Last fall, “Dr. Pimple Popper” suddenly became a patient herself.

Dr. Sandra Lee, the reality TV dermatologist and surgeon known for tackling ick-inducing skin situations on camera, had a bad day a week before Thanksgiving 2025 while she was taping new episodes of her show at her Upland office.

“I had what I thought was a hot flash. I got super sweaty and didn’t feel like myself,” she told People in an interview published Tuesday. She said she finished the shoot and then headed to her parents’ nearby home, where that evening she experienced shooting pains in one leg and later had trouble navigating down a flight of stairs in the middle of the night.

When she awakened the next day, she said, her left side wasn’t working properly and she was having trouble speaking clearly. It was definitely more than a hot flash.

Her doctor dad — also a dermatologist — told her to get herself to an ER, where she had an MRI that showed evidence of an ischemic stroke, where a vessel supplying blood to the brain gets obstructed. The diagnosis was a shock.

“As a physician I couldn’t deny that I had slurred speech, that I was having weakness on one side,” she said, “but I was like, ‘Well, this is a dream, right?’”

Lee, 55, said unmanaged cholesterol levels and high blood pressure were likely contributors to the stroke, plus the stress of balancing her real-life practice with the demands of “Dr. Pimple Popper.” She returned to production in January, she said, though she was more than a little freaked out.

“I don’t like that I don’t have total control of my left hand or the grip wasn’t as strong. If I feel like I’m not at my best — it’s very scary,” Lee said.

Her neurologist told the outlet that Lee’s symptoms are pretty much gone. Lee said she still notices slight differences when she speaks.

The TV doc is on blood thinners now and is still doing some physical therapy after spending two months post-stroke working through PT and occupational therapy. Lee had to make sure her left hand, among other body parts, was functional and that her balance and movement bounced back.

She does, after all, do precise procedures on camera for the Lifetime audience.

And with new episodes of “Dr. Pimple Popper” set to debut Monday for the first time since 2023, Lee remains fascinated by the people who spend time watching her do extractions and excisions, both on the show and online.

“People watch the videos over and over again because it helps them go to sleep at night,” she told People. But, she added, “Others watch it like it’s a scary movie or a roller coaster.”

When President Trump announced Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his pick for Health and Human Services secretary, he declared that the appointment marked the return of “Gold Standard Scientific Research” in the U.S.

In May 2025 Trump signed the “Restoring Gold Standard Science” executive order. Agencies including NASA and the Department of Energy filed reports on how their science met the official White House “gold standard.” Administration figures peppered public remarks, publications and social media posts with the phrase.

On paper, the administration’s nine-point definition for “gold standard science” reads like a list of fundamental research integrity principles that any scientist would endorse: science that is reproducible, transparent, forthcoming on error and uncertainty, collaborative, skeptical, built on falsifiable hypotheses, impartially peer reviewed, accepting of negative results and free of conflicts of interest.

In practice, critics say, the phrase has become shorthand for science in which preferred outcomes outweigh inconvenient evidence.

“This use of ‘gold standard science’ is deceptive. It sounds really good on its face. It’s advocating for things that are normative in the scientific community,” said Jules Barbati-Dajches, an analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy group.

The same executive order that turned the term into a policy rolled back all scientific integrity policies established during the Biden administration, Barbati-Dajches pointed out, making it harder to pursue and publish scientific findings without threat of political interference.

“It undercuts all of the values and standards and principles that were already being prioritized and implemented in federal agencies,” Barbati-Dajches said.

The executive order describes a decline in public trust in science that began during the COVID-19 pandemic. It cites examples in which government agencies “used or promoted scientific information in a highly misleading manner,” such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s school-reopening guidelines, a contentious count of the North Atlantic right whale population by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the use by several government agencies of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warming model that the executive order describes as “highly unlikely.”

“The Trump administration is ensuring that political agendas and ideologies never again corrupt policymaking that should be guided only by Gold Standard Science,” White House spokesman Kush Desai wrote in response to questions from The Times. “So-called ‘scientists’ who are only now concerned that politics are being prioritized over evidence after having stayed silent during the pandemic era are either delusional or partisan hacks.”

Credible, reliable and impartial evidence is the goal of legitimate science. But “the use of the term ‘gold standard science’ is being preferentially used based on the context,” said Dr. Daniel Jernigan, who resigned as director of the CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases in August over concerns that its new leadership was not taking an “evidence-based approach to things,” he said at the time.

Jernigan cited Kennedy’s changes to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which advises the CDC on vaccinations. The committee had long followed a set of guidelines known as the Evidence to Recommendations framework, which establishes clear rules for how different types of evidence must be weighed and evaluated when making decisions.

Kennedy replaced the entire 17-member committee with a handpicked group heavily weighted toward vaccine skepticism. “Public trust has eroded,” Kennedy said at the time. “Only through radical transparency and gold standard science, will we earn it back.”

The reconstituted group largely abandoned the framework, allowing the committee to judge evidence of dubious quality alongside large randomized controlled trials.

Its first meeting included an error-filled presentation from a vaccine skeptic on the preservative thimerosal that focused only on a few reports of the shot harming individuals, but left out the many studies that have shown its safety across large populations. The committee ultimately voted not to recommend further vaccines containing thimerosal, which was already removed from childhood vaccines in 2001.

Meanwhile, Jernigan noted, National Institutes of Health director and acting CDC director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has continued to delay the release of a study that found COVID-19 vaccines reduced hospitalizations related to the virus by 55%.

According to media reports, the study used hospital patients’ vaccination status to calculate the success of the season’s vaccine, a method long used to determine flu vaccine effectiveness. Bhattacharya reportedly wanted to wait for a randomized clinical trial — a method that scientists frequently cite as the “gold standard” for determining an intervention’s effectiveness, but one that is expensive and too time-consuming to evaluate the success of a seasonal flu or COVID-19 shot.

Accepting a lower standard of evidence for vaccines’ reported harms than for their apparent benefits “is not a good way to practice science: that your ideology, your decision about how things should be, determines what your evidence is,” Jernigan said.

The Trump administration didn’t coin the term “gold standard science,” which has been floating around for at least half a century as a label for top-quality research methods. Over the decades, critics have pointed out that it’s not as shiny a metaphor as it seems.

In finance, the gold standard fixes a currency’s value against a specific quantity of a specific object. But in science, nothing is fixed. Old conclusions and beliefs are constantly being overwritten as new evidence comes to light.

“Gold standard science in 1990 would be malpractice in some respects in 2026, and five years from now the gold standard may have changed again, because we’re constantly innovating,” said David Blumenthal, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and co-author of the book “Whiplash: From the Battle for Obamacare to the War on Science.”

“Science is changeable and the methods improve constantly, and the people who are most familiar with the possibilities and realities of those methods are the people doing the work at any given time,” he said. “And if they’re not involved, then it’s not gold standard.”