Kenvue stock drops on report RFK Jr will link autism to Tylenol during pregnancy

2025-09-0521:56166406www.cnbc.com

HHS will release the report that could draw that link between the pain medication and autism this month, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Kenvue Inc. Tylenol brand pain reliever for sale at a pharmacy in New York, US, on Wednesday, March 27, 2024.

Shares of Kenvue fell more than 10% on Friday after a report that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will likely link autism to the use of the company's pain medication Tylenol in pregnant women. 

HHS will release the report that could draw that link this month, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

That report will also suggest a medicine derived from folate – a water-soluble vitamin – can be used to treat symptoms of the developmental disorder in some people, according to the Journal.

In a statement, an HHS spokesperson said "We are using gold-standard science to get to the bottom of America's unprecedented rise in autism rates." 

"Until we release the final report, any claims about its contents are nothing more than speculation," they added. 

Tylenol could be the latest widely used and accepted treatment that Kennedy has undermined at the helm of HHS, which oversees federal health agencies that regulate drugs and other therapies. Kennedy has also taken steps to change vaccine policy in the U.S., and has amplified false claims about safe and effective shots that use mRNA technology.

Kennedy has made the disorder a key focus of HHS, pledging in April that the agency will "know what has caused the autism epidemic" by September and eliminate exposures. He also said that month that the agency has launched a "massive testing and research effort" involving hundreds of scientists worldwide that will determine the cause.

In a statement, Kenvue said it has "continuously evaluated the science and [continues] to believe there is no causal link" between the use of acetaminophen, the generic name for Tylenol, during pregnancy and autism.

The company added that the Food and Drug Administration and leading medical organizations "agree on the safety" of the drug, its use during pregnancy and the information provided on the Tylenol label.

The FDA website says the agency has not found "clear evidence" that appropriate use of acetaminophen during pregnancy causes "adverse pregnancy, birth, neurobehavioral, or developmental outcomes." But the FDA said it advises pregnant women to speak with their health-care providers before using over-the-counter drugs.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists maintains that acetaminophen is safe during pregnancy when taken as directed and after consulting a health-care provider. 

Some previous studies have suggested the drug poses risks to fetal development, and some parents have brought lawsuits claiming that they gave birth to children with autism after using it.

But a federal judge in Manhattan ruled in 2023 that some of those lawsuits lacked scientific evidence and later ended the litigation in 2024. Some research has also found no association between acetaminophen use and autism.

In a note on Friday, BNP Paribas analyst Navann Ty said the firm believes the "hurdle to proving causation [between the drug and autism] is high, particularly given that the litigation previously concluded in Kenvue's favor."

-- CNBC's Angelica Peebles contributed to this report.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By kosma 2025-09-0618:2812 reply

    There is research correlating autism and mothers taking certain medications (painkillers, antidepressants). Since autism is hereditary, there is a significant chance that these mothers are autistic too. Autistic people have a vastly high risk of depression, and often have unusual pain thresholds, requiring more painkillers. I would not be surprised of the correlation was real, but the direction of action was reversed; after all, it's plausible that autism causes the need for taking more medication.

    • By steve1977 2025-09-0621:242 reply

      This was my thought as well. I’m likely on the spectrum (as I have learned recently, because of my kids) and I would consider myself hypersensitive. To a variety of sensory inputs - noise, smell, touch, heat, cold, tickling and probably also pain. The latter being hard to quantify of course.

      But I could certainly imagine that a mother with autistic traits could be someone who takes painkillers more often than the average person.

      • By unyttigfjelltol 2025-09-0622:40

        That’s very interesting! I’ve been sleuthing for personal reasons and I’ve recently arrived at the central nervous system element called the nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS), which integrates sensory processes including pain reception. I’m tracing a particular activator of the mineralocorticoid receptors for which NTS has special relevance, but the end target overall seems to be mTOR in the NTS, which isn’t so niche and is studied in autism.

      • By elcritch 2025-09-0622:531 reply

        It seems that higher sensitivity to pain could be a very plausible cause. I believe there's studies showing lowered (and altered) pain tolerance with autism.

        Though I'd expect that if aspirin did have an affect that it'd change the prevalence or severity of autism in children having genes related to autism.

        There'd be a first order correction fornthe likelihood that aspirin is causitive by controlling for increased ibuprofen and tylonol usage as well. The second order correction would be whether autistic people were more likely to use aspirin over ibuprofen or tylonol, etc.

        • By giardini 2025-09-070:091 reply

          Aspirin???!! Its not mentioned in the OP. No one here mentioned it. WTF???!

          • By elcritch 2025-09-072:281 reply

            Ugh yeah, s/aspirin/Tylenol/. My brain always wants to call Tylenol and acetaminophen as generic "aspirins" and it's a hard habit to break. Joys of having ADHD I didn't even notice the switch.

            Nevertheless, comparing the observed correlations of Tylenol with aspirin and ibuprofen would be the first thing to check. Seems unlikely to me that the OP's suggestion could be controlled for that way. I'll be curious if Kennedy's report checks those basic things.

            • By steve1977 2025-09-074:55

              One important point here is that NSAIDs like aspirin and ibuprofen should be avoided at least in the second half of pregnancy. Acetaminophen is usually the “go to” painkiller for pregnant women, which of course skews the result.

    • By WarOnPrivacy 2025-09-0621:281 reply

      > Since autism is hereditary, there is a significant chance that these mothers are autistic too.

      Yep. Two of my 5 are clearly HFA (1 diagnosed) and another shows strong indications. My wife and I have numerous family members that are somewhere on the spectrum. It's how this works.

      • By flakeoil 2025-09-086:561 reply

        How can one know it is due to DNA or how the brain works versus learned behaviour? I suppose it is possible to learn different traits and behaviour from parents so that the offspring behave in an autistic way even if they are not "physically" autistic.

