Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Experts question Trump and RFK Jr.’s ‘gold standard’ science

Published

on

Experts question Trump and RFK Jr.’s ‘gold standard’ science

The message is hammered over and over, in news conferences, hearings and executive orders: President Donald Trump and his health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., say they want the government to follow “gold standard” science.

Scientists say the problem is that they are often doing just the opposite by relying on preliminary studies, fringe science or just hunches to make claims, cast doubt on proven treatments or even set policy.

This week, the nation’s top public health agency changed its website to contradict the scientific conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism. The move shocked health experts nationwide.

Dr. Daniel Jernigan, who resigned from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in August, told reporters Wednesday that Kennedy seems to be “going from evidence-based decision making to decision-based evidence making.”

It was the latest example of the Trump administration’s challenge to established science.

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during the Western Governors' Association meeting Thursday, Nov. 20, 2025, in Scottsdale, Ariz. (AP Photo/Rebecca Noble)

U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during the Western Governors’ Association meeting Thursday, Nov. 20, 2025, in Scottsdale, Ariz. (AP Photo/Rebecca Noble)

In September, the Republican president gave out medical advice based on weak or no evidence. Speaking directly to pregnant women and to parents, he told them not to take acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol. He repeatedly made the fraudulent and long-disproven link between autism and vaccines, saying his assessment was based on a hunch.

“I have always had very strong feelings about autism and how it happened and where it came from,” he said.

At a two-day meeting this fall, Kennedy’s handpicked vaccine advisers to the CDC raised questions about vaccinating babies against hepatitis Ban inoculation long shown to reduce disease and death drastically.

“The discussion that has been brought up regarding safety is not based on evidence other than case reports and anecdotes,” said Dr. Flor Munoz, a pediatric infectious disease expert at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital.

During the country’s worst year for measles in more than three decades, Kennedy cast doubt on the measles vaccine while championing unproven treatments and alleging that the unvaccinated children who died were “already sick.”

Scientists say the process of getting medicines and vaccines to market and recommended in the United States has, until now, typically relied on gold standard science. The process is so rigorous and transparent that much of the rest of the world follows the lead of American regulators, giving the OK to treatments only after U.S. approval.

This April 1, 2025 photo shows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention building in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Ben Gray, file)

This April 1, 2025 photo shows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention building in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Ben Gray, file)

Gold standard science

The gold standard can differ because science and medicine is complicated and everything cannot be tested the same way. That term simply refers to the best possible evidence that can be gathered.

“It completely depends on what question you’re trying to answer,” said Dr. Jake Scott, an infectious disease physician and Stanford University researcher.

What produces the best possible evidence?

There are many different types of studies. The most rigorous is the randomized clinical trial.

It randomly creates two groups of subjects that are identical in every way except for the drug, treatment or other question being tested. Many are “blinded studies,” meaning neither the subjects nor the researchers know who is in which group. This helps eliminate bias.

It is not always possible or ethical to conduct these tests. This is sometimes the case with vaccine trials, “because we have so much data showing how safe and effective they are, it would be unethical to withhold vaccines from a particular group,” said Jessica Steier, a public health scientist and founder of the Unbiased Science podcast.

Studying the long-term effect of a behavior can be impossible. For example, scientists could not possibly study the long-term benefit of exercise by having one group not exercise for years.

Instead, researchers must conduct observational studies, where they follow participants and track their health and behavior without manipulating any variables. Such studies helped scientists discover that fluoride reduces cavities, and later lab studies showed how fluoride strengthens tooth enamel.

But the studies have limitations because they can often only prove correlation, not causation. For example, some observational studies have raised the possibility of a link between autism risk and using acetaminophen during pregnancy, but more have not found a connection. The big problem is that those kinds of studies cannot determine if the painkiller really made any difference or if it was the fever or other health problem that prompted the need for the pill.

Real world evidence can be especially powerful

Scientists can learn even more when they see how something affects a large number of people in their daily lives.

That real-world evidence can be valuable to prove how well something works — and when there are rare side effects that could never be detected in trials.

Such evidence on vaccines has proved useful in both ways. Scientists now know there can be rare side effects with some vaccines and can alert doctors to be on the lookout. The data has proved that vaccines provide extraordinary protection from disease. For example, measles was eliminated in the U.S. but it still pops up among unvaccinated groups.

That same data proves vaccines are safe.

“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,” Scott told a U.S. Senate subcommittee in September.

The best science is open and transparent

Simply publishing a paper online is not enough to call it open and transparent. Specific things to look for include:

— Researchers set their hypothesis before they start the study and do not change it.

— The authors disclose their conflicts of interest and their funding sources.

— The research has gone through peer review by subject-matter experts who have nothing to do with that particular study.

— The authors show their work, publishing and explaining the data underlying their analyses.

— They cite reliable sources.

This transparency allows science to check itself. Dr. Steven Woloshin, a Dartmouth College professor, has spent much of his career challenging scientific conclusions underlying health policy.

