Acetaminophen (Tylenol) and Autism

[RTM]

Ok. Now it's boys themselves taking it, and taking it at a young age after circumcisions.

"There's two studies that show children who are circumcised early have double the rate of autism. It's highly likely because they're given Tylenol," said Kennedy. "You know, none of this is dispositive. All of it should be paid attention to."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/ot...-in-defending-tylenol-autism-link/ar-AA1OaeMx

 

[Mendel]

Ok. Now it's boys themselves taking it, and taking it at a young age after circumcisions.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/ot...-in-defending-tylenol-autism-link/ar-AA1OaeMx

Let's see.

Article:

Of children meeting criteria for ASD, the true male-to-female ratio is not 4:1, as is often assumed; rather, it is closer to 3:1.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28545751/

Applying the above info, that means 2 out of 3 autistic children are circumcised, i.e. Jewish. Does that sound right?

 

[deirdre]

Let's see.

Article:

Of children meeting criteria for ASD, the true male-to-female ratio is not 4:1, as is often assumed; rather, it is closer to 3:1.

Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28545751/

Applying the above info, that means 2 out of 3 autistic children are circumcised, i.e. Jewish. Does that sound right?

no. circumcised does not equal jewish.

from the "study" linked in the article they are mainly muslim.

Article:

Results
The cohort consisted of 342,877 boys and 325,000 girls born in Denmark between January 1994 and December 2003. During follow-up through April 2013, a total of 5033 boys (1.5%) and 1026 girls (0.3%) were diagnosed with ASD before their 10th birthday, yielding a cumulative male:female ASD incidence ratio of 4.6:1. Also, 7050 boys (2.1%) were diagnosed with hyperkinetic disorder and 29,368 boys (8.6%) were diagnosed with asthma during follow-up. Overall, 3347 boys (0.98%) in the cohort were ritually circumcised in a hospital department or a doctor's clinic before their 10th birthday, including 2903 circumcisions among 26,664 boys (10.9%) with a likely Muslim cultural background and 444 circumcisions among 316,213 other Danish boys (0.14%).

Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0141076814565942

 

[FatPhil]

circumcised, i.e. Jewish.

In america, circumcision is a christian thing, thanks to a seventh day adventist better known for his anti-masturbatory breakfast cereals:

Cornflakes, God, and Circumcision: John Harvey Kellogg and Transatlantic Health Reform

...
By the end of the nineteenth century, doctors all over the United States were calling for
circumcision to be adopted in practice on males. Female circumcision was less talked about but
also gained acceptance, and, as David Gollaher noted, was practiced in the United States through
the 1950s—after which it "fell by the wayside," but "surgeons continued to regard the clitoris
with suspicion."116 This cry of acceptance was not in the context of masturbation but rather in
hygiene, purported avoidance of disease, and other aesthetic reasons. Interestingly, later
advocates of circumcision would be largely Jewish doctors, and many historians wondered how
the United States—a predominantly Christian nation—had come to wholly accept a Jewish rite.
Leonard Glick noted that from the perspective of Jewish doctors, the American acceptance of
circumcision created "new vistas," and that "they might have been gratified to see circumcision
lose its reputation as a peculiar badge of Jewishness and become instead an emblem of modern
standards of hygiene and sound moral values."117 After all, during "a time when Jews were intent
on becoming full-fledged Americans, what could have been so gratifying as the prospect of
everyone's adopting the most problematic sign of Jewish difference?"118 To this end, Jewish
doctors began lobbying for circumcision in medical journals and conferences. In 1893, Mark J.
Lehman, wrote in "A Plea for Circumcision," that it behooved "the physician to advocate the
removal of this 'causa morbi' [cause of disease]—whether necessary or not so as to have a
beneficial effect in future generations."