        • By throwuxiytayq 2025-09-0811:482 reply

          Heritability can be studied, you know.

          • By kelipso 2025-09-0812:391 reply

            It's actually very difficult to prove that something is genetically heritable vs heritable through other means including diet, medicines, etc. Especially when you want to account for effects in the womb, where you can't do twin studies. Even things like height and IQ, it's not clear how the heritability is passed on, much less something as complicated as high functioning autism.

            • By throwuxiytayq 2025-09-0814:102 reply

              Science is difficult, yes. Otherwise, no. We know a lot and with high certainty.

              I think it’s harmful to pretend that reality is inscrutable and that science struggles to give answers. It’s fuel for the RFK Jr type of societal parasite.

              • By tptacek 2025-09-090:43

                We do not in fact know with high certainty the amount of genetic causality in IQ (or the broad validity of IQ itself, but stipulate that isn't a problem). Molecular genetics has shaken things up over the last 8-10 years.

              • By kelipso 2025-09-0815:172 reply

                Pretending that we know a lot about something with high certainty so that you can get a one up on RFK Jr types is much more harmful, especially on the long term. The anti RFK Jr types end up being distrusted and put in the same bucket as the RFK Jr types for spreading misinformation.

                • By jjk166 2025-09-0823:511 reply

                  There are people distrustful of those who proclaim the earth round. There is no threshold of certainty where unreasonable skepticism will be eliminated, science is a tool for the reasonable.

                  • By kelipso 2025-09-090:581 reply

                    I don’t see how you can talk about science being a tool for the reasonable while advocating for “pro-science” misinformation.

                    • By jjk166 2025-09-0915:57

                      It's not misinformation. Reasonable people know that science determining something is true only means the current evidence strongly indicates its true, and that future results may call anything into question, but we should not expect any particular current finding to be false. It is misinformation to characterize the lack of absolute certainty, which is something science can never produce, as indicative that claims differing from the scientific consensus are equally supported by the evidence.

                      You don't need to worry about people losing trust in science because science does not require trust. Those who are unsatisfied with anything less than certainty need something other than science.

                • By throwuxiytayq 2025-09-0816:031 reply

                  Cool story, but I don’t really lose any sleep over anti-science idiots prompting themselves into sustained relevance over the long term, short term, or even the next electoral term, really.

                  • By kelipso 2025-09-0820:26

                    Maybe you would lose sleep over “pro-science” idiots going into sustained irrelevance as they spread their misinformation.

          • By tptacek 2025-09-090:44

            Heritability != DNA.

    • By azinman2 2025-09-0622:313 reply

      According to my friend who is a geneticist, 30% of cases of autism can be found in DNA. Clearly not all cases are.

      • By ellisv 2025-09-0623:361 reply

        It's important to note our understanding is far from complete. There may be more genes associated with autism than we currently know. So 30% of cases may have a known genetic factor but that doesn't mean 70% don't have a genetic component.

        • By azinman2 2025-09-071:421 reply

          True. But we’ve also seen environmental correlations as well, as well as things like age of the father, etc.

          • By ellisv 2025-09-0715:23

            This is also explained as a genetic factor as chromosomal abnormalities and replication errors are more frequent although cumulative environmental exposures may also play a role.

      • By sheepybloke 2025-09-071:161 reply

        That's what our genetic councilor said as well. It's important to note autism is a spectrum and quite varied, some of it genetic and some of it related to other factors.

        • By elcritch 2025-09-072:33

          I've read some studies which suggest there's a variety of genes which are linked to autism as well as link to both autism and ADHD. I believe those genes are linked to how different brain circuits interact.

          It makes a lot of sense given with I've seen talked a lot about in autism and adhd groups, with some symptoms overlapping.

      • By matt-attack 2025-09-0714:20

        Well diagnosing autism is incredibly subjective anyway. It’s not like a broken arm.

    • By hbcondo714 2025-09-0623:231 reply

      > Since autism is hereditary

      Do you have a scientific source for this?

      • By jamedjo 2025-09-0623:292 reply

        Twin studies are a classic demonstration of this: comparing identical twins to non-identical twins lets us prove a genetic component.

        https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=669...

        • By kelipso 2025-09-0812:42

          You cannot do twin studies for effects in the womb. It's the same womb!

        • By hbcondo714 2025-09-0623:352 reply

          Thanks but this is only one study and they even conclude that some non-genetic factors may also contribute to causing autism

          There are many causes of autism. Research suggests that autism spectrum disorder (ASD) develops from a combination of:

          Genetic influences and

          Environmental influences, including social determinants

          Source: https://www.autismspeaks.org/what-causes-autism

          • By jamedjo 2025-09-070:121 reply

            My link isn't a study it's a layman's terms explanation, but there are lots of studies. Your link mentions a meta analysis of 7 studies concluding that up to 90% is genetic.

            Yes environmental factors are there too, otherwise it would be 100%, but there's enough evidence pointing to genetics that it is really disappointing when people try to find spurious links to false causes instead.

            • By skybrian 2025-09-070:58

              Possibly of interest:

              What heritability actually means https://dynomight.substack.com/p/heritable

              > I couldn’t help but notice that there’s near-universal confusion about what “heritable” means. Partly, that’s because it’s a subtle concept. But it also seems relevant that almost all explanations of heritability are very, very confusing.

              For example, they say speaking Turkish isn’t heritable but speaking English is. Weird!

              > Heritability can be high even when genes have no direct causal effect. It can be low even when there is a strong direct effect. It changes when the environment changes. It even changes based on how you group people together. It can be larger than 100% or even undefined.

          • By Der_Einzige 2025-09-0715:09

            Autism speaks is a spiritually evil organization and the fact that you unironically linked them implies that you wish to wage cognitive warfare against all autistic people. Autistic people will respond by making sure you reincarnate as a durian fruit.

