Science and Technology Studies (STS) has long been criticized for eroding science's authority and blurring the line between opinions and facts, and more recently for contributing to the emergence of 'far-right populists' and 'anti-science movements'. This article argues that 'post-truth politics' does not necessarily entail epistemic democratization. This claim is based on an investigation of the controversies surrounding public health policies during the Covid-19 pandemic in Brazil. In 2021, the Brazilian parliament established an inquiry into allegations that President Jair Bolsonaro neglected expert advice and actively promoted contagion, causing a surge in hospitalizations and deaths. The analysis of testimonies and ensuing debates suggests that so-called 'science deniers' did not contest scientific authority but instead positioned themselves as critical thinkers who sought to expose political interests masquerading as facts. Bolsonaro's allies claimed to be supported by unbiased experts who had more prestige and credibility than those cited by the opposition. In short, they were not against modern scientific knowledge and methods but claimed to speak in the name of the best available scientific evidence. Thus, instead of blaming STS for the 'post-truth era', we should further engage with its conceptual tools to understand the complex relations of 'far-right politics' and scientific institutions. More specifically, we need to investigate how expertise gets distributed, how different statements accumulate authority, and how scientific knowledge is enacted across multiple fields of practice.