Quite valid, you are only as good as your data. Perhaps a nice data set can be obtained from post-Brexit UK where GDPR and HIPAA don't exist-- of course, after Watson-learning-scraping, if you aren't a Brit the recommendations may well kill you precipitating another round of murderous Watson stories.
Which brings up-- how badly some oncologists perform, except that they bury their mistakes and certainly don't go air out their dead body pile in public. Is Watson better than these death dealers?
Plus, it is well known that American docs are extremely resistant to taking any advice from anyone, the most recent evidence being that a large percentage of maternity wards refuse to follow the most simple and obvious guidelines (on high blood pressure and maternal blood loss ("my eyeball is calibrated good enough thank you")), resulting in America having deplorable levels of maternal morbidity compared to any other first world country. So the Jupiter docs whine about Watson, but how much is real and how much is "I and my swelled head would do it differently"?
Personally, Watson doesn't seem well suited to oncology advice as presently implemented. If enough resource was invested, Watson could become quite respectable. It isn't obvious that the resource will be invested, between slow revenue gains and vested interest attacks Watson oncology may suffer a fatal monetary infarction.
Overall, we are currently in an AI hype cycle and AI is still does not appear ready for prime time. Anyone who had been around for enough years has seen these cycles before. The cycles happen about every 15-20 years as a new generation thinks they discovered AI. One could hope this time is different, but the evidence is underwhelming so far.