Science Deniers

Juror #3: Well, what do you want? I say he's guilty.
Juror #8: We want to hear your arguments.
Juror #3: I GAVE you my arguments!
Juror #8: We're not convinced. We want to hear them again. We have as much time as it takes.
--12 Angry Men

One of the more tiresome replies to people who question statements coming from so-called public health officials' is that the questioners are obviously 'science deniers.'

I have never seen a convincing explanation of why this claim should be true. Absent such scientific (!) justification, we are left with the claimants' ad hominem rhetoric and what it seems to imply. The 'logic' seems to be as follows:

Public health officials are experts in their field, many of them with advanced degrees.

This means that these people are steeped in science.

Therefore, their statements constitute 'science' and therefore are undeniable.

Paradoxically, such a thought process lands some distance away from chains of logic central to the scientific method.

Moreover, a scientific mind is skeptical. It is constantly asking 'what else can it be?' In the case of public health officials, a plausible rival hypothesis in a format similar to the one above is this:

Public health officials are bureaucrats.

This means that these people are steeped in politics.

Therefore, their statements are grounded in self-interested active agency and in hiding policy errors and therefore are highly questionable.

Why isn't the second hypothesis the more valid one? If the original claimants above cannot convincingly answer this question, then who are the true science deniers?