    • By SapporoChris 2025-09-071:34

      Do you have any links to the research to back you claims?

    • By cyanydeez 2025-09-0723:51

      tl;dr: Spurious correlation machines produces results. Pirates and Climate change surprisingly disagree.

    • By jeffbee 2025-09-0618:39

      [flagged]

    • By temptemptemp111 2025-09-0621:54

      [dead]

    • By beefnugs 2025-09-0620:471 reply

      [flagged]

      • By gtowey 2025-09-0621:102 reply

        With the current political climate, I think we are more likely to find the Health Department promoting cigarettes as a healthy way to relax.

        • By smt88 2025-09-076:36

          I don't blame you for being too frustrated by RFK to look into him, but this isn't quite his brand of stupidity.

          He's obsessed with "pollutants" in the broadest possible sense. That's why he crusaded against environmental pollutors for most of his adult life.

          He also rejects germ theory in favor of the idea that disease is caused by environmental pollution getting into the body.

          That's why he supports a return to (his broken understanding) of "natural" living.

        • By actionfromafar 2025-09-0621:54

          Or at least take protection money for not talking down certain brands.

    • By devwastaken 2025-09-0618:503 reply

      [flagged]

      • By 1shooner 2025-09-0619:341 reply

        > the industrial revolution has corrupted the human genome far more than we can measure.

        Ok, but do you have any objective measure to back up this claim?

        • By exe34 2025-09-0619:44

          he already hedged his bets with "more than we can measure", so it's a religious statement, not a scientific one.

      • By mschuster91 2025-09-0619:191 reply

        > there is no evidence of gene expression for autism.

        The fact that we haven't identified candidate genes for autism and a bunch of other mental health issues doesn't mean these aren't hereditary or have hereditary triggers that make outbreaks easier.

        > if anything it is epigenetic caused by environmental pollutants and hormone exposure

        Doubtful. The difference to older times is, we now properly diagnose mental health issues instead of just labeling affected people as "loons", locking them away in institutions or, like it happened with witch-burnings and in the NS Aktion T4, outright murder them.

        • By ricardobeat 2025-09-0620:081 reply

          You don't have to identify the root cause for that though, all it takes is studying the prevalence of a disease across family trees, that would be evidence of genetic expression.

          • By wizzwizz4 2025-09-0621:05

            Autism appears to be hereditary, but the eugenicists haven't identified a genetic component (nor have any other researchers, who are admittedly less motivated to find one). We're pretty sure that autism is a developmental condition, but the correlations with other things are… weird. (Off-hand: fœtal androgen and œstrogen levels, some chromosomal disorders, some mitochondrial disorders, a handful of rare single-point mutations, maternal autoantibodies, gut flora, something something oxidative stress (doesn't replicate, but keeps coming up).) Maybe they all tie into a "single cause" somehow, but… well, there's no single cause for eye colour (developmentally a much simpler trait), so the whole idea that autism is a deviation from the baseline, explicably attributable to a single factor, is somewhat of an article of faith.

      • By wizzwizz4 2025-09-0619:01

        Your first sentence is correct, but your second sentence is not.

    • By duskwuff 2025-09-0618:498 reply

      [flagged]

      • By adrr 2025-09-0619:121 reply

        Sure it can. Type 2 diabetes is both hereditary and lifestyle/behavioral influenced . Same with cancer, if you have cancer in your family your risk of getting cancer is higher. I would say most medical issues are both. Heart disease, gout, obesity, hypertension,strokes,asthma etc.

        • By duskwuff 2025-09-0620:332 reply

          Let me put this a bit differently: Type 2 diabetes is both genetic and can be acquired during one's life (e.g. through bad dietary choices). But a man who develops diabetes does not acquire genetic T2D by doing so - he cannot pass it on directly to his children.

          • By bsder 2025-09-0622:53

            > But a man who develops diabetes does not acquire genetic T2D by doing so - he cannot pass it on directly to his children.

            Epigenetic changes absolutely can be passed to children even over multiple generations--this is already proven.

            Which epigenetic changes are caused by T2D and whether they predispose the next generation to T2D would be the question.

          • By fooker 2025-09-0621:351 reply

            You could get a Nobel prize or two by proving this statement.

            How we pass on acquired traits to offspring is not well understood at all. We know there’s a mechanism, but not how it works or how selective it is.

      • By VikingCoder 2025-09-0620:221 reply

        Check out epigenetics.

        "Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression that occur without altering the underlying DNA sequence. These changes, also known as epigenetic modifications, affect how genes are turned "on" or "off" and are influenced by factors like environment, lifestyle, and aging."

        • By knicholes 2025-09-0622:092 reply

          Himalayan rabbits having black fur where their skin is cold and white fur where it's warm is a useful and obvious example of this.

          • By duskwuff 2025-09-0622:241 reply

            That's a separate effect, known as acromelanism, or "point coloration". It's the result of an enzyme which is inactivated by higher temperatures, not a genetic change - the extent of pointing can change over an animal's lifetime, and the specific pattern isn't inherited. (For instance, if you somehow convinced a cat with color pointing to wear a sweater, its fur would stay light under that sweater, but any offspring it had would not inherit that pattern.)

            • By malfist 2025-09-0622:411 reply

              A better example might be how some animals (turtles in particular) have their sex defined by their egg temperature

              • By duskwuff 2025-09-0623:381 reply

                That isn't a genetic change either, though. Those species of turtle either lack the typical sex-determining chromosomes entirely, or have sex-determining chromosomes which can be inactivated during development. The genotype doesn't change as a result of what temperature the egg is incubated at; its expression does.

                Further reading: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/07/210726102148.h...

