Skip to main content

Conflicting Messaging on Tylenol-Autism Confuses the Public

Kids are smart.  We know this because many of us have kids and all of us were kids.  I’m not suggesting that every kid is an Einstein who regards the laws of physics to be... ‘child’s play’.  But in many circumstances, they punch above their juvenile weights to get stuff done.  At times, they are master negotiators.  Here’s a vignette illustrating one of their master techniques. 


Act I, Scene 1

“Mom, can I have ice cream now?”

“Johnny, of course not!  You haven’t even had breakfast yet!”

Act I, Scene II

“Dad, can I have ice cream now?  Mom said it was ok.”

“Sure, son.  Go ahead.”


Sound familiar?  We parents know that we do better when we speak in one voice to our youngsters.  When we don’t, our wily progeny can exploit this with great skill. 


Kid vs parents - not a fair fight!
 

The value of speaking with one voice applies to us adults as well.  Let’s look briefly at some rather conflicting messaging we have all been exposed to regarding the Tylenol-Autism Follies.

  • President Trump issued his own view in a tweet a portion of which appears below:           "Pregnant Women, DON’T USE TYLENOL UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, DON’T GIVE TYLENOL TO YOUR YOUNG CHILD FOR VIRTUALLY ANY REASON"

         Earlier, the president advised at a White House briefing, “Fight like hell not to take it.”

  • Vice President Vance stated in a recent interview with News Nation that pregnant women should heed the advice of their medical professionals, slightly different than his boss’s point of view.
  • Many medical studies, including one published last year in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, found no significant connection between Tylenol and autism.
  • The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics publicly and vehemently rejected any causal relationship between Tylenol and autism.
  • Senator Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who, like this writer, is a gastroenterologist, expressed deep skepticism of a Tylenol-autism causal connection.
  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states on its website that “…a direct causal relationship between acetaminophen [Tylenol] and autism or ADHD has not been established”, Yet, it goes on to advise pregnant women to avoid the product as a precaution.
  • The U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA), like the CDC, notes that studies have shown a correlation between Tylenol and autism but not causality, but still urges caution.  It does state plainly in a release to physicians from FDA Commissioner Makary that “acetaminophen [Tylenol] is the safest over-the-counter alternative in pregnancy among all analgesics [pain relievers] and antipyretics [fever-reducers]…”
  • Kenvue, the manufacturer of Tylenol, stated that “independent, sound science clearly shows that taking acetaminophen [Tylenol] does not cause autism.”

I am not commenting here on the substance of the Tylenol-Autism claims.  Readers who have followed my writings over the years will likely know my view.

The point of this post is to express concern over conflicting messages on this issue being thrown into the public square from sources that, at least by title, should be responsible and authoritative.  This public communication failure not only erodes trust in our public health institutions and government officials, but it also confuses the public who has less certainty if a medication is truly safe and effective.  Whom should the public turn to for medical advice among a cacophony of 'authoritative' opinions?  As politics has seeped into the medical arena, it has tainted our public health organizations and their advice to us.  And like m opening vignette of a child angling for morning ice cream, political groups and others can exploit the differences among experts to serve their own agendas. 

Is it really a controversial view that public health should be science-based and free of political influence?

Editor’s Note: For 16 years, I've published weekly essays here on Blogspot, which will continue. I’ve now begun publishing my work on a new blogging platform, Substack, and I hope you’ll join me there. Please enter your email address at this link to receive my posts directly to your inbox.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When Should Doctors Retire?

I am asked with some regularity whether I am aiming to retire in the near term.  Years ago, I never received such inquiries.  Why now?   Might it be because my coiffure and goatee – although finely-manicured – has long entered the gray area?  Could it be because many other even younger physicians have given up their stethoscopes for lives of leisure? (Hopefully, my inquiring patients are not suspecting me of professional performance lapses!) Interestingly, a nurse in my office recently approached me and asked me sotto voce that she heard I was retiring.    “Interesting,” I remarked.   Since I was unaware of this retirement news, I asked her when would be my last day at work.   I have no idea where this erroneous rumor originated from.   I requested that my nurse-friend contact her flawed intel source and set him or her straight.   Retirement might seem tempting to me as I have so many other interests.   Indeed, reading and ...

Stop Medical Malpractice: The White Coat Wall of Silence

Photo Credit Leisure Guy, one of my most faithful commenters, opines that I am omitting an important aspect of the tort reform argument. He has implored me repeatedly to read a particular book that I suspect buttresses his views, but this worthy pursuit is simply not near the top of my priority pyramid. Since he’s retired, he enjoys the luxury of burrowing deeply into the base of his priority pyramid. With 4 tuitions to go, retirement is a distant mirage for me. I’m can be a ‘leisure guy’, but only in my dreams. I have written throughout this blog and elsewhere that there are too many frivolous lawsuits against physicians. I have admitted that caps on non-economic damages are not ideal, because they deny some worthy plaintiffs of complete compensation, but I support them because I believe they serve the greater good. I have ranted that there is no effective filter to screen out physicians who should never be invited to the litigation party in the first place. I believe that the...

Prostate Cancer Screening: Stop The PSA Train!

About 10 years ago, my dad was to see his general internist. I have always refrained from giving medical advice to my family, for all of the reasons why doctors should not treat or advise their relatives. But, on this occasion, I did give Dad some unsolicited advice, particularly as I knew that his physician fired the diagnostic testing trigger readily. “Dad, please make sure that he doesn’t check the PSA (prostate specific antigen) test.” Dad indicated that he would convey my concern to his doctor, who ran the test on him anyway. Apparently, he includes the PSA test as a matter of routine on all men over a certain age. Twenty-five years ago as a curious, but skeptical medical student, I learned about prostate cancer. I learned that every man will develop it if he lives long enough. I learned that most cases of prostate cancer remain silent and never interfere with the individual’s life. I learned that the treatment for these cancers involves either major surgery or radiation, both of ...