Listen to the article
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has drawn criticism for his recent attacks on a Danish study that found no link between Tylenol use during pregnancy and autism in children. During an April 17 congressional hearing, Kennedy repeatedly called the study “garbage” and suggested it was “fraudulent” and industry-generated, demanding its retraction.
The Danish study, published April 13 in JAMA Pediatrics, analyzed national prescription fulfillment records for mothers of more than 1.5 million children. Researchers found no association between prenatal acetaminophen use, even at higher doses, and subsequent autism diagnoses in children.
Scientists familiar with the research have rejected Kennedy’s characterization. Dr. Kira Philipsen Prahm, the study’s lead author, confirmed that the pharmaceutical industry was not involved in funding or conducting the research, which was supported by Danish governmental and hospital funding.
Kennedy’s main criticism centered on the study’s reliance on prescription data rather than including over-the-counter purchases. “Only 2% of the people in this study got Tylenol during pregnancy,” Kennedy claimed during the hearing. “In fact, we know, because Tylenol is available over the counter, most of you have taken Tylenol. Very few of you have ever gotten a prescription.”
However, experts point out that Kennedy’s criticism overlooks important context about Denmark’s pharmaceutical regulations. Brian Lee, a professor of epidemiology at Drexel University, explained that Denmark is actually an ideal location for prescription-based studies on acetaminophen because the country significantly restricted over-the-counter sales in late 2013.
“Denmark is not the US,” Lee said. Since the 2013 regulatory change, “more than 80% of acetaminophen sold has been prescription based,” according to Dr. Per Damkier, a professor at the University of Southern Denmark who has studied acetaminophen use during pregnancy.
The study’s authors acknowledged the limitations of their approach in their paper, noting that information about over-the-counter use was missing. However, they conducted additional analyses to verify their findings, including examining whether results differed before and after Denmark’s 2013 regulatory change. “We found no statistical differences between the two periods,” Prahm stated.
Scientists emphasize that limitations in research methodology don’t invalidate results, nor do they constitute grounds for retraction. Legitimate reasons for retracting scientific papers include analytical errors affecting conclusions, integrity issues, or loss of confidence in findings by the authors.
“Kennedy is well outside his domain of expertise” in assessing the scientific merits of the study, Damkier noted. Lee characterized Kennedy’s calls for retraction as “unwarranted and politically coercive,” adding that Kennedy has previously attempted to “wield his considerable influence” to force retractions of studies without legitimate reasons.
The Danish research adds to a growing body of evidence that has failed to establish a causal relationship between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and autism. Recent reviews of available data have concluded that evidence does not support any clear or “clinically important” link.
“We now have studies from Nordic countries, Japan and Taiwan showing that Tylenol doesn’t cause autism,” said David S. Mandell, a psychiatry professor at the University of Pennsylvania. The degree of acetaminophen use varied across these studies, “and it doesn’t make a difference in the findings.”
President Trump has also weighed in on the issue, repeatedly advising pregnant women not to take Tylenol unless “absolutely necessary.” Kennedy has been slightly more cautious in his public statements, referring to a “potential association” between prenatal Tylenol use and autism.
The controversy highlights the ongoing tension between scientific consensus and public health messaging in the current administration, particularly on issues related to potential environmental factors in neurodevelopmental conditions.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
Kennedy’s criticisms seem overstated. The researchers used robust national data and their methods appear sound. While over-the-counter use could be a limitation, the scale of the study suggests the findings are still valuable. Responsible debate is important, but unfounded accusations are not helpful.
This study seems to add to the growing body of evidence that Tylenol use during pregnancy is not linked to autism. While Kennedy raises some reasonable points, dismissing the research outright is concerning. Transparency and open debate are important for advancing our understanding.
This study adds to our understanding of Tylenol use and autism risk. While Kennedy raises some valid points, outright dismissing the research as “garbage” seems premature. Constructive dialogue and further investigation are needed to resolve these questions.
I appreciate Kennedy’s advocacy, but his rhetoric around this study seems unwarranted. Calling it “fraudulent” without clear evidence is concerning. The researchers appear to have followed standard practices, and their findings deserve a fair hearing. We should encourage open and evidence-based discussions on this important issue.
I’m curious to see how the scientific community responds to Kennedy’s claims. While over-the-counter data could provide additional insights, the researchers appear to have followed standard practices. Calling the study “fraudulent” seems premature without stronger evidence.
Agreed. Researchers should address Kennedy’s specific concerns, but knee-jerk accusations of fraud are unproductive. The study’s findings deserve a fair evaluation based on the data and methods used.
Kennedy’s criticism of this study seems unfounded. Prescription data may not capture all Tylenol use, but the large sample size and robust methodology suggest the findings are still meaningful. Dismissing it as “garbage” without evidence is concerning.