                • By malfist 2025-09-0712:38

                  That's exactly the point. Gene expression can be modified by the environment

          • By Earw0rm 2025-09-0622:201 reply

            Are the imprinted patterns then inherited, though?

            • By knicholes 2025-09-072:14

              No. Sounds like I was wrong earlier.

      • By tracerbulletx 2025-09-0620:29

        It's literally almost always both.

      • By amanaplanacanal 2025-09-070:43

        You can have a genetic tendency to a certain outcome which is exacerbated by environmental factors. This is very common.

      • By creatonez 2025-09-0623:13

        That's exactly what autism is established to be... it has some genetic factors but it develops in the womb.

      • By gpderetta 2025-09-0618:57

        Reread the parent comment.

      • By perching_aix 2025-09-0618:57

        And so what doesn't make sense to you about those two sentences?

      • By wizzwizz4 2025-09-0619:01

        Polydactyly is both hereditary and acquired during development.

  • By docstryder 2025-09-0612:4710 reply

    It is the safest painkiller currently available. Ibuprofen can cause gut bleeding and renal issues if overdosed on. We all know about opiates. Some facts - typical adult dose is 1g. Max suggested cap on the drug label is 3g per day (about 6 pills at usual 500mg dose). You need to take 10g (20 pills) to be at real risk of hepatotoxicity.

    So 10 times the typical dose is when you have overdose effects. (basically 20 pills per day vs 2 pills per day).

    Not your "wildly unsafe at slightly above usage levels" AT ALL (as someone posted on here)

    This is not harmless - this might cause someone to take more dangerous painkillers when acetaminophen (tylenol) might have safely helped them. The autism stuff is plainly false and disproved.

    • By johnisgood 2025-09-0618:358 reply

      > We all know about opiates

      No, I do not think we do, because it causes none of the side-effects associated with NSAIDs, and it is even safer than acetaminophen, i.e. there is no risk of hepatotoxicity whatsoever. The only side-effect is euphoria. Please do not mention respiratory depression here, that is a non-issue, it matters as so much as liver failure matters with acetaminophen overdoses. Opiates are safer than any painkillers currently in existence, the problem is with impure products (i.e. not from the pharmacy), and people misusing / abusing them. They might as well abuse NSAIDs and acetaminophen, and the result is the same: harm. Taken therapeutically though, it is way safer than any other painkillers.

      So I am not sure what your intention was with that sentence, because sadly no, people do not realize the therapeutic safety profile.

      Tramadol is a nasty atypical opioid though, you could have singled that one out. It affects almost all receptors (serotonin, dopamine, etc.) there is, and it is one of the nastiest opioids out there, but that is why it is called an "atypical" opioid.

      Edit: I missed constipation as a side-effect, see my other comment.

      • By water-data-dude 2025-09-0619:202 reply

        "...the problem is with impure products and people misusing / abusing them."

        That second part "people misusing/abusing them" is a lot bigger than you're letting on. People can get hooked on opiates easily - a quick trip to Wikipedia turns up: "Long-term opioid use occurs in about 4% of people following their use for trauma or surgery-related pain" [1]. That's a pretty big knock-on effect! If you're prescribed opiates you're rolling the dice, and if you have the right mix of brain chemistry and genetics, you might be screwed.

        [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30063596/

        • By johnisgood 2025-09-0619:241 reply

          I do not disagree with that.

          > if you have the right mix of brain chemistry and genetics, you might be screwed.

          Right. I experience no euphoria whatsoever from any opiates (in any dose)[1]. Blessing or a curse? I personally call it a blessing because I have an addictive personality so I would get hooked up on it too. It works for my pain and my depression & anxiety, and for that I am grateful, all while not causing euphoria, all it seems to do is just mood stabilization, i.e. I am less likely to be emotionally volatile.

          The constipation side-effect can really be frustrating though, but thankfully I can manage it through diet and skipping doses.

          [1] It possibly has to do with my neuro{biology,chemistry} and my brain lesions but who knows. Psychiatric medications never affected me the way they typically affect others and I have gone through _a lot_. It might be genetic, metabolic (as well), I have no clue.

          • By plooooooop 2025-09-0814:27

            I had an opiate after surgery once and the constipation was so bad, it was worse than the pain it was supposed to be treating. I switched to Aleve instead, which was both better at pain management and had fewer side effects.

        • By mindslight 2025-09-0814:23

          When I had my wisdom teeth out, they gave me percocet (oxycodone + tylenol). "Take one every 4-6 hours." I split the pills in half and took one just as the pain was starting to come back, generally right after 2 hours. It worked great. Then after several days the pain started coming back in my knees and other joints. Wait... I don't generally have joint pain. I guess that's withdrawal from developing a tolerance, aka addiction. I quickly ramped down and stopped using them shortly thereafter.

          Of course it would be tempting to wax poetic about how I just needed to use my willpower to stop, and so can anyone else - just-world-fallacy while singing my own praises. But it's more honest to admit that while things worked out fine that time, control can be quite illusory. I wouldn't hesitate to use opiates again for extreme pain, but I sure would set up some social accountability systems beforehand.

      • By jrflowers 2025-09-0620:221 reply

        > The only side-effect is euphoria. Please do not mention respiratory depression here, that is a non-issue

        I like this point because it is complete gibberish. If you simply do not mention the side effect that makes a drug lethal, it sounds a lot like the drug does not have lethal side effects. Obviously we cannot do that with acetaminophen though, we must talk about hepatoxicity when it comes to that drug.

        On the one hand we have a drug that can cause both mental and physiological dependence and addiction (so what), has an admitted side effect that encourages some users to escalate their dosage beyond medical guidance (who cares), and can cause you to either stop breathing or aspirate and choke on your own vomit if you take too much (that part is a little tricky so we just proceed as if that is not the case)

        On the other hand you have a drug that is hepatoxic at several multiples of its recommended dosage. Obviously the second one is more dangerous becau

        • By johnisgood 2025-09-0620:272 reply

          You misunderstood me, then.

