Can AI Protect Public Health from Attacks from Within?

​​The Dangerous Influence of Misinformation in Public Health

What happens when the person entrusted with the nation’s health doesn’t trust science? As a board-certified pediatrician and pediatric critical care physician, I have dedicated my career to evidence-based medicine in the urgent care and intensive care settings, ensuring that children receive the best possible care based on scientific research and clinical expertise. However, the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services is deeply unsettling—not from a political standpoint, but from a scientific one.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services plays a crucial role in safeguarding public health, overseeing agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This position is responsible for responding to medical emergencies, guiding disease prevention efforts, and shaping public health policy. In short, it is a role that directly impacts the well-being of millions.

But beyond policy decisions, the Secretary also has the power to shape the narrative around health—how people perceive medical advancements, trust in vaccines, and engage with healthcare recommendations. That is where my and many of my medical colleagues’ concerns lie. We are already witnessing a crisis of scientific mistrust, fueled by misinformation and conspiracy theories. If someone with a history of opposing evidence-based medicine takes the helm, what will happen to public confidence in science?

It is this narrative of how health is determined and what it takes to maintain health that worries me so much. We routinely see vaccine hesitation in the community through either propagated misinformation or conspiracy theories. We see acute or chronic medical issues being mismanaged by patients and/or their families, not because the correct management doesn’t exist, but a more natural cure is sought. “Big pharma” is being blamed through profit motives to avoid treatments and preventative measures that actually are scientifically proven to be successful. Many factors contribute to the public’s distrust in science.

When scientific principles are followed and the evidence is critically evaluated, it provides a foundation for scientific truth at that moment. The evidence evolves with time and may change, but the spirit of the investigation is the most accurate process that exists. Also, science will never give you a 100% effectiveness claim. There are too many variables to account for, such as human genetics, environmental influences, changes or adaptations of diseases that try to overcome treatments and preventative measures, comorbid conditions of the patient, and many others. Individual circumstances must be considered, and management inferred from the science as best as possible. But, the scientific process is the most efficacious way to evaluate and speak to health-related issues and support progress within the healthcare community.

Why RFK Jr.’s Nomination Raises Concerns for Public Health

My concern about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr is that he is not only woefully unqualified to assume a position such as the Secretary of Health and Human Services, but he also has routinely proven that he does not support science or trust it. He would rather pander to the fears of parents about the threats of vaccines, rather than benefits or importance of them. His views stem from misinformation and conspiracies, rather than true understanding and actual education on health topics. The unfortunate part of this is that he may have the opportunity to affect the narrative of how health is determined and what it takes to maintain health, in general.

Fallacies and misinformation from a presumed authority can have a tremendous impact on the public health. As an individual who values science and understands how its misinterpretation can be used for polluting the minds of the public, I am fearful of the consequences of how a manipulated narrative can shape public perception of scientific efficacy and how the public’s trust can be undermined at the detriment to human life and overall health. Misinformation is not a new problem, but in today’s digital world, it spreads faster than ever—often amplified by influential voices. If those in power distort scientific truths, how can we ensure the public still has access to reliable, fact-based medical information? Searching for a solution, I turned to an unlikely ally: artificial intelligence (AI).

AI as a Tool for Transparency and Scientific Truth

Why would I look to AI? AI is limited by what it is trained on. If it is fed inaccurate information, it will generate inaccurate reports. The old adage of “garbage in is garbage out” applies. So, how could AI benefit us, rather than hurt us in our crusade for propagating scientific truth? Well, therein lies the question. I didn’t know the answer, so I asked ChatGPT itself.

I asked ChatGPT the following, after feeding the above essay into it before the following prompt:

“I would like your response to the issue of how AI could help us with misinformation and conspiracy theories propagated by an individual in government such as RFK Jr. If the government wants to rewrite the narrative to certain health measures, keep data tracking of illnesses or diseases opaque on federally supported websites, like the CDC, and pressure medical organizations, like the American Academy of Pediatrics, to change their stance on issues like vaccine effectiveness, how would AI be able to help healthcare professionals and the public see the truth about medical issues, healthcare, and science?”

The response from ChatGPT was as follows:

“This is a critical and timely concern. If a government led by someone like RFK Jr. sought to manipulate public health information—by rewriting narratives, obscuring disease tracking, or pressuring medical organizations—AI could serve as a crucial safeguard for truth. However, its effectiveness would depend on how it is implemented, who controls it, and whether it remains independent from government influence.

How AI Could Counter Government-Led Misinformation in Healthcare

1. AI-Powered Fact-Checking and Scientific Verification

AI-driven fact-checking tools could continuously analyze government statements, policies, and federally controlled websites (like the CDC) to detect inconsistencies, contradictions, or deviations from established scientific consensus. AI could cross-reference statements with independent research, historical data, and global health sources (e.g., World Health Organization, independent universities, peer-reviewed journals). It could track changes in public health guidelines over time, flagging politically motivated alterations that are not scientifically justified. AI-powered fact-checkers could work with journalists, watchdog organizations, and medical professionals to identify and expose misinformation quickly.

