Medical charlatans have existed through history. But AI has turbocharged them
This time, I turned to ChatGPT, a source I had vowed never to use. I asked a straightforward but fundamental question: 'How do I keep my baby healthy?' The answers were practical: avoid added sugar, monitor for signs of fever and talk to your baby often. But the part that left me wary was the last request: 'If you tell me your baby's age, I can tailor this more precisely.' Of course, I should be informed about my child's health, but given my growing scepticism towards AI, I decided to log off.
Earlier this year, an episode in the US echoed my little experiment. With a burgeoning measles outbreak, children's health has become a significant political battleground, and the Department of Health and Human Services, under the leadership of Robert F Kennedy, has initiated a campaign titled the Make America Healthy Again commission, aimed at combating childhood chronic disease. The corresponding report claimed to address the principal threats to children's health: pesticides, prescription drugs and vaccines. Yet the most striking aspect of the report was the pattern of citation errors and unsubstantiated conclusions. External researchers and journalists believed that these pointed to the use of ChatGPT in compiling the report.
What made this more alarming was that the Maha report allegedly included studies that did not exist. This coincides with what we already know about AI, which has been found not only to include false citations but also to 'hallucinate', that is, to invent nonexistent material. The epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, who was listed in the Maha report as the first author of a study on anxiety and adolescents, said: 'The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with.'
The threat of AI may feel new, but its role in spreading medical myths fits into an old mould: that of the charlatan peddling false cures. During the 17th and 18th centuries, there was no shortage of quacks selling reagents intended to counteract intestinal ruptures and eye pustules. Although not medically trained, some, such as Buonafede Vitali and Giovanni Greci, were able to obtain a licence to sell their serums. Having a public platform as grand as the square meant they could gather in public and entertain bystanders, encouraging them to purchase their products, which included balsamo simpatico (sympathetic balm) to treat venereal diseases.
RFK Jr believes that he is an arbiter of science, even if the Maha report appears to have cited false information. What complicates charlatanry today is that we're in an era of far more expansive tools, such as AI, which ultimately have more power than the swindlers of the past. This disinformation may appear on platforms that we believe to be reliable, such as search engines, or masquerade as scientific papers, which we're used to seeing as the most reliable sources of all.
Ironically, Kennedy has claimed that leading peer-reviewed scientific journals such as the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are corrupt. His stance is especially troubling, given the influence he wields in shaping public health discourse, funding and official panels. Moreover, his efforts to implement his Maha programme undermine the very concept of a health programme. Unlike science, which strives to uncover the truth, AI has no interest in whether something is true or false.
AI is very convenient, and people often turn to it for medical advice; however, there are significant concerns with its use. It is injurious enough to refer to it as an individual, but when a government significantly relies on AI for medical reports, this can lead to misleading conclusions about public health. A world filled with AI platforms creates an environment where fact and fiction meld into each other, leaving minimal foundation for scientific objectivity.
The technology journalist Karen Hao astutely reflected in the Atlantic: 'How do we govern artificial intelligence? With AI on track to rewire a great many other crucial functions in society, that question is really asking: how do we ensure that we'll make our future better, not worse?' We need to address this by establishing a way to govern its use, rather than adopting a heedless approach to AI by the government.
Individual solutions can be helpful in assuaging our fears, but we require robust and adaptable policies to hold big tech and governments accountable regarding AI misuse. Otherwise, we risk creating an environment where charlatanism becomes the norm.
Edna Bonhomme is a historian of science
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
40 minutes ago
- The Guardian
As a long-term psychiatric patient, I've had superior care from the NHS
I read with interest the letters about psychiatric care in the NHS (11 July), prompted by Rachel Clarke's review of Bella Jackson's book Fragile Minds (A furious assault on NHS psychiatry, 30 June). I have not read the book but, as a long-term psychiatric patient, I would like to make two points. First, care naturally varies in quality, suitability and success. Following three years in unsatisfactory private care (after many previous years in NHS care), I have happily returned to the NHS. I find its care superior, but hamstrung by limited resources, which can mean waiting many months for an appointment. But I have never been treated badly, as Jackson suggests is common, even when in the worst state. Second, I was struck by what Jackson says a junior doctor said to her (as quoted by Clarke): ''Let's quetiapine them today!' And I asked him why quetiapine, and he said, 'They put you in the best hotels for conferences.'' As Clarke says, this is ludicrous, and certainly the only time I have heard 'quetiapine' used as a verb, which strikes me as improbable. Quetiapine has been a generic drug since 2012 (ie open to any company to manufacture and market, just as, say, paracetamol is). I cannot believe that a junior doctor would prescribe it in the hope of being put up in a 'best hotel' for a conference. It has long been the first-line treatment for psychosis, and for good reason: it works. I have been on quetiapine for 15 years. It's not an enviable position to be in, but I am glad it exists, and grateful to those who have – quite rightly – prescribed it to and address supplied I was disappointed to read that Cathy Wield was 'subjected to increasingly damaging interventions, including electroconvulsive therapy' (Letters, 11 July). I was treated with ECT for severe depression (with my full consent) in 2006 and it saved my life. In subsequent years when I had relapses, it again was highly effective as a treatment and I recovered fully, and have been well for the last five years. I would hope that patients won't dismiss ECT as a potential treatment for depression based on its negative portrayal in the press, but be guided by NHS professionals who prescribe what they believe is best for the individual and address supplied
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Hidden clue reveals how long you'll live as scientists warn of 'serious problems' lurking in your body