          Therapeutic doses of opiates do not cause respiratory depression, overdoses do, similarly to how acetaminophen overdoses cause hepatotoxicity, except this is not true, because regular consumption of acetaminophen causes hepatotoxicity, too, whereas opiates, when taken as prescribed, do not cause respiratory depression, in case of opiates, ONLY overdoses do, and therein lies the huge difference.

          And then we did not even mention NSAIDs which cause from ulcers to cardiovascular events, even if taken as prescribed.

          As for addiction, I would not like to get into the topic of addiction because a lot of people have an obsolete view on it and people already have their mind made up with regarding to it. Similarly to how my parents' generation think mental illnesses do not exist or that you can just "think away" depression.

          • By jrflowers 2025-09-0620:492 reply

            Oh I know that you’re correct, your phrasing was just hilarious.

            Under the caveats of a competent physician and a completely med-compliant patient, opiates are perfectly safe. Those are enormous caveats though, given the history and prevalence of incompetent physicians and noncompliant patients (at least in the US).

            Generally if you see someone complaining about opiates being dangerous, they’re likely factoring in opiates as things that exist in the context of society rather than a strictly clinical context. You can’t really use the reasoning of one context to dispute the other, it looks silly because you have to say stuff like “ignore all the deaths and the mechanism of those deaths”

            • By johnisgood 2025-09-0621:011 reply

              > Oh I know that you’re correct, your phrasing was just hilarious.

              My bad. :P

              But yeah, I agree. Eastern Europe is on the other spectrum with regarding to opiates. They do not even get prescribed codeine, regardless of severity of pain. You will get naproxen instead along with a possible stroke. :D

              > context of society

              I would hope so. According to my experiences here on HN, they (some people) just decided opiates are bad (because of "junkies") and that was it.

              But yeah, people made opiates look terrible and it is a bummer, it is another case of "this is why we can't have nice things". Kratom is legal here (for now) and people with pain use it, but probably will be taken away from them sooner or later.

              In any case, thanks for the reply, pleasantly surprising!

              • By vel0city 2025-09-0813:16

                Acetaminophen related deaths are a few hundred a year in the US.

                Opiate related deaths in the US have been around 50,000+/yr.

                I don't personally know anyone who has died from acetaminophen usage or even particularly injured. I personally know several people who had their lives nearly destroyed by opiate abuse, and a few others who have died. And it's not like I'm hanging out with junkies all the time.

            • By albedoa 2025-09-0620:561 reply

              I appreciate your sensible and articulate responses here.

          • By kelnos 2025-09-0622:081 reply

            I think you're missing the point, though. Patients are much more likely to abuse/misuse an opiate, leading to much more than the "therapeutic" dose being taken. But most people aren't going to overdose on ibuprofen or acetaminophen. If they do, it's because they've made a foolish decision ("the pain didn't go away with one pill, so if I take five maybe it will"). When it comes to opiates, taking too much will generally be because of a chemical dependence, not a conscious choice. Even if the ibuprofen overdose is a stupid choice, it's still a conscious one.

            > regular consumption of acetaminophen causes hepatotoxicity, too

            That would be misuse/abuse, though. The bottle label tells you to seek a doctor's advice if you need to take it longer than a certain period of time. Sure, people can fail to read that and not know about it, or just choose that the risk of complications is acceptable given their pain situation, but that's still not as bad as chemical dependence driving the decision-making.

            Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should ban opiates or never prescribe them, and I imagine the result of the backlash toward decades of over-prescribing has been a foolish swing to the other extreme. But I still don't think we should prefer opiates over ibuprofen/acetaminophen when the latter will do the job. Maybe that's not what you were arguing, but I do take issue with your suggestion that opiates are safer.

            • By johnisgood 2025-09-0811:02

              > taking too much will generally be because of a chemical dependence, not a conscious choice.

              This is an oversimplification and not universally true, but I do not wish to get into the details of it and addiction in general. We could brush away every decisions based on "chemical imbalances", too, if we so want. :)

              > we should prefer opiates over ibuprofen/acetaminophen when the latter will do the job

              Yes, after a careful risk assessment. If you are likely to get ulcers, or a stroke, or any cardiovascular events from NSAIDs, then you might want to consider something safer. Tylenol would be safer in this case, but what if that does not help with the pain at all? In any case, I do not necessarily disagree, and I was not advocating for blind consumption of opioids. If Tylenol works, take it with milk thistle (with high silybilin content) and you will be fine, even if you take it on the daily.

      • By kelnos 2025-09-0621:561 reply

        Abuse and misuse of opiates is the key problem though. "Just don't abuse them" isn't a solution. As far as I understand, ibuprofen and acetaminophen are not addictive, while opiates are.

        Opiates are only the best option if we ignore addiction, but we can't seriously do that.

        AFAICT, I don't tend toward addiction, but I would much prefer ibuprofen or acetaminophen over opiates; I know that I can use those responsibly and not overdose and damage my gut or my liver, but I don't have the same confidence toward opiates. Not to mention I can't get opiates without a prescription, while the others are available OTC. I'm not going to go to the doctor to get an opiates script just for a headache or minor-injury pain.

        I've been prescribed codeine before after minor surgery, and I was fine from the not-getting-addicted perspective, but wow does that drug mess with your brain. Sure, I'm not going to deprive myself of an effective painkiller when I really need it, but I'd rather not be in a fuzzy mental state if the pain is manageable with something else.

        • By johnisgood 2025-09-077:31

          I am sorry it made you feel fuzzy. I did not say it works for everyone. My grandma gets delirious from Tramadol, for example. Many people are just simply pain-free on it without getting "high", let alone delirious. I personally do not experience these mental symptoms of opiates so I have no first-hand experiences. I know what euphoria is like, I have taken MDMA, but opiates works more peripherally for me, even the ones that are supposed to pass the CNS greatly.