-- https://mavmatrix.uta.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=history_dissertations

 

[yoshy]

Ok. Now it's boys themselves taking it, and taking it at a young age after circumcisions.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/ot...-in-defending-tylenol-autism-link/ar-AA1OaeMx

We need a facepalm reaction for stuff like this lol

 

[yoshy]

In america, circumcision is a christian thing, thanks to a seventh day adventist better known for his anti-masturbatory breakfast cereals:

Cornflakes, God, and Circumcision: John Harvey Kellogg and Transatlantic Health Reform

...
By the end of the nineteenth century, doctors all over the United States were calling for
circumcision to be adopted in practice on males. Female circumcision was less talked about but
also gained acceptance, and, as David Gollaher noted, was practiced in the United States through
the 1950s—after which it "fell by the wayside," but "surgeons continued to regard the clitoris
with suspicion."116 This cry of acceptance was not in the context of masturbation but rather in
hygiene, purported avoidance of disease, and other aesthetic reasons. Interestingly, later
advocates of circumcision would be largely Jewish doctors, and many historians wondered how
the United States—a predominantly Christian nation—had come to wholly accept a Jewish rite.
Leonard Glick noted that from the perspective of Jewish doctors, the American acceptance of
circumcision created "new vistas," and that "they might have been gratified to see circumcision
lose its reputation as a peculiar badge of Jewishness and become instead an emblem of modern
standards of hygiene and sound moral values."117 After all, during "a time when Jews were intent
on becoming full-fledged Americans, what could have been so gratifying as the prospect of
everyone's adopting the most problematic sign of Jewish difference?"118 To this end, Jewish
doctors began lobbying for circumcision in medical journals and conferences. In 1893, Mark J.
Lehman, wrote in "A Plea for Circumcision," that it behooved "the physician to advocate the
removal of this 'causa morbi' [cause of disease]—whether necessary or not so as to have a
beneficial effect in future generations."

-- https://mavmatrix.uta.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=history_dissertations

Adding to this, the US hit under 50% overall sometime between 2012 and 2022 (that's just the two years they provide the data for.

I know that almost everything in the US is affected by race, but the differences for circumcision rates were larger than I expected.

This study included over 1.5 million hospitalizations of male neonates (aged 0-28 days) each year, ranging from 1 816 129 hospitalizations in 2012 to 1 655 434 in 2022.

Also varies a lot by state:

 

[deirdre]

Also varies a lot by state:

maybe its just the population ethnicity that varies by state.

 

[Ann K]

In america, circumcision is a christian thing, thanks to a seventh day adventist better known for his anti-masturbatory breakfast cereals:

Dr. Benjamin Spock, the celebrated pediatrician who wrote a best-selling book, Baby and Child Care (almost mandatory reading for any new mother in the 1960s, of whom I was one) recommended circumcision for reasons of cleanliness. In the 1970s the book was reissued with a change to that chapter, as he changed his mind later.

 

[FatPhil]

Dr. Benjamin Spock, the celebrated pediatrician who wrote a best-selling book, Baby and Child Care (almost mandatory reading for any new mother in the 1960s, of whom I was one) recommended circumcision for reasons of cleanliness. In the 1970s the book was reissued with a change to that chapter, as he changed his mind later.

It was always kinda for cleanliness. Apparently, a couple of hundred years ago, unless you had your foreskin removed, it was physically impossible to keep your prepuce clean. For reasons. Hidden text: idle speculation - Probably because it was evil to touch it. I think I did once know, but my memory for historical wrongthink is limited. I do remember reading that part of the reasoning was based on the sanitary problems caused by a build-up of bacteria-rich smegma in the warm moist environment and all that went through my mind was "clean it, then, you fricken idiots", and the topic largely entered my cyclindrical filing cabinet as yet more kookery. "In order to save the village we had to destroy it" comes in many forms.

 

[John J.]

maybe its just the population ethnicity that varies by state.

Maybe to some extent- are Hispanic people a larger proportion of the population in e.g. Texas, California and Florida than in the northeast?

It looks like there's a real difference between west coast and east coast states (with the exception of Florida). Any theories?

 

[Ann K]

Maybe to some extent- are Hispanic people a larger proportion of the population in e.g. Texas, California and Florida than in the northeast?

It looks like there's a real difference between west coast and east coast states (with the exception of Florida). Any theories?