Carrying extra fat around your belly, even if you are not overweight, can quietly take away your strength and shorten your life without warning, scientists warns. A recent study found that people with thicker waists compared to their height or hips are more likely to struggle with movement as they age, and face a higher risk of premature death. Researchers said it is not how much you weigh, it's about where you carry it. And belly fat is a major red flag for your body. A team of Italian scientists tested 10,690 adults over six years using a simple sit–and–stand test performed five times from a chair. Dr Elena Levati, the lead researcher and surgeon at Agostino Gemelli University Hospital Foundation in Italy, wrote: 'This can help identify people at risk before more serious problems show up.' The study found that people were 28 percent more likely to have trouble moving if their waist was wide compared to their hips, and 32 percent more likely if their waist was too large for their height, regardless of their weight or age. According to a report of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 40.3 percent of adults in the US classify as obese, which is more than 100 million people. The CDC says that the belly fat, especially the kind that builds up around organs, raises the risk of heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and early death. The study published in Aging focused on two numbers, the waist to hip ration (WHR) and the waist to height ratio (WHtR). Experts note that WHR and WHtR have been used in clinical trials for years to identify risks for heart disease and diabetes. The recent study, however, explored WHtR's link to age-related muscle decline, testing how quickly patient's muscle function deteriorates with aging. Researchers collected participants' waist and hip measurements, had them complete questionnaires about their diet and exercise, and took blood samples to check cholesterol and glucose levels. They discovered that about 71 percent of men and 53 percent of women had risky waist-to-height ratios. For waist-to-hip ratios, 61 percent of men and 39 percent of women had unhealthy scores. During the test, participants were timed as they stood up and sat down from a chair five times. On average, women took 7.9 seconds to complete it, while men took 7.6 seconds, both within the normal range for their age groups. However, the study found that people with larger WHR or WHtR ratios consistently performed worse on this test. Even after adjusting for weight, age, and other factors, these participants were more likely to show signs of declining physical ability. Although a duration longer than 10.8 seconds is typically regarded as a warning sign for frailty or disability, the researchers found that slower performance in individuals with higher belly fat ratios indicates that their muscular function may be compromised, even if they have not yet crossed that danger threshold. Another study published by National Institutes of Health (NIH) found that older adults, with abdominal obesity and low handgrip strength, face twice the risk of death from any cause. This combination highlights accelerated aging and increased vulnerability to weakness, disability, and premature death. Researchers said the root cause of this issue might be the visceral fat, a type of body fat stored deep within the abdominal area, surrounding vital organs like the liver, intestines, and stomach. Since visceral fat wraps around the organs, it has been linked to inflammation, poor muscle quality, and sarcopenia, a condition where muscle strength declines with age. Nearly 50 percent of American adults have unhealthy waist sizes linked to excess abdominal fat, based on National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. This kind of fat buildup can quietly affect your balance, endurance, and even how your heart and lungs work during exercise, according to the experts. They added that unlike body weight or body to mass index (BMI), which sometimes can be misleading, these waist ratios give a clear picture as someone with normal BMI still can carry dangerous belly fat. The study also found that waist–to–height ratio was a better predictor than waist–to–hip ratio. It was more accurate for both men and women, and worked better regardless of age. In fact, just measuring your waist and comparing it to your height may be the simplest way to know if your future mobility is at risk. The waist–to–height test has another advantage, it is quick, cheap, and does not require a lab or doctor's visit. While the study focused on physical performance, the implications go beyond that. Poor mobility has been tied to higher death rates, hospitalizations, and reduced quality of life. A study published in NIH in 2023 found that older adults with high waist circumference were significantly more likely to develop a disability within five years, even when their overall weight stayed stable.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
NHS patients blinded after locum doctor botched their cases
It discovered some patients returned with 'permanent visual damage', which led to a review regarding one locum consultant. The individual no longer works at the organisation. An external review of the ophthalmology service was then commissioned and found problems including a failure to give the right medication to some patients, and refer others for help they needed. Clinical notes of 278 patients who had been seen by the locum consultant were reviewed by an independent consultant. The review discovered 104 cases had a 'deviation' from guidance. The patients were contacted in April 2024 and requested to return for a full clinical review. The trust also revealed that its incident reporting system had identified two cases of severe harm and one case of moderate harm of patients being treated with glaucoma by the same locum consultant, with similar concerns raised, in 2023. Glaucoma is a common condition in adults over 50 and can be treated using eye drops, laser treatment or surgery. Early detection and treatment are crucial to preserving vision, as poor management can lead to blindness. A GEH spokesman said: 'All patients affected have been contacted and we are offering our full support; we have extended our sincere apologies to them. 'Incorrect processes, carried out by an individual who no longer works for the trust, identified significant harm, up to and including sight loss, relating to a small number of patients. 'A full investigation is still currently underway into the clinical appropriateness of the ophthalmology care provided. 'New processes and oversight have already been introduced to provide safe and effective service for our patients.' At a board meeting last month, the trust's chief medical officer said there were also more recent concerns about the trust's optometry services. Najam Rashid, the chief medical officer, said: 'We found some evidence that some of the guidelines haven't been followed. 'The governance teams and the speciality teams are looking at the pathways and doing a more in-depth analysis.'