          Of course, I think, ultimately it is for you to decide whether it is worth the risk (feeling fuzzy) or not. It is not for me to decide what works for you. :)

      • By nkrisc 2025-09-0620:321 reply

        > The only side-effect is euphoria.

        > …

        > the problem is with […] people misusing / abusing them.

        I think these two facts are inextricably linked, and is what makes them indirectly dangerous for some people.

        • By johnisgood 2025-09-0620:521 reply

          I do not disagree.

          Ultimately, it is "pick your poison[1]".

          [1] Or others will pick it for you (control, regulation, whatever). You said "some people", which is true. I do not experience euphoria from opiates and I am sure I am not alone with this. In my case it is a blessing because I do have an addictive personality. Some other people do not get psychologically addicted to opiates despite euphoria. There is a great study, I think if you search for "rat park study", you can find it. The whole topic is complicated anyways, so I will just say that yeah, you are right, generally speaking.

          • By Spivak 2025-09-0621:261 reply

            I think the stronger point of what you're saying is if you can set yourself to avoid addiction—you have a time limited dose, you have no means of acquiring more—then opiate painkillers are the safest option in terms of potential damage to your body.

            There's no avoiding it when it comes to some people's chronic pain but it's a tragedy we've ruined the reputation for opiate painkillers because they were prescribed for long periods which all but guarantees addiction. Folks in US hospitals have to unnecessarily suffer short term acute pain because squeamishness around prescribing effective painkillers in a situation where there's virtually no risk.

            • By johnisgood 2025-09-077:26

              Thank you. This is what I essentially meant. See, this is what I meant by someone being able to express my thoughts better than I could ever hope for, so again, thank you!

      • By zeven7 2025-09-0714:542 reply

        If the safest drug is also the one most prone to misuse, and misuse makes it unsafe, then it is no longer the safest drug. The reason society should be wary is precisely because people misuse it on a scale that vastly eclipses garden variety drugs like acetaminophen.

      • By xeromal 2025-09-0618:383 reply

        They do cause constipation

        • By johnisgood 2025-09-0618:40

          You are right. It varies a lot though by different opioids and dosage plays a major role, too.

          Morphine causes more constipation than oxycodone does, for example (not to mention IR vs ER formulations), and in some people morphine causes more sedation and oxycodone might be more stimulant-ish, so they may be opioids / opiates, but they can be significantly different.

          That said, constipation can indeed be a major issue, especially in the elderly, but they are most likely are already taking or being given laxatives.

          For adults without any GI problems, they can safely be on a better diet and take magnesium citrate before they want to defecate (if they have no kidney issues either). It takes 4-12 hours for magnesium citrate to work. There is an even better form of magnesium, but magnesium citrate should be fine, along with prunes or prune jam, lots of hydration and so forth.

          I take opiates for pain, and the way I manage constipation (which is indeed frustrating) is through diet (fibre, prune jam, and so forth) and skipping two days (of the ER formulation) if I have no stool for a few days, along with taking magnesium citrate. I would not recommend taking opiates AND laxatives all the time (or rather, I do not recommend treating OIC with regular consumption of laxatives). Constipation would not be a problem with lower doses and IR formulations though, or much less so.

          Just FWIW, if you can pass gass, your bowels are not obstructed, and it is a good sign, so if you take opiates, pay attention to that. If you cannot pass gas and you have abdominal pain, then it can easily become a medical emergency. You should not get to this point though, either by taking less, switching to a different formulation (ER -> IR), or switching to a different opioid, along with a better diet.

          Additionally, if you do not take opioids (especially ER ones) on a regular basis (similarly to how some people only take NSAIDs once in a while), then constipation is not going to be an issue at all.

          I hope this answers your concerns regarding opioid-induced constipation.

        • By davidw 2025-09-0618:501 reply

          And nausea. Yuck.

          • By johnisgood 2025-09-0619:022 reply

            Some people have it. Some do not. I have taken very large amounts of opiates before and I have never ever experienced nausea from them. I think you are not likely to experience it at lower doses from say, codeine or hydrocodone either, but honestly, it varies by individuals.

            It would suck if I experienced nausea, and it would equally suck if I experienced euphoria from opiates, because I have an addictive personality. Thankfully I do not experience euphoria at all from opiates.

            BTW I remember having ulcers from NSAIDs before, that is yuck, too. I ended up vomiting blood and I had to be admitted to the hospital. I think I would choose constipation (which can be managed) over this. But yeah, if opiates caused nausea for me, I would not take them for sure.

            Ultimately, people should figure out what works for them and stick to it. Unfortunately it might work until it does not, i.e. causes harm. Some people get no ulcers from taking NSAIDs on the daily, and I did just from a few days of taking it (and it was not even naproxen!). :| I am also allergic to metamizole which is the most common painkiller around here (Algopyrin, Optalgin). For my grandma, it seems to work best for her, although she may want to try pregabalin, as her pain is neuropathic (too). She was given tramadol not that long ago and she got somewhat delirious. They probably gave it to her deliberately because she was making a scene at the hospital.

            • By _rm 2025-09-0813:14

              > I have taken very large amounts of opiates before

              > I have an addictive personality

              I take it this means: "I was a heroin junkie"?

            • By AndyPa32 2025-09-0621:282 reply

              The risk of NSAID ulcers can be vastly reduced by Pantoprazole (Protonix®)

              • By catlikesshrimp 2025-09-073:58

                You can see blood that you vomit, But NSAIDs also cause kidney damage, which you don't realize until it is extensive. Lost nephrons don't come back.

              • By johnisgood 2025-09-077:34

                I know, and there is something called Venter (sucrate). Combining both works best.

