The factual accuracy of the story is relatively high, as it aligns with well-documented historical events and scientific consensus. The article correctly identifies David Geier as an anti-vaccine activist and addresses his past controversies, which are supported by credible sources and historical records. However, the claim that Geier has been assigned to review the vaccine-autism link by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lacks direct confirmation from the agency or Geier himself, which impacts the verifiability of this specific claim. Additionally, the article references the resignation of Peter Marks and his letter, which are consistent with reported events, but it would benefit from direct quotes or documents for enhanced precision.

The article predominantly presents a critical perspective on the appointment of David Geier and the broader implications for public health policy under the Trump administration. While it effectively highlights the concerns of scientific and medical communities regarding anti-vaccine activism, it does not provide a counterpoint or perspective from those who might support or rationalize the appointment. This lack of balance may lead readers to perceive a bias against the current administration and its appointees, potentially omitting important nuances or justifications that could offer a more comprehensive view.

The language and structure of the article are clear and concise, making it easy for readers to follow the narrative and understand the issues at hand. The tone is assertive and informative, effectively communicating the potential public health implications of the discussed appointments. The logical flow from historical context to current developments aids comprehension, although some sections could benefit from more detailed explanations or direct quotes to enhance clarity.

The article cites credible sources such as the Washington Post for reporting on Geier's assignment and references historical records regarding the Geiers' controversial studies and regulatory actions against them. It also includes statements from reputable figures like Peter Marks, adding authority to its claims. However, the absence of direct responses from HHS or Geier himself slightly diminishes the source quality, as it relies on secondary reports and lacks firsthand confirmation.

The article is transparent in its presentation of the Geiers' history and the scientific consensus against the vaccine-autism link. It clearly outlines the basis for its claims, referencing past studies and regulatory actions. However, it could improve transparency by disclosing more about the methodology used to verify Geier's current role at HHS and by providing more context on the sources of its information, especially regarding the alleged assignment.