I really hope that's a tongue-in-cheek question.

 

[deirdre]

Maybe to some extent- are Hispanic people a larger proportion of the population in e.g. Texas, California and Florida than in the northeast?

It looks like there's a real difference between west coast and east coast states (with the exception of Florida). Any theories?

not just hispanic people. the asians and native americans are low circumcision wise too. (im really only commenting on his addition of "it varies by state too"...i dont personally think is necessary)

of course my source is called "homesnacks" so probably some more verification is required.
https://www.homesnacks.com/most-hispanic-states-in-america/

and just to be fair some states dont cover circumcision anymore through Medicaid
https://www.uclahealth.org/news/rel...out Medicaid,, Louisiana, Idaho and Minnesota.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

 

[John J.]

I really hope that's a tongue-in-cheek question.

Er, no, it wasn't.
If I'd been forced to guess I'd have said there might be a higher percentage of Hispanic people in e.g. Texas, New Mexico, California and Florida than in the northwest due to geographic and historical reasons, but I wouldn't have known.
It's not something I've ever really thought about, so my ideas about those sorts of demographics in America are largely from popular culture, e.g. I know there's a Puerto Rican community in New York from West Side Story (which I appreciate might sound a bit crass) but I've no idea what percentage of New Yorkers are Hispanic. I'm aware there's a significant Hispanic population in California because a lot of popular films/ TV series are made and set in California.
(I am of course aware that Hispanic people participate in every aspect of US life).

The maps @deirdre posted have been educational for me.

 

[deirdre]

e.g. I know there's a Puerto Rican community in New York from West Side Story

there's every community in NYC(except maybe native american?) . Chinatown and Little Italy are pretty famous destinations, for example.

The rest of NY state is probably in the pink or darker pink designation (like its neighbors) as far as circumcisions. and NYC would be fairly dark green is my guess.

 

[Klein]

This one is trickier than it seems.
1) Autism is a broad definition that likely gathers a wide array of intellectual disabilities into a single "diagnosis"
2) Tylenol MIGHT have some negative consequences in pregnant mothers and young children in SOME circumstances

Obviously we can conclude that Tylenol cannot be the lone cause of all intellectual disabilities classified as "autism".
However we cannot exclude Tylenol can perhaps increase the chance of SOME intellectual disabilities. Given that Trump is expanding this to vaccines tells us it's RFK's agenda to put the entire health industry in question and stop overmedication. Not necessarily a bad thing, but besides the point.

I think "debunking" this is as hopeless as Trump's declaration of Tylenol being a main cause of autism. We can mostly speculate on just how wrong he is. My take is that since inflammatory processes in pregnancy/early childhood can have lifelong consequences on the child's brain development, Tylenol will have a multi-prong association with autism that is hard to impossible to extricate as it's taken during various situations where inflammation causes discomfort and pain.

 

[Landru]

This one is trickier than it seems.
1) Autism is a broad definition that likely gathers a wide array of intellectual disabilities into a single "diagnosis"
2) Tylenol MIGHT have some negative consequences in pregnant mothers and young children in SOME circumstances

Obviously we can conclude that Tylenol cannot be the lone cause of all intellectual disabilities classified as "autism".
However we cannot exclude Tylenol can perhaps increase the chance of SOME intellectual disabilities. Given that Trump is expanding this to vaccines tells us it's RFK's agenda to put the entire health industry in question and stop overmedication. Not necessarily a bad thing, but besides the point.

I think "debunking" this is as hopeless as Trump's declaration of Tylenol being a main cause of autism. We can mostly speculate on just how wrong he is. My take is that since inflammatory processes in pregnancy/early childhood can have lifelong consequences on the child's brain development, Tylenol will have a multi-prong association with autism that is hard to impossible to extricate as it's taken during various situations where inflammation causes discomfort and pain.

The purpose of debunking is not to prove something didn't/couldn't happen, but to show there is no evidence that it did.

 

[FatPhil]

The purpose of debunking is not to prove something didn't/couldn't happen, but to show there is no evidence that it did.

