The Evidence Gap: When Knowledge Isn't Enough

On Trust, Truth, and Why We Keep Having the Same Conversations

After our newsletter about vaccine access under a potential RFK presidency a few days ago, we received this comment yesterday. It caught my attention. A reader asked what I was "so terrified about." They saw RFK's nomination as a chance to “expose corruption in the medical industry” and questioned why we shouldn't put vaccines through more testing if they're truly safe. (As a refresher, here’s the article)

And here’s the comment, in full:

---

I've been sitting with this response, turning it over in my mind. Not because the science is unclear - it isn't. Not because we lack evidence - we don't. But because this exchange captures something fundamental about where we are as a society, about the growing divide between evidence and belief.

I keep coming back to one question: What will it take?

This isn't just about vaccines. It's about how we evaluate evidence, how we decide what to believe, and why we sometimes choose to dismiss carefully gathered knowledge in favor of louder, simpler narratives.

We're not starting from zero with vaccine research. We're standing on decades upon decades of research, monitoring, and real-world data. Take the HPV vaccine: it's 97 percent effective in preventing cervical cancer and the cell changes that could lead to cancer. It's nearly 100 percent effective in preventing genital warts. These aren't industry claims - this is data verified by independent researchers worldwide.

The calls to "redo" these studies aren't just unnecessary - they're wasteful. We're being asked to divert precious resources and personnel to repeat research that's already been done thoroughly, multiple times, across different populations and settings. Of course we should continue studying and monitoring - and we do! But pretending we're starting from zero isn't just wrong, it's dangerous. It diverts resources from new, needed research and delays real progress in public health.

Every vaccine goes through years of development and testing before reaching the public. The HPV vaccine alone had over 29,000 participants in its initial trials. Since then, millions of doses have been administered and monitored. The results? HPV infections that cause most cancers have dropped 88% among teen girls. Fewer women are developing cervical pre-cancer.

Not every study is created equal. We spend countless hours evaluating evidence, determining which studies are well-designed and which aren't, which conclusions are supported and which aren't. This isn't a casual process - it's painstaking, methodical work done by people who understand their responsibility to public health.

We pore over data constantly, conducting deep-dive analyses not just of studies supporting vaccine safety, but also meticulously dismantling the papers often used to sow doubt. Most of us do this as a passion project during our "off hours" - staying up late, sacrificing weekends, often without compensation. Meanwhile, wellness influencers and those who spread vaccine misinformation (and yes, that's what they're doing, even if they reject the term "anti-vaccine") make lucrative livings from their platforms while facing no scientific scrutiny. How do we compete with that kind of reach when we're focused on accuracy over marketability? They claim they're "just asking questions," but that's a smokescreen. They're not seeking answers - they're dismissing evidence that doesn't fit their narrative.

I understand skepticism about the pharmaceutical industry. We should absolutely scrutinize who's making decisions and why. But questioning corporate influence doesn't mean we have to pretend decades of research doesn't exist.

Here's what actually keeps me up at night: These self-proclaimed skeptics, so quick to question established science, seem to have no skepticism about the millions of dollars flowing through anti-vaccine advocacy - an industry that has proven incredibly lucrative for its leaders. They don't raise an eyebrow when organizations with clear agendas push out poorly designed "studies" that would never survive genuine peer review. And now we have people in positions of power - people with direct ties to these organizations - who either don't understand how to evaluate scientific evidence or choose to ignore it entirely. They're making decisions about the very things they're spreading misinformation about. If we're talking about conflicts of interest, THAT should be setting off alarm bells. LOUDLY.

I'm not just saying this as a scientist. I'm saying it as a parent who's sat in pediatrician offices, who's wondered about what's going into my kids' bodies, who's dug through the research because I needed to know. We've asked these questions. We keep asking them. We keep studying, keep refining, keep looking for problems or gaps in our knowledge.

The evidence is there. Not perfect - science never is - but solid. Tested. Retested. Verified by researchers around the world. We've asked and answered these important questions time and time again.

The solution isn't to ignore everything we know. It's to understand how we know it. To recognize that while no scientific finding is beyond questioning, not all questions carry equal weight. That while we should always be open to new evidence, we shouldn't pretend existing evidence doesn't count.

I'm not afraid of more research. I'm concerned about watching us ignore the knowledge we've fought so hard to gain. About watching people dismiss evidence not because it's flawed, but because they don't like what it tells them.

We can do better. We must do better. Lives depend on it.

So I'll ask again: What will it take?

We've spent years digging into every layer of evidence, every nuance, every question raised about vaccine safety. Our team has given people the benefit of the doubt, assumed they come to us in good faith, worked tirelessly to help summarize incredibly complex, layered decades of research. We've listened to concerns, addressed fears, explained the science in every way we know how.

What will it take to get us all on the same page? To help people understand that yes, we have asked these questions - we keep asking them. That the answers aren't simple sound bites but the result of decades of careful study. That we're not dismissing concerns but addressing them with the thoroughness they deserve.

I'm asking genuinely: What will it take to bridge this gap? To help people understand that the scientific community isn't their enemy, that we're all searching for truth together?

Because we'll keep trying. We'll keep explaining. We'll keep sharing what we know and how we know it. But we need to know: What will help us hear each other?

Stay curious,

Unbiased Science

P.S. Want to support this kind of analysis? The best way is to subscribe to our Substack and share our work. While all our articles are always completely free to read, paid subscriptions help sustain our in-depth reporting on vaccine policy and public health. Thank you for considering it!