This move comes on the heels of another controversial campaign: Kennedy’s push to reframe acetaminophen—commonly known as Tylenol—as a public health risk. He persuaded President Trump to publicly question its safety, particularly its use during pregnancy. Citing disputed studies linking prenatal acetaminophen exposure to autism, the administration proposed new FDA guidelines discouraging its use among pregnant women and called for warning labels on over-the-counter medications. These claims have been widely criticized by medical experts, who argue that the evidence is inconclusive and that such messaging could cause unnecessary panic and harm.
Together, these actions reflect a growing politicization of health policy, where scientific consensus is often sidelined in favor of ideological positioning. The rejection of the U.N. declaration and the attack on Tylenol are not isolated incidents—they’re part of a broader campaign to challenge pharmaceutical norms, disrupt vaccine schedules, and rebrand public health through a lens of institutional defiance. Critics warn that this approach risks undermining trust in medical institutions and could have long-term consequences for global cooperation on health crises.
Harvard public health dean Andrea Baccarelli was involved in research that found a possible link between using Tylenol during pregnancy and developmental issues like autism and ADHD, but the evidence wasn’t strong enough to prove it causes those problems. He gave paid testimony in a lawsuit claiming Tylenol could cause autism, but a judge rejected his claims as unreliable. Still, his research was cited by the government when they considered updating warning labels, though many scientists say the connection isn’t clear and more research is needed.
It’s a shame when scientific caution gets overshadowed by courtroom theatrics or regulatory pressure. The rush to draw hard conclusions from limited data not only risks misleading the public—it also undermines the credibility of researchers who are genuinely trying to explore complex, unresolved questions. When associations are mistaken for causation and expert nuance is flattened into soundbites, we lose the very rigor that public health depends on.
Suppose Trump’s remarks about Tylenol and autism could be not just political posturing but a veiled act of personal absolution—an attempt to rewrite the narrative around Barron’s developmental profile and Melania’s private grief. Trump’s public warning against acetaminophen use during pregnancy becomes a retroactive gesture: not grounded in science, but in guilt, deflection, and the need to distance himself from causality. Melania, protective and quietly burdened, may have resisted public acknowledgment, while Trump, ever performative, chose the stage of policy to exonerate himself—not by naming names, but by planting doubt. The claim, then, isn’t medical—it’s emotional camouflage.
“Men han har jo ikke noget på!”
The physicians, fearing the king’s wrath, dared not speak of neurodiversity. Instead, they offered a scapegoat—a common painkiller prescribed during infancy. “It must be the medicine,” one murmured, and the others agreed with theatrical concern. The king seized the explanation like a lifeline. It was simple, clean, and absolved him of uncertainty.