Listen to the article
After former President Donald Trump suggested pregnant women avoid Tylenol and promoted an unproven autism treatment, medical practice patterns shifted significantly, according to a new study published Thursday in The Lancet.
The research revealed that Tylenol orders for pregnant women in emergency departments dropped 10% below projected trends in the three months following Trump’s claims. Simultaneously, prescriptions for leucovorin—the generic drug Trump touted as an autism treatment—surged 71% higher than expected for children aged 5 to 17.
“It just shows that in our country right now, health care has been politicized in a way that political messages are driving and impacting care—and not always for good,” said Dr. Susan Sirota, a pediatrician in Highland Park, Illinois, who was not involved in the research.
The study examined medical data from late September to early December, comparing actual prescribing patterns against projected trends that would have occurred without the White House briefing. Researchers found no similar shifts in comparable medications, suggesting a direct link to Trump’s statements.
Dr. Michael Barnett, a co-author of the study from Brown University School of Public Health, noted the unusual nature of such medical pronouncements coming from political leaders. “In past administrations, there are lots of layers of approval and expert consensus before officials make big announcements about medical topics,” Barnett said.
The medical community had swiftly criticized Trump’s claims. Major healthcare organizations reaffirmed that Tylenol (acetaminophen) remains safe during pregnancy, while cautioning against the broad use of leucovorin for autism.
Tylenol is commonly used by pregnant women to treat pain or fever. According to the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, untreated fevers during pregnancy—especially in the first trimester—can increase risks of miscarriage, preterm birth, and other complications.
Some studies have suggested possible links between Tylenol use during pregnancy and autism risk, but many others have found no connection. The scientific consensus continues to support Tylenol as safe for pregnant women when used as directed.
Leucovorin, a folic acid derivative, is primarily used to reduce toxic side effects of certain chemotherapy drugs and to treat a rare blood disorder. While it has been studied for cerebral folate deficiency and in some autism cases, the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend its routine use for autism spectrum disorders.
“Some findings suggest potential benefit in carefully selected cases,” the pediatric group has stated, but evidence remains limited. Adding to concerns about its promoted use, the European Journal of Pediatrics recently retracted a study evaluating leucovorin as an autism treatment.
Despite limited evidence supporting leucovorin for autism, Dr. Sirota reported that after the federal announcement, families began requesting the medication. She educated patients about the limited evidence and potential side effects—which can include irritability, nausea, vomiting, and skin issues—and did not prescribe it.
The study had limitations, including inability to capture over-the-counter Tylenol use by pregnant women outside hospital settings. However, researchers believe the findings demonstrate how political statements can rapidly influence both patient and physician behavior, sometimes contrary to medical evidence.
“This politicizing of medicine just in general, and moving away from science, has been so challenging,” Sirota said. “It feels like a pattern with our government, right? They keep building on these houses of cards that just fall down.”
The findings raise broader concerns about how health information is communicated by political figures and the responsibility of medical professionals to counter misinformation. As healthcare continues to intersect with politics, the study suggests medical practice patterns can shift quickly based on statements from influential figures, regardless of scientific merit.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
It’s concerning to see that Trump’s unproven statements about autism treatments led to a surge in prescriptions for the drug he touted, despite a lack of scientific support. This demonstrates the power of political influence over medical practices, which can put patient wellbeing at risk.
Absolutely right. This is a worrying example of how political messaging can override evidence-based medical practices, with potentially serious consequences for patients. We need to ensure that healthcare decisions are guided by scientific consensus, not unsubstantiated claims from political figures.
It’s alarming to see that Trump’s unproven statements led to significant changes in medical practices, like a drop in Tylenol prescriptions for pregnant women. This demonstrates the concerning power that political figures can have over healthcare, even when their claims lack scientific basis.
Absolutely. This study shows how political messaging can disrupt evidence-based medical care, with potentially serious consequences for patients. We need to be extremely cautious about allowing politics to override established medical guidance.
This is quite concerning. Trump’s unsupported claims about autism treatments seem to have had a real impact on medical practices. It’s troubling that political rhetoric can influence healthcare decisions in this way, especially when it goes against scientific evidence.
I agree, this highlights how dangerous it can be when unfounded political rhetoric starts to shape medical treatment. We should be relying on scientific research, not unsubstantiated claims from politicians.
This is a troubling example of how misinformation from political figures can directly impact healthcare practices, even when those claims are contradicted by scientific research. It’s critical that we rely on expert medical advice, not unsubstantiated rhetoric from politicians.
Agreed. This study highlights the urgent need to strengthen the divide between politics and healthcare, so that medical decisions are driven by rigorous evidence rather than partisan agendas. Patients deserve care based on science, not political narratives.
This is a deeply troubling example of how political messaging can disrupt evidence-based medical care, with potentially serious consequences for patients. It’s critical that we maintain a clear separation between politics and healthcare, and ensure that medical decisions are guided by rigorous scientific research, not unsubstantiated claims from political figures.
I couldn’t agree more. This study highlights the urgent need to strengthen the barriers between politics and healthcare, so that medical practices are driven by expert consensus, not partisan agendas. Patients deserve care based on empirical evidence, not rhetoric from elected officials.
It’s deeply concerning to see that Trump’s unproven claims about autism treatments led to a significant surge in prescriptions for the drug he promoted, despite a lack of scientific evidence. This underscores the urgent need to insulate healthcare from political influence and ensure medical decisions are driven by rigorous research, not unsubstantiated rhetoric.
Absolutely. This study is a stark reminder of the dangers of allowing political figures to shape medical practices, even when their statements contradict established scientific understanding. We must prioritize evidence-based policymaking in healthcare to protect patient wellbeing and maintain public trust in the medical system.
This study highlights the dangerous consequences that can arise when political rhetoric starts to shape medical practices, even when those claims are contradicted by scientific research. It’s critical that we maintain a clear separation between politics and healthcare to ensure patients receive evidence-based care.
Agreed. This is a troubling example of how the politicization of healthcare can have real impacts on patient wellbeing. We need to be vigilant about protecting the integrity of medical decision-making and ensuring it remains firmly grounded in scientific consensus, not partisan agendas.