RFK Jr. says he’s following ‘gold standard’ science. Here’s what to know

The Trump Administration’s Challenge to Scientific Consensus

Public health officials and scientists are raising alarms over what they describe as a systematic departure from evidence-based medicine under the Trump administration, particularly through the influence of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Despite repeated claims of adhering to “gold standard” science from both President Trump and Secretary Kennedy, experts argue the administration has been doing the opposite—relying on preliminary studies, fringe science, and personal hunches to make health policy decisions and recommendations.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently altered its website to contradict the scientific consensus that vaccines do not cause autism, a move that shocked health experts nationwide. Dr. Daniel Jernigan, who resigned from the CDC in August, told reporters that Kennedy seems to be “going from evidence-based decision making to decision-based evidence making.”

This pattern has manifested in multiple instances. In September, President Trump advised pregnant women and parents against taking acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol, based on what experts say is weak or no evidence. He has also repeatedly promoted the long-debunked link between vaccines and autism, saying his assessment was based on “a hunch” and “strong feelings about autism and how it happened.”

During a two-day meeting this fall, Kennedy’s handpicked vaccine advisers questioned vaccinating babies against hepatitis B, despite overwhelming evidence showing the vaccine drastically reduces disease and death. Dr. Flor Munoz, a pediatric infectious disease expert at Baylor College of Medicine, criticized the discussion, noting it was “not based on evidence other than case reports and anecdotes.”

In the midst of the country’s worst measles outbreak in over three decades, Kennedy has cast doubt on the measles vaccine while promoting unproven treatments and claiming that unvaccinated children who died were “already sick.”

The situation represents a significant departure from the traditionally rigorous U.S. drug and vaccine approval process, which has been so respected that much of the world has historically followed American regulators’ lead.

“The gold standard can differ because science and medicine is complicated and everything cannot be tested the same way,” explains Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious disease physician and Stanford University researcher. The term simply refers to the best possible evidence available for a particular question.

Randomized clinical trials represent the most rigorous form of scientific evidence, where two identical groups differ only in the treatment being tested. When such trials aren’t possible for ethical or practical reasons, scientists rely on observational studies, which track participants without manipulating variables.

Real-world evidence from large populations has proven particularly valuable in understanding both the effectiveness and rare side effects of treatments like vaccines. This data has demonstrated that vaccines provide extraordinary protection from disease while confirming their overall safety.

“If vaccines caused a wave of chronic disease, our safety systems—which can detect 1-in-a-million events—would have seen it. They haven’t,” Dr. Scott testified to a Senate subcommittee in September.

Health experts emphasize that scientific integrity depends on transparency, including pre-established hypotheses, disclosed conflicts of interest, peer review, and accessible underlying data. Single studies and anecdotes, while sometimes informative, must be considered within the broader context of established research.

“Science isn’t about reaching certainty,” says Dr. Steven Woloshin, a Dartmouth College professor. “It’s about trying to reduce uncertainty to the point where you can say, ‘I have good confidence that if we do X, we’ll see result Y.’ But there’s no guarantee.”

The current tension between established scientific processes and the administration’s approach to health policy highlights broader questions about how medical evidence is evaluated and communicated to the public during a period of heightened polarization around health issues.