This is bad reasoning. For one the mt Sinai meta is not poorly structured. For two there’s not exactly an “overwhelming number” of contrary studies. For three there’s a number of studies besides the mt Sinai study. You dismiss the meta on lack of merit without actually examining it and place it against fantastical papers (that may or may not exist, and as mentioned the quantity of which is being exaggerated)
In addition to the mt Sinai paper 2 other similar papers came out in 2025 (one from Harvard, one from environmental health) showing a link. There’s also the danish birth study which showed a link between Tylenol and a specific presentation of autism (hyperkinetic symptoms, closer to adhd).
Papers to the contrary aren’t necessarily “overwhelming” either, there’s 3-4 metas recently that show no causal link and the big one is the Swedish birth study I referenced in the initial post. But that’s countered by the above metas and the danish birth study.
Therein lies the issue and why it’s a point of debate. RFK is wrong to do what he is doing because the data is not strong enough to make the bold claim that he is making. He is a charlatan and likely scamming somehow (perhaps to sell folinic acid, which also has spurious data for efficacy). However, on the same point to reject the potential of Tylenols impact entirely because RFK is interested in it as a potential causal factor is equally foolish. It could be a factor. We don’t know yet. It needs more exploration. This could increase funding to explore it potentially (which could be a total waste of time).
IMO you should probably listen to the mt Sinai paper, which recommends that you take Tylenol if necessary during pregnancy as “untreated maternal fever and pain pose risks such as neural tube defects and preterm birth” and ultimately recommends a balanced approach limiting Tylenol exposure, eg try not to take tons of it
This is bad reasoning. For one the mt Sinai meta is not poorly structured. For two there’s not exactly an “overwhelming number” of contrary studies. For three there’s a number of studies besides the mt Sinai study. You dismiss the meta on lack of merit without actually examining it and place it against fantastical papers (that may or may not exist, and as mentioned the quantity of which is being exaggerated)
In addition to the mt Sinai paper 2 other similar papers came out in 2025 (one from Harvard, one from environmental health) showing a link. There’s also the danish birth study which showed a link between Tylenol and a specific presentation of autism (hyperkinetic symptoms, closer to adhd).
Papers to the contrary aren’t necessarily “overwhelming” either, there’s 3-4 metas recently that show no causal link and the big one is the Swedish birth study I referenced in the initial post. But that’s countered by the above metas and the danish birth study.
Therein lies the issue and why it’s a point of debate. RFK is wrong to do what he is doing because the data is not strong enough to make the bold claim that he is making. He is a charlatan and likely scamming somehow (perhaps to sell folinic acid, which also has spurious data for efficacy). However, on the same point to reject the potential of Tylenols impact entirely because RFK is interested in it as a potential causal factor is equally foolish. It could be a factor. We don’t know yet. It needs more exploration. This could increase funding to explore it potentially (which could be a total waste of time).
IMO you should probably listen to the mt Sinai paper, which recommends that you take Tylenol if necessary during pregnancy as “untreated maternal fever and pain pose risks such as neural tube defects and preterm birth” and ultimately recommends a balanced approach limiting Tylenol exposure, eg try not to take tons of it
My job and my team are expertis in clinical evidence within the UK. If the ABPI recognise our views, I think we’re good enough here.