I fail to see how a proof that something didn't or couldn't happen does anything apart from reduce support for a claim that there's evidence that it did.

If your priors aren't shifted, check you're not still on chocks.

 

[Landru]

I fail to see how a proof that something didn't or couldn't happen does anything apart from reduce support for a claim that there's evidence that it did.

If your priors aren't shifted, check you're not still on chocks.

You don't have to prove there are no Unicorns on Mars (which is pretty hard unless you go everywhere on Mars), just that there is no proof that there are any Unicorns on Mars.

 

[NoParty]

You don't have to prove there are no Unicorns on Mars (which is pretty hard unless you go everywhere on Mars), just that there is no proof that there are any Unicorns on Mars.

You can go everywhere on Mars...
but everyone knows that the Unicorns just keep cycling through the places that you are not currently.

 

[John J.]

...tells us it's RFK's agenda to put the entire health industry in question and stop overmedication.

Some of RFK Junior's past comments re. vaccines seem to indicate he would like to reduce the use of some safe, effective vaccines.
Where vaccine coverage falls, (largely) preventable disease increases. In the case of e.g. measles, mumps, COVID 19, a small minority of those infected will suffer lifelong disability or die as a result. Vaccine administration can incur harm but the numbers affected are much less than the numbers of people disabled or killed by endemic disease. In addition, vaccination greatly reduces the numbers of people who, although they go on to make a good recovery, might require in-patient stays in hospital or have prolonged periods of illness.

I don't think the vaccines recommended by the majority of US health professionals are examples of overmedication.

 

[Ann K]

I don't think the vaccines recommended by the majority of US health professionals are examples of overmedication.

Nor do I. But there seems to be a question between "Is RFK Jr actually that ignorant about vaccines" and "Is the intention of his anti-vaccination stance merely to remove them from the list of items that Medicare will pay for". Considering the "save money" (to give to the billionaires) stance of this administration, the latter is looking more and more likely.

...and, as I recently found out, my supplemental health care will not pay for tests that Medicare does not pay for.

 

[JMartJr]

But there seems to be a question between "Is RFK Jr actually that ignorant about vaccines" and "Is the intention of his anti-vaccination stance merely to remove them from the list of items that Medicare will pay for".

Just to that specific question, it is worth noting that RFK jr was doing things like (through "Children's Health Defense")running ads in Samoa to talk people out of getting measles vaccines because autism, helping to get an outbreak going there that killed a number of people, well before he was involved in the current administration.

The politeness policy prevents me for speaking to my thoughts on Mr. Kennedy and why he does the dangerous and destructive things he does..

SAMOA — Thirty-three days after two Samoan children died in 2019 from a deadly mix of the MMR vaccine and muscle relaxant, an organization founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — the future secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — paid Facebook to post multiple ads sowing doubt about the vaccines.

One ad, funded by Children's Health Defense, claimed measles vaccines were linked to chronic illnesses and autism, claims widely debunked by scientific research.

About a year later, a measles outbreak ravaged the island nation. More than 5,700 were infected. Eighty-three people died, most of them children.

https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/samoas-tragedy-and-rfk-jrs-alleged-role

 

[Klein]

The purpose of debunking is not to prove something didn't/couldn't happen, but to show there is no evidence that it did.

Alright. The problem in this case is that there is extensive evidence, and that evidence cannot be easily controlled for without extremely accurate and expensive studies due to the nature of the subject. (References below of said evidence.)

Multiple studies show a strong correlation between Tylenol and autism. But as i said, because Tylenol is used whenever pregnant mothers experience pain and other symptoms like fever already, that correlation is absolutely something you'd expect to find.
So what there is not is a causal link between acetaminophen and autism. You cannot claim that "Tylenol causes autism". But you also cannot claim there is "no evidence" that it does so. So we cannot debunk it, according to your definition.

