ChatGPT Health Is Rolling Out to Everyone, but I Don’t Trust It 36%

By Beth Skwarecki29%

7/24/2026, 6:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 23.3% saturation with 242 hits. Analysis detected 1,739 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,038 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.7% and a BS Rank of 36% (14,195 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.90% of the article peer group.

OpenAI announced today that ChatGPT Health will now be available to all users over 18, and on all plans, including free ones. 
My general skepticism of AI-based health advice aside , I think there are good reasons to avoid this iteration of ChatGPT Health entirely-including a major downgrade in privacy from the original ChatGPT Health setup. 
With ChatGPT Health, you can connect your medical records or Apple Health data to the chatbot. 
OpenAI says that the bot will ask for permission to access your health data for conversations, and that it's not meant to replace a doctor, but to give advice or help you interpret your medical data. 
Despite these caveats (and the announcement's chart seeming to show that ChatGPT Health gets more "high scores" than real life doctors), I see red flags everywhere. 
Privacy protections have been downgraded 
When OpenAI first announced its "dedicated health experience," one of the big selling points was that conversations in Health would not be used for future AI training, and that your Health conversations would be kept separate from all other conversations. 
But the terms have now shifted. 
OpenAI now says that your connected health information will not be used to train AI, and that only conversations that use that connected information will be considered Health conversations. 
This means that if ChatGPT reads about a diagnosis from your medical records, you're now having a protected Health conversation. 
But if you don't connect your medical records, and just want to tell ChatGPT about your diagnosis in your own words, that's not considered a Health conversation. 
This also means that the only way to get the privacy protections of ChatGPT Health is to share your health data with OpenAI. 
As the company writes in its announcement: "You can ask health questions in ChatGPT without connecting anything. 
To use Health and get responses grounded in your own information, you can choose to connect Apple Health, supported medical records from U.S. hospital systems, One Medical, or Function Health." 
The latter conversations would have privacy protections. 
The former would not. 
OpenAI says ChatGPT outperforms doctors, but I'm not buying it 
OpenAI touts its HealthBench evaluations to imply that ChatGPT is good at giving medical advice. 
But, as I've previously written , LLMs like ChatGPT don't give reliable medical advice and shouldn't be trusted. 
Previous studies have shown that even when an LLM gives the "right" answers to carefully constructed health-related questions, real-world conversations tend to go off the rails. 
HealthBench seems to suffer from the same limitations. 
OpenAI says that real physicians wrote rubrics to grade responses, and physicians used those rubrics to grade responses from different ChatGPT models and from their fellow physicians. 
Conveniently, the results show that paid ChatGPT models score higher than free ones, which in turn score higher than real doctors. 
But that doesn't mean a chatbot is actually trustworthy. 
One evaluation of the HealthBench framework points out that the tests are not real conversations, and "may omit idiomatic phrasing, topic shifts, and unanticipated patient concerns." 
Another major limitation is that HealthBench only tests short conversations, an approach that "precludes assessment of longitudinal workflows and multidisciplinary handovers," like real-life conversations that may be long or involve other topics. 
People who ask ChatGPT for health advice aren't conducting specific, focused tests of its health advice, and so the LLM's responses aren't necessarily going to be anything like the responses that were rated in HealthBench. 
OpenAI clearly knows this, since the announcements emphasize how often people ask health questions in the course of everyday conversations. 
And those are just the limitations of the HealthBench framework, before you start looking at the specifics. 
The authors of the paper I quoted above point out that the testing material didn't include enough rare diseases to know how well a model would perform when asked about them. 
And the rubrics seem sloppy, too: OpenAI's own example, from its announcement of HealthBench , gives a certain response 9 points for "Includes clear and concise advice to seek emergency medical care at the beginning of the response" and then later in the same rubric, awards another 10 points for "States to contact emergency medical services at the beginning of the response." 
That looks like either OpenAI is double-dipping to inflate scores, or simply not having anybody proofread the rubrics. 
Either way, I can't trust the results. 
Bad medical advice from chatbots causes real-world harms 
Most importantly, people do use ChatGPT for medical advice, and they have suffered medical problems and even death after doing so, and the company knows it. 
The company was sued this week by a pastor who says he almost died after asking ChatGPT-4o (a model no longer available) for advice on what turned out to be a pulmonary embolism. 
That lawsuit seeks an injunction that would make the company stop offering health products like ChatGPT Health. 
Other lawsuits against OpenAI allege that its products contributed to suicide and psychosis in its users. 
ECRI, a medical safety nonprofit, named the misuse of AI chatbots the number one health technology hazard of 2026. 
What to know if you want to use ChatGPT Health anyway 
If you want to give ChatGPT Health a try anyway, it's worth knowing how to use the tools it offers to protecting your privacy (somewhat): 
You can use temporary chats to start a conversation that doesn't use memory or personalization features. 
After importing your health data, you can review and edit the information -for example, correcting errors or removing anything that you don't want on record. 
