During a recent 92-minute interview with Tucker Carlson, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. elaborated on his ambitious plans for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The discussion frequently touched on artificial intelligence, alongside topics such as vaccine-related conspiracy theories, disinformation, the medical community, and COVID-19 fatalities.
Kennedy asserted that under his guidance, HHS would undergo an “AI revolution.” He urged viewers to “stop trusting the experts,” suggesting that they should instead place their faith in AI technologies over established scientific consensus.
He noted that AI is currently being deployed to “detect waste, abuse, and fraud” within the federal government. This aligns with initiatives like Elon Musk’s controversial DOGE project, which has been criticized for leading to the rehiring of several employees previously cut from the CDC. He also claimed that the CDC will utilize AI to analyze large data sets and enhance decision-making regarding health interventions, indicating a rather superficial understanding of AI’s capabilities.
Furthermore, Kennedy stated that AI would expedite the drug approval process at the FDA, hinting that it might entirely supplant animal testing. This assertion echoes a prior announcement from the FDA regarding a phase-out of animal testing for certain drugs in favor of AI models following the 2022 passage of the FDA Modernization Act 2.0. That legislation removed mandatory animal testing requirements for new drug approvals.
Research continues into alternative methodologies such as organ-on-chip technologies and AI models that could potentially reduce reliance on animal testing. While computational modeling has long been integral to pharmaceutical evaluations, suggestions that AI could entirely replace animal models are viewed as premature. The National Association for Biomedical Research has stated that there is currently no complete substitute for animal models in drug development.
Kennedy also hinted at significant changes to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is managed by the CDC and may soon be enhanced with AI capabilities. Earlier this year, he had suggested automating VAERS. The system serves as a primary mechanism for identifying rare vaccine-related risks, which has often been misrepresented by anti-vaccine advocates. Although AI-driven drug testing might raise concerns, the processes would involve independent researchers and pharmaceutical companies, which are economically motivated to avoid harmful products.
Misinterpretation of VAERS data could further erode public trust in health initiatives and empower Kennedy’s new vaccine advisory committee to alter vaccine recommendations and potentially restrict access.
Anyone can submit a report to VAERS when experiencing adverse health events following vaccination, and certain healthcare providers are mandated to report such incidents. However, a report does not indicate causation. Kawsar Talaat, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University, emphasizes that there is no mechanism within VAERS that allows for determining whether a vaccine is responsible for reported events, including those that are not biologically linked to vaccination.
Serious events, such as deaths, following vaccination are predominantly found to be unrelated to the vaccine. Paul Offit, a vaccine expert at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, highlights that vaccines primarily protect against preventable diseases but do not prevent all occurrences in life.
Nonetheless, VAERS reports are supplemented by subsequent investigations conducted by the CDC through programs like the Vaccine Safety Datalink and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project. Established in 1986, VAERS functions to generate hypotheses regarding possible vaccine side effects and has successfully identified rare risks, such as myocarditis linked to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Offit points out that anti-vaccine advocates often misuse VAERS data to claim that any report signifies a genuine health issue, which is misleading given the nature of the reporting system.
Kennedy’s intended approach to integrate AI into VAERS remains unclear, though it may involve configuring an automated system to analyze reported vaccine risks. Earlier this year, a notable FDA vaccine regulator was removed from his position over concerns that he would restrict Kennedy’s access to the VAERS database, leading to fears of data manipulation. Now, with fewer obstacles, Kennedy appears ready to advance his plans.
There are valid arguments that well-constructed AI systems could enhance VAERS review processes. However, the efficacy of these systems heavily depends on the quality of the data and algorithms used for training. If influenced by flawed information, the AI is likely to produce equally inaccurate outcomes. The potential exists for an AI system to reinforce a preexisting bias against vaccines, contingent on how it is programmed.
Despite the potential benefits that AI applications could offer in healthcare, experts consistently emphasize the importance of cautious implementation and thorough evaluation. Concerns regarding bias, privacy, legal ramifications, and user manipulation persist, as demonstrated in a 2024 review encompassing 120 studies of the use of generative AI in medicine. Missteps associated with AI deployment remain a significant consideration, evidenced earlier this year when a presidential advisory committee led by Kennedy issued a report that likely contained inaccuracies attributed to nonexistent studies.
A critical question lies in whether an AI-driven vaccine risk assessment framework can be constructed objectively and accurately under Kennedy’s leadership. Offit remains skeptical, stating, “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an anti-vaccine activist, a science denialist, and a conspiracy theorist. He will do everything he can, as long as he is in this position, to make vaccines less available, less affordable, and more feared.”