“I’m only able to do that because they’re transparent about what they did, what the underlying source resources were, so that you can come to your own conclusion,” he said. “That’s how science works.”

Know the limits of anecdotes and single studies

Anecdotes may be powerful. They are not data.

Case studies might even be published in top journals, to help doctors or other professionals learn from a particular situation. But they are not used to making decisions about how to treat large numbers of patients because every situation is unique.

Even single studies should be considered in the context of previous research. A new one-off blockbuster study that seems to answer every question definitively or reaches a conclusion that runs counter to other well-conducted studies needs a very careful look.

Uncertainty is baked into science.

“Science isn’t about reaching certainty,” Woloshin said. “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.”

Doing your own research? Questions to ask

If you come across a research paper online, in a news story or cited by officials to change you r mind about something, here are some questions to ask:

— Who did the research? What is their expertise? Do they disclose conflicts of interest?

— Who paid for this research? Who might benefit from it?

— Is it published in a reputable journal? Did it go through peer review?

— What question are the researchers asking? Who or what are they studying? Are they making even comparisons between groups?

— Is there a “limitations” section where the authors point out what their research cannot prove, other factors that could influence their results, or other potential blind spots? What does it say?

— Does it make bold, definitive claims? Does it fit into the scientific consensus or challenge it? Is it too good or bad to be true?

___

AP Medical Writers Lauran Neergaard in Washington and Mike Stobbe in New York contributed to this report.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Funding for Trump’s White House ballroom jeopardized by Senate ruling

Published

on

Funding for Trump’s White House ballroom jeopardized by Senate ruling

President Donald Trump faces a serious new hurdle to secure taxpayer funding for his exceedingly controversial proposed White House ballroom after the Senate parliamentarian ruled against a $1 billion provision in a bill to fund his pet project.

The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, said over the weekend that Republicans cannot include the ballroom funding provision in a larger partisan bill because it is a technical violation of Senate rules, according to the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee who released the parliamentarian’s findings.

“A project as complex and large in scale as Trump’s proposed ballroom necessarily involves the coordination of many government agencies which span the jurisdiction of many Senate committees,” MacDonough concluded, according to Sen. Jeff Merkley.

The administration has estimated that $220 million of the $1 billion would go toward building the new ballroom in the East Wing, which was demolished last October to make way for the new structure Trump has envisioned.

The parliamentarian in her ruling said the provision violated the Byrd rule, which is meant to curb extraneous spending in proposed budget reconciliation bills. A violation of the Byrd rule also means the provision would be subject to a 60-vote filibuster threshold, effectively killing it since Democrats are in opposition.

“The president started talking about this thing with $100 billion, then $200 billion, and he was going to pay for it,” Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said. “And now it’s a billion — or $100 million, $200 million — and now a billion dollars, and he wants the American people to pay for a gilded ballroom when they cannot afford to drive their kids to a soccer game.”

Some Republicans disagreed with the parliamentarian’s interpretation of Senate rules. Ryan Wrasse, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, pushed back against the ruling.

“Redraft. Refine. Resubmit. None of this is abnormal during a Byrd process,” Wrasse wrote on X on Saturday.

It was not immediately clear whether Republicans would be allowed under Senate rules to resubmit the provision — the budget resolution only allows language to originate from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“As drafted, the provision inappropriately funds activities outside the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee,” the ruling reads.

Trump previously said that the ballroom would be privately funded and cost around $400 million. The ballooning cost has provoked open criticism from Republicans, from vulnerable moderates to hardline conservatives, in what could become a potential revolt.

Mychael Schnell and Syedah Asghar

Peggy Helman is a desk associate at MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Mike Johnson rejects ‘new term Christian nationalism’ as ‘derogatory’

Published

on

Mike Johnson rejects ‘new term Christian nationalism’ as ‘derogatory’

Ahead of an all-day prayer event backed by the White House on Washington’s National Mall Sunday, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson doubled down on Christianity as a core part of the American identity — over the objections of religious freedom advocates.

“The naysayers who have created this new term ‘Christian Nationalism’ as a pejorative, a derogatory term, are trying to silence the influence and voices of Christians,” Johnson said in an interview with Fox News before the event commemorating the nation’s 250th anniversary. “And I think that’s wildly inappropriate.”

In addition to the speaker, the evangelical-style festival — dubbed the “National Jubilee of Prayer” — featured Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and several conservative Christian leaders and right-leaning pop-culture figures. They included Franklin Graham, son of the late evangelist Billy Graham, Jonathan Falwell, son of the late Liberty University founder Jerry Falwell, and Sadie Carroway Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” fame.

The White House, in a statement posted to social media Sunday, said “thousands of Americans are gathering on the National Mall TODAY for a powerful day of prayer, praise, and patriotism as we chart the course for America’s next 250 years and rededicate ourselves to ONE NATION UNDER GOD.”