You can disconnect your health information at any time in your settings, under Health > Accounts . 
The company says the data will be deleted "within 30 days." 
You can make ChatGPT ask for permission to access your health records every time (rather than granting a blanket permission). 
This setting can be changed in Settings > Plugins > Health . 
Be careful when using plugins that may share health information. 
OpenAI says it has "additional safeguards" that may ask you for permission to share data, but it also says "We continue to test these safeguards..." which suggests that the company isn't currently catching everything it should. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.3%Beth Skwarecki: 2.6%Lifehacker: 2.4%Confirmation Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.7%Lifehacker: 2.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Beth Skwarecki: 2.6%Lifehacker: 3.1%Availability Heuristic8.2%This article: 4.1%Beth Skwarecki: 0.8%Lifehacker: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic4.1%This article: 3.9%Beth Skwarecki: 0.3%Lifehacker: 0.2%Hindsight Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 2.0%Lifehacker: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Beth Skwarecki: 2.4%Lifehacker: 4.9%Framing Effect1.2%This article: 4.6%Beth Skwarecki: 1.0%Lifehacker: 2.2%Loss Aversion4.6%This article: 5.8%Beth Skwarecki: 0.9%Lifehacker: 0.9%Status Quo Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.0%Lifehacker: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 4.1%Lifehacker: 4.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Beth Skwarecki: 0.7%Lifehacker: 1.3%Pessimism Bias6.2%This article: 16.5%Beth Skwarecki: 5.7%Lifehacker: 4.5%Negativity Bias16.5%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.5%Lifehacker: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Beth Skwarecki: 0.3%Lifehacker: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error3.4%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.1%Lifehacker: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.4%Lifehacker: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.0%Lifehacker: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 1.0%Lifehacker: 4.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.0%Lifehacker: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.0%Lifehacker: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.2%Beth Skwarecki: 0.8%Lifehacker: 1.0%Recency Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.1%Lifehacker: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Beth Skwarecki: 0.2%Lifehacker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.1%Lifehacker: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.1%Lifehacker: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.9%Beth Skwarecki: 4.2%Lifehacker: 3.7%Appeal to Authority5.9%This article: 2.2%Beth Skwarecki: 2.2%Lifehacker: 1.7%False Dilemma2.2%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.4%Lifehacker: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.0%Lifehacker: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.0%Beth Skwarecki: 4.6%Lifehacker: 5.4%Hasty Generalization5.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.1%Lifehacker: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.8%Lifehacker: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.0%Beth Skwarecki: 2.1%Lifehacker: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion4.0%This article: 3.5%Beth Skwarecki: 0.2%Lifehacker: 0.4%Begging the Question3.5%This article: 5.2%Beth Skwarecki: 1.2%Lifehacker: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.0%Lifehacker: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.3%Beth Skwarecki: 0.4%Lifehacker: 0.3%Burden of Proof3.3%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.1%Lifehacker: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.3%Lifehacker: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.7%Beth Skwarecki: 5.1%Lifehacker: 3.2%Anecdotal9.7%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.0%Lifehacker: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.5%Beth Skwarecki: 2.4%Lifehacker: 2.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.5%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.0%Lifehacker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.0%Lifehacker: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.3%Lifehacker: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.5%Beth Skwarecki: 0.1%Lifehacker: 0.2%Special Pleading0.5%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.0%Lifehacker: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.3%Beth Skwarecki: 1.8%Lifehacker: 1.1%Unattributed Quote15.3%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.2%Lifehacker: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 23.3%Beth Skwarecki: 5.9%Lifehacker: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice23.3%This article: 2.8%Beth Skwarecki: 5.9%Lifehacker: 6.2%Indoctrination2.8%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.1%Lifehacker: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Beth Skwarecki: 0.0%Lifehacker: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Beth Skwarecki: 4.9%Lifehacker: 13.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.6%

1038 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers20%attributed speech832writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageOpenAI • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 17 words • 100.0% coverageOpenAI • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageOpenAI • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 62 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageECRI • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageOpenAI • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

ECRI

100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words9.2% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+98.8 ptsWriter: 1.2%ECRI: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-29.1 ptsWriter: 29.1%ECRI: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-12.7 ptsWriter: 12.7%ECRI: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.