Not only that, Trump, RFK and the Medicaid administrator all made/endorsed the claim that groups who do not take medication have "no autism", like the Amish.
Again, that is not causation despite being a kind of evidence. That's because the Amish have a different lifestyle and reporting habits than the general populace so again, you'd expect different rates of reported autism in their group.
To even compare Amish and non-Amish you would need to make an Amish group and a general populace group both take Tylenol in pregnancy in the same circumstances in a double-blind study and in sufficiently high numbers, which would be extremely difficult to do for various reasons.

This is why this situation is baffling. It exposes the complex nature of knowledge and scientific consensus because the US government essentially just claimed correlation is causation.
But that's not even the most baffling part. If Tylenol use is restricted in any way due to this press release, we will soon have new evidence for how that affects autism rates that we wouldn't otherwise have. If Tylenol use is limited, and IF doing that decreases autism rates without statistically affecting maternal or child health, it will still NOT prove that Tylenol causes autism, but limiting Tylenol would still have decreased autism rates in this hypothetical scenario. Likewise, if autism rates don't decrease, it still can't prove Tylenol does NOT cause autism in some circumstances. Just that limiting it has no effect.

So as tempting as this is to debunk, i believe we simply can't do it. Rather, it's easier to debunk the debunkers in this case, as they're making claims against all the confounding evidence that does, unfortunately, exist.

---

Examples of evidence of the Tylenol-Autism link in literature.

---

1) A systematic review finding a DOSE-DEPENDENT correlation in multiple studies:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35989852/

We extracted collective evidence from 16 studies suggesting acetaminophen's role in developing adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. It is urgent to do more research on this association before pregnant women can be cautioned about the precise use of acetaminophen.

2) Mount Sinai Press Release about Tylenol autism risk:
https://www.mountsinai.org/about/ne...e-linked-to-increased-risk-of-autism-and-adhd

"Our findings show that higher-quality studies are more likely to show a link between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and increased risks of autism and ADHD,"
"Given the widespread use of this medication, even a small increase in risk could have major public health implications."

3) JAMA large study finding acetaminophen metabolites in newborns and finding a strong association for both ADHD and ASD
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2753512

Cord biomarkers of fetal exposure to acetaminophen were associated with significantly increased risk of childhood ADHD and ASD in a dose-response fashion. Our findings support previous studies regarding the association between prenatal and perinatal acetaminophen exposure and childhood neurodevelopmental risk and warrant additional investigations.

 

[Landru]

Multiple studies show a strong correlation between Tylenol and autism. But as i said, because Tylenol is used whenever pregnant mothers experience pain and other symptoms like fever already, that correlation is absolutely something you'd expect to find.
So what there is not is a causal link between acetaminophen and autism. You cannot claim that "Tylenol causes autism". But you also cannot claim there is "no evidence" that it does so. So we cannot debunk it, according to your definition.

You are misinterpreting debunking as it is done here.

Article:

The goals of Metabunk are
To find and expose bunk
To prevent bunk from forming and spreading.
To develop and promote efficient methods of finding, exposing, and preventing bunk
To create re-usable debunkings (antibunk)
To help people escape the rabbit hole, either directly, or by giving tools to their friends
The specific form of bunk focused on at Metabunk is claims of evidence. i.e. individual points that are used to back up a broader theory. For example, the fact that high levels of aluminum are sometimes found in rainwater is used as evidence for the "chemtrails" theory.

Claims of evidence can be debunked in one of two main ways
Demonstrating that the evidence is incorrect (e.g. aluminum levels were high because the water was actually from a muddy pond)
Demonstrating that the evidence does not support the theory (e.g. aluminum is expected in rainwater because of dust in the air).
In some cases the "theory" might simply be "something really strange is going on". You can debunk that just by explaining possible normal explanations for the evidence.

Source: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

The purpose is not to advocate a position (as in, "Tylenol does not cause autism"), but to (in this case) prevent bunk from forming and spreading. In this case the assertion that Tylenol causes autism when no causal link has been established.

 

[JMartJr]

Not only that, Trump, RFK and the Medicaid administrator all made/endorsed the claim that groups who do not take medication have "no autism", like the Amish.
Again, that is not causation despite being a kind of evidence.