        • By wilkystyle 2025-09-0619:101 reply

          The silent killer

          • By johnisgood 2025-09-0619:22

            I would say it is not so silent, bowel obstruction is very painful which you feel even if you are on opiates. In any case, I hope my other comment proves to be helpful to those taking opiates if they do not already know what to do or pay attention to.

      • By _rm 2025-09-0813:10

        Possible that this is an elaborate defence of an addict - addiction being the known major problem with them?

      • By slenk 2025-09-0619:461 reply

        Tylenol isn't addictive. Every opiate is. Even as an alcoholic having to get surgery terrifies me because of how addictive opiates is and that is all doctors push now-a-days.

        eta this is nothing to do with purity of the product. I never heard of someone selling themselves for Tylenol/acetaminophen

        • By johnisgood 2025-09-0620:10

          That is an oversimplification, and there are many studies out there proving that people receiving opiates at the hospital do not get psychologically addicted to it, if you are talking about that.

          And surely I am not alone with not experiencing euphoria from opiates. It is probably a low % of people though, I do not deny that.

          > purity of the product

          Overdoses and negative public perception does have to do with that though.

    • By giardini 2025-09-0617:151 reply

      My mom gave me one 325 mg aspirin dissolved in a spoon of water and a little sugar as a tot - it was tasty!

      I took the typical two 325 mg aspirin for headache thru college and grad school.

      Years later I had a cracked rib and was prescribed 800 mg ibufprofen twice daily. The rib pain vanished for the duration (and my swim times improved significantly)! I became a convert to Advil.

      Years later I'm older and minimize my painkillers - most of the time I take nothing but coffee. But if sudden brain pain strikes I take either baby aspirin, ibuprofen, or "Headache Relief", a witches' brew sold by many vendors (typically ~250 mg acetaminophen, 250 mg aspirin and caffeine). So I'm hedging my bets!

      If I must use something every day then I use baby aspirin (if worried about heart/circulatory issues) or ibuprofen (if worried about pain). When I need to think clearly (most the time) I avoid acetaminophen.

      IMHO people overestimate the "gut bleeding" risk from NSAIDS.

      • By _DeadFred_ 2025-09-0618:082 reply

        Isn't it highly recommended to not give Aspirin to young people because of Reye’s syndrome risks?

        • By closewith 2025-09-0618:42

          Yes, contraindicated for under-16s everywhere I've worked.

        • By SoftTalker 2025-09-0618:32

          For flu/fever it’s not recommended. Of course that’s mostly when you would give kids aspirin. Little kids don’t usually get headaches.

    • By manoDev 2025-09-070:523 reply

      There is a “better” painkiller than both Tylenol and Ibuprofen (Metamizol), but it has been forbidden on the US based on a study attributing strong side-effects to it, despite it being freely available over the counter on multiple countries for decades without issue.

      If this study is true, it should be easy to compare prevalence of autism on these countries that don’t rely on Tylenol.

      • By owenversteeg 2025-09-084:34

        It's not just banned in the US; it's also banned in France, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Iran, and Canada among others. It is legal OTC in India, the former USSR, China, Mexico, and most of South and Central America. It is the most popular prescribed pain reliever in Germany and the most popular OTC drug in Brazil. It is popular in Spain as well.

        Metamizole is actually a very interesting case, to me, as the associated risk is quite strange. It is legal and popular OTC for the majority of the world population; in the countries where it is legal, there are few deaths from the native population. Among tourists who consume it, however, mortality is unusually high. The Spanish health ministry declared in 2018 that it should not be used in the "floating population", including tourists. There may be a genetic component involving Anglo-Saxons. See: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/nov/26/painkiller-b...

        Here's a map of its availability: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Metamizole_(Dipyrone...

      • By Aloisius 2025-09-071:24

        There's far more than one study now linking metamizole to agranulocytosis.

    • By paulvnickerson 2025-09-0620:23

      > The autism stuff is plainly false and disproved.

      If you consider the relevant research you might think differently: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/using-acetaminophen-during-pre...

    • By FirmwareBurner 2025-09-0612:593 reply

      I'm sorry but as a non American I can only think about Rehab Officer Tylenol Jones from the Idiocracy movie since that's the first time I heard about Tylenol without knowing it's a drug, and in the movie everyone had well known American brands as their names due to overreach of corporate marketing into society, but that part of the satire went over my head as a European kid back then, thinking Tylenol was just a person's name and not a drug.

      I wonder if Americans know how much of their society and culture bled incompletely into other countries via movies. Like for example after communism fell the youth here got hooked on American rap and hip-hop so we were using slang from those songs like friends calling each other the N word without knowing the context behind it since that's how black rappers addressed each other and they were rock stars here.

      • By kelnos 2025-09-0622:18

        > I wonder if Americans know how much of their society and culture bled incompletely into other countries via movies.

        As with anything, it depends. I'd never heard specifically of your Tylenol example, though I'm generally aware of the idea that (pop-)cultural references often won't be understood when viewed/heard by audiences with different cultural context.

        But I think many people in the US just don't think about it, because they don't need to and it never occurs to them. If you told them your story, they'd just think "huh, that's funny; makes sense, but I never thought about it that way".

      • By KPGv2 2025-09-0622:09

        >I wonder if Americans know how much of their society and culture bled incompletely into other countries via movies.

        the unbridled joy when a non american sees a red Solo cup irl for the first time

        "i thought it was just a thing in movies!!"

      • By triyambakam 2025-09-0620:18

        There's a Rammstein song, „we all live in Amerika, Coca-Cola, wunderbar!”

    • By s5300 2025-09-0612:53

      [dead]

    • By swed420 2025-09-0614:332 reply

      [flagged]

      • By cosmic_cheese 2025-09-0619:20

        I feel like I might be stepping on a land mine here, but it’s important to note that even if they don’t prevent transmission, vaccines are important for reducing severity and length of illness and have value as a second line of defense, even for those wearing N95’s in high risk circumstances (such as air travel).