Example: If the government falsely claimed that a vaccine was ineffective, AI could pull from global vaccine trial data, historical success rates, and real-world efficacy studies to provide immediate, evidence-based counterpoints.

2. Decentralized AI for Independent Health Data Analysis

If disease tracking data were deliberately made opaque on government-supported websites, AI could assist in crowdsourcing health data and independently monitoring public health trends. AI models could aggregate real-time hospital data, social media reports, and local health department statistics to track disease spread, even if official sources were unreliable. Satellite imagery, wastewater analysis, and search engine trends could be analyzed by AI to estimate outbreaks when official data is suppressed. AI could help build independent, open-source databases that store and analyze public health data outside government control.

Example: If the government underreported COVID-19 cases, AI could analyze Google searches for "loss of taste and smell," spikes in emergency room visits, or mortality trends to infer the real infection rate.

3. AI as an Educational Tool for Public and Healthcare Professionals

If organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) were pressured to change their stance on vaccines, AI could preserve and disseminate scientific knowledge independently. AI could provide direct access to unfiltered medical literature by summarizing peer-reviewed studies in understandable language. AI-powered chatbots for doctors and the public could answer health-related questions based on verified scientific data rather than politically influenced narratives. AI could create customized educational materials that counter misinformation with clear, engaging explanations.

Example: If the AAP were forced to weaken its stance on vaccine safety, AI could track past statements, provide archived scientific consensus, and ensure that the public and physicians could still access accurate vaccine research.

4. AI in Social Media and Information Warfare

If misinformation were being pushed at the government level, AI could help combat its spread in real time. AI algorithms could detect false narratives on social media and provide counterpoints with links to verified medical sources. AI-generated misinformation alerts could notify users when they are exposed to health-related falsehoods. AI-driven content recommendation systems could ensure that credible medical sources appear more prominently in search results and news feeds.

Example: If government officials spread vaccine misinformation online, AI could immediately generate science-based counterarguments and elevate them on platforms like Google, Facebook, and Twitter.

5. AI-Assisted Global Collaboration in Medicine

If the U.S. government suppressed health information, AI could facilitate collaboration between independent researchers, doctors, and international organizations to maintain transparency. AI could help connect healthcare professionals globally to share independent research and real-world clinical findings. AI-powered language translation models could ensure that critical medical research remains accessible worldwide, bypassing national censorship. AI-driven predictive modeling could simulate disease spread and vaccine impact, independent of government-controlled data.

Example: If the government obscured flu hospitalization rates, AI could analyze European or Canadian flu trends to predict what is likely happening in the U.S.

Challenges and Risks of AI in Combating Misinformation

While AI has the potential to safeguard scientific truth, there are limitations and ethical concerns:

AI can be manipulated if trained on biased or censored datasets. If government-controlled sources dominate AI’s training material, the AI could become an instrument of misinformation rather than a safeguard against it.

AI must remain independent and transparent in its data sources and methodology. Open-source AI projects, rather than government-run models, would be crucial.

Public trust in AI must be fostered. Many people already distrust AI, and governments could exploit this skepticism by discrediting independent AI fact-checking efforts.

Final Thought: AI as a Guardian of Scientific Integrity

In an era where political influence could corrupt medical truth, AI could serve as an independent watchdog, a fact-checking force, and an educational tool. However, for AI to be truly effective, it must:

· Remain decentralized and free from government control.

· Be trained on diverse, international, and peer-reviewed sources.

· Work alongside human experts, journalists, and medical professionals.

· Be transparent about its sources and methods.

AI alone cannot solve the problem of misinformation, but combined with human oversight, independent research, and global collaboration, it could be a crucial tool in defending science against political distortion.”

Can AI Truly Save Us from Ourselves?

As we navigate an era where misinformation can be amplified by those in power, the role of AI as a guardian of scientific integrity becomes increasingly critical. While AI is not a perfect solution, it has the potential to act as a counterweight to politically motivated or uneducated distortions of health information and science. By fact-checking narratives, preserving independent research, and ensuring public access to verifiable scientific data, AI could help safeguard truth in medicine and public health. However, AI itself must remain independent, transparent, and resistant to manipulation.

The fight against misinformation requires a multi-faceted approach—one that combines AI with human expertise, journalistic scrutiny, and public engagement. Ultimately, AI may not be able to "save us from ourselves," but it can be a powerful ally in our ongoing struggle to ensure that science, not fear, misinformation, or political agendas, guides our understanding of health. So, while I am still concerned about the prospect of having someone like RFK, Jr leading our healthcare system, I find some comfort in knowing that solutions exist to help preserve a healthy narrative around medicine and cultivate the public’s trust in science. AI may yet be one of these tools to counteract the influence of those who undermine science while leading public health efforts.

Do you believe AI can be an effective tool in combating misinformation, or do you think it comes with risks of its own?