If the claimed evidence is that Amish folks have NO autism because they have DO NOT get vaccinations, then it is the special sort of evidence known as "just making up stuff."

First, the Amish are not this imagined uniformly unvaccinated group of people:

Among the 359 respondents, 68% stated that all of their children had received at least 1 immunization, and 17% reported that some of their children had received at least 1 immunization. Only 14% of the parents reported that none of their children had received immunizations. Eighty-six percent of the parents who completely exempted their children from vaccines stated that the main reason they do not vaccinate their children is concern over adverse effects. Many parents indicated that they allow their children to receive only some vaccines because of concern about the way certain vaccines are produced.

https://publications.aap.org/pediat...erimmunization-in-Ohio-s-Amish-Parental-Fears

(I can see some potential issues with the way this study relied on responses from a minority of parents who were mailed questionnaires -- do those Amish parents who decide to return such a questionnaire represent a valid sample of Amish parents? Still, vaccination is certainly not unknown among the Amish. It is interesting to note, though, that the primary reasons listed for vaccine avoidance were not religious, they were the same sort of concerns the anti-medicine crowd drums up among everybody else...)

Second, autism occurs among the Amish:

This study presents preliminary data on the estimated prevalence of ASD among the Amish in two Amish dominant counties as part of a larger epidemiological study. All children between ages 3 to 21 in those counties will be screened for the presence of an ASD.

...

Preliminary data have identified the presence of ASD in the Amish community at a rate of approximately 1 in 271 children using standard ASD screening and diagnostic tools although some modifications may be in order. Further studies are underway to address the cultural norms and customs that may be playing a role in the reporting style of caregivers, as observed by the ADI. Accurate determination of the ASD phenotype in the Amish is a first step in the design of genetic studies of ASD in this population.

https://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2010/webprogram/Paper7336.html

Therefore, claiming that the Amish represent evidence of anything at all based on (1)claiming that they are not being vaccinated and (2) claiming that they do no have any autism is wrong -- regardless of what belief it is supposed to be evidence of, as neither claimed statement making up the evidence is true.

 

[Landru]

3) JAMA large study finding acetaminophen metabolites in newborns and finding a strong association for both ADHD and ASD
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2753512

Cord biomarkers of fetal exposure to acetaminophen were associated with significantly increased risk of childhood ADHD and ASD in a dose-response fashion. Our findings support previous studies regarding the association between prenatal and perinatal acetaminophen exposure and childhood neurodevelopmental risk and warrant additional investigations.

Sibling controls do not seem to be factored.

Article:

Question Does acetaminophen use during pregnancy increase children's risk of neurodevelopmental disorders?

Findings In this population-based study, models without sibling controls identified marginally increased risks of autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) associated with acetaminophen use during pregnancy. However, analyses of matched full sibling pairs found no evidence of increased risk of autism (hazard ratio, 0.98), ADHD (hazard ratio, 0.98), or intellectual disability (hazard ratio, 1.01) associated with acetaminophen use.

Meaning Acetaminophen use during pregnancy was not associated with children's risk of autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability in sibling control analyses. This suggests that associations observed in other models may have been attributable to confounding.

Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2817406

 

[Ann K]

Multiple studies show a strong correlation between Tylenol and autism.

Are you sure about that? A search pulls up article after article saying that there is a weak correlation (or none) but, as others have pointed out, no causative link has been found.

(Brian) Lee's study, conducted in Sweden, did not have access to genetic data. But it did have a massive trove of health records of nearly 2.5 million children born in Sweden between 1995 and 2019, as well as the health records of entire families. As a result, it was able to account for genetics by comparing siblings, who have significant genetic similarities—something that previous studies linking Tylenol and autism did not.

Like studies that preceded it, Lee's research initially found a small association between Tylenol use and autism when they compared members of the general population. But when looking at siblings within the same family where the mom took acetaminophen for one pregnancy and not another, that increased risk "completely disappeared," says Lee. "There was no evidence to say that there was any effect whatsoever."

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-evidence-on-tylenol-and-autism