        Research to develop more effective countermeasures should continue of course, precisely because current vaccines aren’t a full solution. I keep hoping to hear good news about those inhaled vaccines that’ve been in development.

      • By tim333 2025-09-0616:261 reply

        I'm not sure "the press manufactured consent for never-ending COVID reinfections" so much as people figured it would become another cold like the other four coronaviruses, regardless of what anyone wants.

        • By swed420 2025-09-0616:311 reply

          [flagged]

          • By tim333 2025-09-0616:351 reply

            It it was like that it would be a US specific thing but basically every country on earth has mostly stopped worrying about COVID.

            • By swed420 2025-09-0616:501 reply

              Agreed, and guess how many countries prior to COVID followed our CDC's lead? The answer is most of them.

              The fact remains that people are slowly waking up to this and altering their behavior even into 2025, since it's not always too late to do so. You can see this in the steady growth of the /r/ZeroCovidCommunity subreddit.

              • By tim333 2025-09-0618:39

                That's kind of interesting - I didn't know the ZeroCovidCommunity existed.

    • By themafia 2025-09-0619:051 reply

      > the safest painkiller currently available

      Likewise I find it one of the least _effective_ painkillers on the market.

      • By throwaway2037 2025-09-075:201 reply

        What do you prefer?

        • By themafia 2025-09-0719:07

          Given the side effects for the low level of pain that it can handle?

          Nothing.

          Narcotic analgesics are a godsend when you actually need them.

  • By paulvnickerson 2025-09-0620:157 reply

    Here's the relevant study from earlier this year: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/using-acetaminophen-during-pre...

    It's a meta-analysis that considered a bunch of individual studies, their effect size, and their quality. It claims that Tylenol use has increased alongside a 20-fold increase in autism rates, suggesting causation, and recommends immediate efforts to reduce Tylenol use during pregnancy.

    One objection that I've seen is that the lead author, Dr. Baccarelli, has a conflict of interest because he was an expert witness in a lawsuit about acetaminophen and neurodevelopmental disorders. If you think about it though, someone knowledgeable enough to write this paper is exactly the kind of person you'd want to serve as an expert witness.

    • By rainsford 2025-09-0621:091 reply

      The conclusion section of that very study says "...further research is needed to confirm these associations and determine causality and mechanisms" and "A causal relationship is plausible..." [emphasis added].

      In other words there is an association, but the study is not able to prove (or even suggest) causation. For example, it does not exclude the possibility that other factors that actually cause autism and Tylenol use are themselves linked. So Tylenol use could be correlated with autism but not a cause of it. In that case, pregnant women who would otherwise use Tylenol not doing so are not reducing the chance of autism. And as the study points out, failing to treat conditions that warrant Tylenol usage can also have negative pregnancy outcomes.

      • By AuryGlenz 2025-09-0821:501 reply

        Right, but there are plenty of things that can cause pain. It’s reasonable (although it also sucks) to tell women that they should avoid using Tylenol during pregnancy except for fevers in the short term.

        • By jjk166 2025-09-090:08

          As part of a scientific study, sure.

          As general medical advice, no, it's not reasonable. Acetaminophen provides real benefits, giving up those benefits requires actual proof of harm.

    • By crooked-v 2025-09-0620:381 reply

      I'm extremely suspicious of anything that looks at 'an increase in autism rates' without considering the same factors that have gone into there being 'more' left-handed people over the past 50 years or so. There are a lot of people in the past who 'weren't left handed' because they were punished as children if they showed left-handed behavior, and that's still a whole lot less stigmatized than autism.

    • By philjohn 2025-09-0620:43

      Has the study stratified for improved diagnosis? When I was a child in the 80's teachers weren't looking for the telltale signs, but you better believe there were autistic poeople, they just weren't diagnosed.

    • By janice1999 2025-09-0620:41

      > If you think about it though, someone knowledgeable enough to write this paper is exactly the kind of person you'd want to serve as an expert witness.

      Maybe, but the same was also true of the now disgraced Andrew Wakefield, although his conflict of interest was even greater since he didn't reveal his funding before publishing his original paper.

    • By ellisv 2025-09-0623:40

      Admittedly I haven't read the whole study. But how do they account for the confirmation bias in their review – the fact that null results typically aren't published. Studies that look at an intervention (Tylenol) and fail to find an association are less likely to include it as a variable in their model or less likely to publish a null finding.

    • By derbOac 2025-09-0712:54

      Reading the paper, I'm wondering why they didn't do an actual meta-analysis, to estimate average effect size or likelihood of publication bias. As it is, it's more of a systematic review.

      The studies in general they include are case control and prospective cohort studies, predicting neurobehavioral outcomes from paracetamol use retrospectively or prospectively.

      The most interesting ones to me are siblings control studies where they compare siblings with and without exposure or case status to control for unmeasured confounds like genetic or family environment variables.

      In those studies they reviewed there is still a link but it's much weaker, mostly limited to mothers using paracetamol for a month or more, and on measures not necessarily reflecting autism per se.

      That pattern to me is equally suggestive of something other than paracetamol being the causal factor. It could be reflective of a dose response relationship, but you also have to wonder about what else might be going on among women who feel compelled to take paracetamol for over a month at least during pregnancy.

      Maybe a paper to call for further better research but not exactly a clear causal link.

    • By DrillShopper 2025-09-0621:32

      > One objection that I've seen is that the lead author, Dr. Baccarelli, has a conflict of interest because he was an expert witness in a lawsuit about acetaminophen and neurodevelopmental disorders.

      Every charlatan researcher grifting on bogus autism data really is just copying Andrew Wakefield's homework

HackerNews