President Donald Trump made baffling remarks during a Monday press conference, claiming that pregnant women should avoid Tylenol, the brand name of acetaminophen, arguing that it was associated with a “very increased” risk of autism.
It was a new low for the Trump administration, leading to widespread outrage and incredulity among experts.
Then things got even sketchier when the New York Times revealed that the researcher behind the studies cited during Monday’s press conference had a financial interest in warning users against the use of Tylenol.
Andrea Baccarelli, the dean of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, received at least $150,000 as an expert witness during several lawsuits aimed at Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol, federal court filings reviewed by the newspaper show.
It’s a glaring conflict of interest, and a worrying example of how the Trump administration is using quack science to further a pseudoscientific agenda. Worse yet, it’s using baseless evidence linked to civil litigation to justify its claims.
A federal judge dismissed the suits aimed at the Tylenol maker, which were filed by families who claimed their children developed autism or ADHD after using Tylenol during pregnancy. The judge cited a lack of reliable scientific evidence and agreed with the defendants that Baccarelli had “cherry-picked and misrepresented study results,” according to the NYT.
While plenty of research has gone into examining a possible link between autism and acetaminophen use by pregnant women, no substantive connection has been found.
Even the World Health Organization has also since pushed back against Trump’s claims, pointing out that “extensive research, including large-scale studies over the past decade, has found no consistent association,” in a statement.
The study cited by FDA commissioner Marty Makary during Monday’s press conference evaluated 46 existing studies, and found that there was an “association” between a higher risk of neurodevelopmental disorders in children and “exposure to acetaminophen during pregnancy.”
But to experts, the study simply didn’t pass muster. Baccarelli “repackaged [the study] for journal publication to give it the appearance of legitimacy,” immunologist and science communicator Andrea Love tweeted following the press conference. “He cherry-picked studies and gave parent memory more weight than hard data.”
... continue reading