Artificial Intelligence Foot was opened to the approval of the drug and the vaccine

Kennedy has repeatedly referred to artificial intelligence as a solution to what calls “corruption, loss and abuse” in the federal government. In controversial statements, he asked people to “trust artificial intelligence rather than trust in experts”; An approach that has been welcomed by fans of conspiracy theories and anti -violating currents, but for experts, it draws a worrying future for public health policies.

In part of the conversation, Kennedy said that using artificial intelligence to accelerate the process of drug approval in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and to abandon animal experiments. These words are not unrelated to recent changes; The FDA announced in April that it intends to gradually use artificial intelligence -based computing models instead of animal testing; The decision that is rooted in a modification of the FDA Modernization ACT 2.0.

However, experts are concerned that the Kennedy approach, which is based on the simplification of complex scientific concepts and the use of tools such as “artificial intelligence”, in fact leads to the weakening of scientific institutions, abandoning proven standards, and even the threat of public health.

One of the designs that Kennedy pointed out was the use of artificial intelligence to analyze Megadita in Disease Control Centers (CDC); He said the technology would help the CDC to make “better intervention decisions”. But the same sentence showed how superb and ambiguous his understanding of the real uses and limitations of artificial intelligence is.

This is not the first time that technology has used technology as a means of attacking scientific institutions. He had previously been heavily criticized by the medical community and scientists with allegations of vaccines, autism and deaths caused by Kuwavid.

While the governments of the world are trying to use artificial intelligence in accurate ethical and scientific frameworks, Kennedy is trying to identify it as a replacement for public confidence in scientific expertise. This “revolution”, though modern and technological, may open the way for scientific instability and serious dangers to American health policies.