Hamas Medical Study Claims Go Unchallenged in ABC News Report

In a recent academic controversy, a Duke University-sponsored medical study on Gaza injuries has raised serious concerns about potential bias and Hamas influence, with ABC News facing criticism for its coverage of the research.

ABC News reporter Mary Kekatos published an article titled “Up to 46,000 injuries in Gaza require reconstructive surgery: Study” on February 18, 2026, focusing on findings from Duke University’s Bass Connections Program research. Critics, however, allege the reporting failed to disclose critical context about the study’s authors and oversight.

The research, which estimates tens of thousands of Gaza residents require reconstructive surgery, was reportedly conducted under the supervision of the Palestinian Health Research Council (PHRC), an entity formed by Gaza’s Ministry of Health. According to critics, this Ministry operates under Hamas control, the U.S.-designated terrorist organization responsible for the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel that killed approximately 1,200 people and led to 251 kidnappings.

Media watchdogs have pointed to several contentious elements in the study itself. The research introduction frames the Gaza conflict without mentioning the Hamas attack, stating instead that “the Gaza Strip has been a focal point of conflict for decades and reached a tipping point on October 7, 2023. Since then, the Israeli government significantly escalated military action in Gaza…” Critics note the word “Hamas” does not appear anywhere in the journal article.

Of particular concern are two non-Duke affiliated co-authors. Dr. Ahmed Mokhallalati from Al Shifa Hospital has reportedly made controversial public statements, including allegations of organ theft by Israel and what critics describe as genocide claims. Al Shifa Hospital was previously identified by U.S. authorities as a location where Hamas maintained a presence, with the Israeli Defense Forces recovering hostage bodies there in November 2023. British plastic surgeon Dr. Victoria Rose, the second external author, has appeared alongside Mokhallalati at events organized by Health Workers 4 Palestine, a group the Anti-Defamation League has characterized as extremist.

The study methodology has also drawn scrutiny for relying on data from organizations that critics claim have been compromised by terrorist infiltration, including Médecins Sans Frontières and the United Nations Relief Works Agency. Additional concerns include uncritical acceptance of casualty statistics, allegations of thermobaric weapon use denied by Israeli authorities, and claims of famine conditions that some say have been disputed by U.N. reporting.

Academic collaboration with healthcare professionals operating in conflict zones presents inherent challenges, as researchers must navigate complex political realities while attempting to document humanitarian needs. However, critics argue this particular study crossed ethical lines by failing to acknowledge potential biases and conflicts of interest.

Duke University’s involvement in the controversial research raises questions about academic oversight and standards for international collaborations in conflict settings. The university’s Bass Connections Program, which funded the study, typically focuses on multidisciplinary approaches to global challenges.

This controversy highlights the broader challenges journalists and academics face when reporting on or studying highly polarized conflicts. Media ethics experts emphasize that transparency about potential biases and conflicts of interest remains essential for maintaining public trust in both journalism and academic research.

Neither ABC News nor Duke University has publicly responded to these criticisms at the time of reporting. The controversy underscores ongoing tensions between journalistic objectivity, academic freedom, and the politicization of humanitarian research in conflict zones.