In today’s information age, expertise and science are too often overlooked. Americans now turn to influencers for legal advice, therapy, and financial help. But what is more concerning is when politicians without medical training harmfully shape the public’s perception of health matters.
It is a dangerous trend with real consequences for patient well-being and care. If it continues, it risks fueling broader public health crises. Consider the administration’s approach to vaccines.
Recommended Stories
Under Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., federal officials sought to overhaul the nation’s childhood immunization schedule and sideline long-standing advisory processes by installing a panel with little experience. A federal judge blocked those changes and criticized the administration for bypassing the expert-driven framework that long guided vaccine policy. It was a much-needed course correction.
Public leaders have also caused confusion and advanced unfounded claims around acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol.
Last year, President Donald Trump urged women not to take Tylenol during pregnancy, suggesting that it is behind increasing autism rates. The claim stoked fear despite acetaminophen being one of the most studied and common over-the-counter drugs, with dozens of analyses finding no direct link between the medicine and autism.
Yet another recently published study found no association between pregnant women’s use of Tylenol and autism in their children. In fact, the nationwide Danish study of over 1 million children found that children exposed to Tylenol in the womb were diagnosed with autism at a lower rate than those who weren’t.
When asked about this in a House committee hearing this month, Kennedy baselessly called it “a garbage study” that “should be retracted.”
The misleading claims have had real effects. Fewer pregnant women are receiving acetaminophen in emergency rooms — a trend that may reflect growing reluctance to use the pain reliever during pregnancy.
This is likely to have harmful effects. Left untreated, fevers during pregnancy have been linked to increased risks to fetal development. As the Food and Drug Administration has reiterated, acetaminophen is the safest OTC fever and pain reliever during pregnancy, with aspirin and ibuprofen having well-documented adverse effects on the fetus.
Americans who may be avoiding Tylenol based on unsubstantiated claims probably missed FDA Commissioner Marty Makary’s clarification that “no causal relationship has been established.” Unfortunately, sweeping remarks drown out these more precise comments.
Undermining public confidence in well-studied medicines can also lead to higher healthcare costs and reduced access to affordable treatments. At a time when affordability remains a top concern for American families, protecting trust in safe, effective OTC products should be a top priority. As Makary has argued, selling effective drugs over the counter promotes transparency that “keeps prices in check.”
Amid these questionable claims, a case now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit could help curb the misuse of junk science. The 2nd Circuit is considering a case concerning some of the very claims about acetaminophen made by the president.
Plaintiffs sued acetaminophen producers, claiming that the medicine’s use during pregnancy resulted in autism and ADHD in their children. The court now has an opportunity to discredit the junk science fueling autism-acetaminophen claims by properly rejecting the argument in favor of known science.
In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, plaintiffs relied heavily on expert witnesses who failed to adequately account for key variables in acetaminophen studies, such as genetics, and who relied on selectively chosen studies. The judge saw through the junk and excluded the experts, effectively defeating the plaintiffs’ case. The question now before the appellate court is whether the judge was right to prevent such problematic testimony from reaching the jury.
This case illustrates a broader problem. Just as judges must serve as gatekeepers for expert testimony in the courtroom, public health officials should carefully evaluate the scientific evidence before making unfounded, misleading, or harmful claims.
THE WORLD MUST CHOOSE: STAND WITH AMERICA OR YIELD TO IRAN
Public trust in health treatments should be shaped by evidence, not by political rhetoric or viral misinformation. When leaders cast doubt on well-studied treatments without adequate scientific support, it affects patient decisions, public health, and the cost and accessibility of care. If we want a healthier and better-informed America, we must insist that those in positions of influence issue guidance based on high-quality evidence.
Rear Adm. Kenneth Moritsugu, M.D., was the acting surgeon general of the United States and served as deputy surgeon general.