Kathy Fain, from Longview, Texas, holds an American flag while singing the National Anthem
AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

In between returning from his official trip to China and issuing fresh threats to IranPresident Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I HOPE EVERYBODY AT REDEDICATE 250 IS HAVING A GOOD TIME. IF THERE IS ANYTHING I CAN DO TO HELP, JUST HAVE OUR BEAUTIFUL, BOTH INSIDE AND OUT, RACHAEL C.D., GIVE ME A CALL. I’M BACK FROM CHINA!!!,” an apparent reference to Rachel Campos-Duffy, Fox and Friends co-host and wife to Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.

Hegseth, who has led Christian prayer servicesat the Pentagon during his tenure, recounted a story of President George Washington at Valley Forge in a video message.

“Amid all the bleak nights, the loss and despair, the lack of proper support, George Washington performed a profound act: he prayed,” Hegseth said. “And on this day of ‘Rededicate 250,’ let us follow George Washington’s example. Let us pray as he did. Let us pray without ceasing. Let us pray for our nation on bended knee. And let us ask our lord and savior Jesus Christ as Washington did on that momentous day.”

Speaking passionately at the podium, Southern Baptist Pastor Robert Jeffress told the crowd that “these leaders who loved our country and loved our God would be called Christian Nationalists today, and it is a title they would have gladly embraced. By the way if being a Christian Nationalist means loving Jesus christ and loving America, count me in!”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a religious freedom advocacy organization, denounced the event as a “Jubilee of Christian Nationalism.”

“As we approach the 250th anniversary of American independence on July 4 – and President Trump’s Christian Nationalist ‘jubilee’ on May 17 – I urge everyone to celebrate the fundamentally American invention of church-state separation, which promises everyone the freedom to live as themselves and believe as they choose, as long as they don’t harm others,” the organization’s CEO, Rachel Laser, said in a statement. “Church-state separation is what enables us to come together as equals and build a stronger democracy.”

Laser said in an interview with C-SPAN Sunday that the event “should alarm all Americans who are patriotic.” Hailing the separation of church and state as a pillar of American democracy, she slammed the event as a “government-sponsored national church service on the National Mall and it’s extremely problematic. It’s violating our promise.”

“And then I just want to bring us back to something that the founders were focused on that we forget about today, which is that they were avoiding violence, bloody wars, crusades,” Laser added Sunday. “They saw what happens when you don’t have church-state separation. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that in America we’ve become more and more violent the more we undermine church-state separation in this country.”

The government watchdog group Public Citizen also condemned the event, saying in a statement, “This highly politicized mess is not what Congress envisioned a decade ago in passing legislation creating an official commission for the 250th anniversary.”

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump says ‘clock is ticking’ for Iran to make a deal — or else

Published

on

Trump says ‘clock is ticking’ for Iran to make a deal — or else

President Donald Trump signaled Sunday that the U.S. is prepared to resume fighting Iran, threatening that the country had “better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them.”

Trump spoke by phone Sunday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, an Israeli official told MS NOW, as the U.S.-Iran ceasefire was strained further by new strikes in the U.A.E. that sparked a fire at a nuclear power plant.

“For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!,” Trump wrote in social media post.

Trump is expected to meet with his senior national security team on Tuesday in the White House Situation Room to “discuss options for military actions against Iran,” according to reporting by Axiosciting two American officials. MS NOW has not independently confirmed the reporting.

Iran did not take responsibility for the fresh strike in the U.A.E., but a senior Emirati official told MS NOW that the attack was an “unacceptable escalation” and a violation of the ceasefire. The official added that “this is an attack against a nuclear power plant during a ceasefire.”

In a statement, the U.A.E Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the strike an “unprovoked terrorist attack.”

“These attacks constitute a dangerous escalation, an unacceptable act of aggression and a direct threat to the country’s security,” the statement said. “The targeting of peaceful nuclear energy facilities is a flagrant violation of international law, the UN charter and the principles of humanitarian law.”

No increase in radiation has been detected at the plant and no injuries were reported, according to Emirati officials. Two of the three drones that attacked the plant were shot down.

One drone hit an electrical generator outside the inner perimeter of the ⁠Barakah Nuclear Power Plant, the Abu Dhabi Media Office said, CNBC reported. The International Atomic Energy Agency said it was following the situation closely and called for “maximum military restraint” near any nuclear power plant.

The U.A.E., a primary target of Iran since the war began, has been attacking in retaliation, according to recent reporting by The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. Emirati officials have not confirmed that they have carried out military strikes.

The U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran has stretched into its 11th week, as domestic gas prices continue to soar amid the double naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil trade route. Tehran, already crippled by sanctions before the war, faces a worsening economic crisis. Peace talks, mediated by Pakistan, have so far failed with the U.S. remaining firm on its demand that Iran abandon its nuclear program and Iran underscoring its right to enrichment.

Contrary to statements made by Trump administration officials that Iran’s missile stockpile has been destroyed, classified U.S. intelligence assessments of Iran’s military capacity have revealed that it has regained access to key missile sites and launchers.

Julia Jester contributed to this report.

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

David Rohde is the senior national security reporter for MS NOW and a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. Previously he was the senior executive editor for national security and law for NBC News.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending