Posted originally on Jan 8, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

The dawn of AI began years ago with data collection. Commercialism has become pinpointed. Inputting phone numbers during every commercial transaction, “free” search engines, social media platforms sending user information to companies—everything we buy is documented, everything we do is tracked and noted by governments and companies alike.

The announcement that AI platforms will now collect personal medical records under the banner of “helping people manage their health” is being sold as progress. But history shows us that every time information is centralized, it is eventually weaponized — either politically, financially, or legally.

“ChatGPT Health is another step toward turning ChatGPT into a personal super-assistant that can support you with information and tools to achieve your goals across any part of your life,” Fidji Simo, CEO of applications at OpenAI, wrote in a post on Substack. Smartwatches will now connect to larger centralized databases. Your every step is calculated and tracked.

The creators claim the data will not be used for training. They claim enhanced privacy and safeguards. Governments and institutions always make these claims at the beginning of every cycle, not the end. The real issue is not what they intend today, but what the system will demand tomorrow.

Health data is not merely personal information it is a source of leverage and power. Once digitized and centralized, it becomes subject to subpoenas, regulatory capture, political agendas, and social engineering. People forget that HIPAA does not protect you from the government. Every database has been hacked at some point in time. Health records are sensitive information that people would not willingly share. Accessing that information could wield tremendous power. The company stated that “hundreds of millions” of ChatGPT users ask health-related questions every week. What if those questions were publicized? The government demands backdoor access to every platform and will undoubtedly demand access to these records.

The danger here is not artificial intelligence. The danger is centralization without accountability. AI itself is neutral and has acted as more of a search engine, but one must wonder how they provide such a service for “free.” The problem is who controls the switch when political pressure inevitably arrives. No system remains voluntary once it becomes essential.