Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently asserted that artificial intelligence will liberate Americans from what he called the “medical tyranny” of doctors and health officials. He claimed AI is “better informed than any doctor in the country” and urged citizens to use it for second opinions on medical guidance. Kennedy added, “We’re never, ever again going to be able to be dominated by public officials who tell us trust the experts, because every American will be able to check their own medical advice.”
Independent testing of several chat-based AI systems showed they did not overturn established public-health guidance. When asked whether social distancing reduces disease spread, the models responded affirmatively, echoing the consensus of epidemiologists. Similarly, queries about vaccine efficacy produced answers that matched expert opinion, including standard caveats. These results demonstrate that the AI tools consulted align with, rather than contradict, the medical literature cited by health authorities.
The Gemini chatbot, for example, answered the question “Is social distancing an effective public health measure for reducing the transmission of infectious diseases, particularly respiratory pathogens?” with a concise “Yes, social distancing is an effective public health measure for reducing the transmission of infectious diseases, particularly respiratory pathogens.” When queried “Can vaccines prevent transmission and infection?” it produced a nearly identical affirmative response, mirroring the prevailing scientific view without introducing contrarian claims.
Despite the alignment with expert consensus, the claim that AI surpasses physicians remains unsupported. Numerous studies have documented AI hallucinations and misinterpretations that can jeopardize patient safety, especially when models are prompted to endorse fringe positions. Health professionals caution that reliance on unvetted algorithmic advice may amplify misinformation, underscoring that clinicians’ contextual judgment and experience remain essential components of trustworthy medical guidance.
The remarks were made at a Medical AI and Health (MAHA) summit held in Washington, D.C., at the Waldorf Astoria. According to Bloomberg Law, sponsorship packages for the event were priced as high as $300,000 and included a guaranteed speaking slot, influence over panel composition, and a private dinner with Kennedy and former CMS head Mehmet Oz. Corporate backers listed by the New York Times included OpenAI, Anthropic, Walmart and Grail, the latter pursuing FDA approval for a cancer-screening blood test.
The summit’s agenda featured executives from major health insurers UnitedHealth and Elevance, representatives from pharmaceutical firms, and a panel discussing psychedelics. A senior leader from Hims & Hers, a direct-to-consumer telehealth provider, also appeared on the program. The presence of these industry players highlighted the convergence of AI technology with established health-care business models, raising questions about the influence of corporate interests on the framing of medical AI discourse.