MAHA (Make America Healthier Again). However, several science-based medical organizations have criticized this idea, suggesting that public health does not require such an approach. [1] Science-Based Medicine, which is generally considered to lean right politically, has taken issue with the Atlantic's assertion, arguing that public health already operates effectively without the need for MAHA. [2] The Guardian, on the other hand, did not address this specific topic in their coverage of the piece. Their focus was more general and did not delve into whether or not MAHA is needed by public health. Both outlets have used neutral language throughout their articles, avoiding alarmist or overly partisan tones. [1] Science-Based Medicine specifically mentioned that they are critical of the Atlantic's stance on MAHA, while [2] The Guardian did not comment on this specific point but generally avoided editorializing in their coverage.