Trump links paracetamol use in pregnancy to increased risk in autism – here’s what the evidence says
Donald Trump has claimed the use of paracetamol in pregnancy is linked to an increased risk of autism – but what does the evidence say?
Americans consume more than 40% of all the world’s paracetamol, spending in excess of $4bn a year on products containing acetaminophen (as it is known in America – or by its leading brand name, Tylenol).
Autism rates in the US are also on the rise – going up from about one in 150 children in the year 2000, to around one in 30 today.
There have also been a number of well-publicised studies suggesting a correlation between mothers who took paracetamol during pregnancy and the birth of a child with autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD.
So surely something must be going on?
Well, not necessarily.
In studies that have suggested a link, the authors have been unable to show the drug itself led to autism instead of other factors.
These include: the genetics of the parents (autism’s genetic links are well established); the lifestyle or environment in which the mother lives; or most confounding of all, that the reason the mother was taking paracetamol – a viral infection perhaps – wasn’t a trigger rather than the drug itself.
A study showing a correlation is not the same as finding a cause.
Better understanding of autism has meant the criteria for diagnosing it have expanded over the last two decades to include far more people. Diagnoses may well be rising simply because we’re better at recognising it.
Tylenol is America’s leading brand name for paracetamol. Pic: AP
What’s more, there are numerous studies showing evidence of no link to paracetamol at all.
Chief among them is a huge study from last year that included 2.5 million children in Sweden.
In Sweden, a mother’s use of paracetamol during pregnancy is added to her medical records.
The researchers found a marginal increase in the risk of autism and paracetamol use by the mother. But crucially, when they included data for siblings born to the same mothers from pregnancies during which she took no paracetamol, the apparent link disappeared.
“Which provides a pretty strong evidence against the notion that paracetamol would cause harm,” said Dr Viktor Ahlqvist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, who led the study.
Paracetamol still recommended in UK
The study showed not only that paracetamol wasn’t linked to autism, but that other studies, with poorer quality data were prone to seeing a pattern that wasn’t there.
This balance of evidence is why health authorities, including here in the UK, are confident in recommending paracetamol for use in pregnancy.
In fact, it’s now recommended as the safest choice, as other painkillers – even ibuprofen – have been shown to cause potential or actual harm to mother or babies.
Talking up a link with the drug could anger people with autism or their parents, say experts. Pic: iStock
While most doctors would advise women only to take medicines in pregnancy when necessary, avoiding paracetamol could do more harm than good.
“While you’re pregnant, experiencing uncontrolled fevers or some of the side effects from pain, such as high blood pressure, will be a lot more detrimental to a developing baby and a mother than paracetamol will be,” said Dr Monique Botha, who studies bias in autism research at the University of Durham.
Talking up a link between autism and paracetamol is also likely to anger people with autism or their parents, suspects Dr Botha.
Read more from Sky News:
‘I forgive him’: Charlie Kirk’s wife delivers tearful message
AI-generated ‘minister’ makes debut in Albanian parliament
“Families with autistic children are often struggling with under-resourced care and someone standing up and declaring that they’ve potentially found the cause of autism – when it’s so misguided – isn’t going to change anything for them.”
Researchers worry too, that posing a link between a drug taken during pregnancy and autism adds unnecessary stigma to mothers of autistic children.
“We’ve seen this many, many times, going back to the scary stories of the 1960s, that the blame is usually on the mother and parents where a child has a condition,” said Dr Ahlqvist.
“With this current [US] administration, they’re again pointing the finger at mothers, when we have no substantial evidence to suggest that this is the case.”
So, if paracetamol doesn’t cause autism, what’s causing the Trump administration to talk about it?
With echoes of previous, and all too real, drug scandals like thalidomide, it’s the kind of story to generate controversy by association – however false.
And the Trump White House has form when it comes to finding issues to distract from genuine controversies surrounding the president.
The story also fits a key theme of US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr’s policy moves – like on childhood vaccines — that stem from his belief that children are being harmed by an overmedicated America.
But the whole point of science is that it doesn’t care what you believe, it’s about what the best quality evidence tells you.
So far, there’s been precious little of that behind the latest changes in US health policy.
Donald Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for $1bn over edits the organisation made last year to one of his speeches.
The organisation has been engulfed in a crisis, forced to apologise on Monday after two of its most senior figures, including the director-general, resigned on Sunday night.
The defamation claim centres around a BBC Panorama documentary, which aired October 2024 and showed an edited speech made by Mr Trump before the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, in which he appeared to tell his supporters he was going to walk with them to the US Capitol and “fight like hell”.
In a letter dated 9 November, Florida-based lawyer Alejandro Brito set the BBC a deadline of 10pm UK time on Friday to respond, outlining three demands:
• Issue a “full and fair retraction” of the documentary
• Apologise immediately
• “Appropriately compensate” the US president
He told the BBC it needed to “comply” or face being sued for $1bn.
A BBC spokesperson said: “We will review the letter and respond directly in due course.”
‘Error of judgement’
On Monday, BBC chairman Samir Shah, one of the most senior figures still standing, apologised for the “error of judgement” in editing the video.
In a letter to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of MPs, Mr Shah said Mr Trump’s speech was edited in a way that gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action”.
“The BBC would like to apologise for that error of judgement,” he added.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
BBC admits Trump documentary ‘mistake’
Director-general and head of BBC News resign
Concerns about the edited speech first came to light in a leaked memo from Michael Prescott, a former journalist and independent adviser to the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board.
As a result, BBC director-general Tim Davie and BBC News chief Deborah Turness announced their resignations on Sunday evening, saying in emails to staff that mistakes had been made.
Mr Davie will address an all-staff meeting on Tuesday. While on her way into the Broadcasting House on Monday morning, Ms Turness defended the corporation, rejecting accusations of institutional bias.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump’s claims of ‘corrupt’ BBC journalists rejected
Downing St stands by BBC – but chancellor says ‘lessons to be learned’
A spokesperson for the prime minister told reporters on Monday that the BBC wasn’t corrupt or institutionally biased.
Instead, they said it had a “vital role” to play in the modern age, but needed to ensure it acted “to maintain trust and correct mistakes quickly when they occur”.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves also stood by the corporation, but said that “lessons do need to be learned”.
‘Nothing but an apology’
Veteran broadcaster and former BBC presenter Jonathan Dimbleby told Sky News, however, that the organisation owed the US president nothing more than an apology.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘These are very serious times for the BBC’
But former legal correspondent for the BBC Joshua Rozenberg also told Sky News that he believed the corporation would “very likely” consider settling with Trump.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
BBC ‘very likely to consider settling with Trump best thing to do’
Read more:
Read $1bn Trump legal threat in full
Who is the man at the centre of the leaked BBC memo?
‘Teflon Tim’ rode out several BBC controversies – but now he’s come unstuck
Mr Trump’s attack on the BBC is the latest in a long string of multibillion-dollar battles he’s engaged with various media institutions.
Former al Qaeda commander and now Syrian leader Ahmed al Sharaa has been welcomed by Donald Trump to the White House.
It was the first visit to the Oval Office by a Syrian head of state since the country gained independence in 1946.
Mr Sharaa, 43, who once had a $10m US bounty on his head, led rebel forces that overthrew dictator Bashar al-Assad last December, and was named interim leader in January.
The US president called Mr al Sharaa a “very strong leader” after their meeting and suggested the US would work to help the country succeed.
“He comes from a very tough place,” Mr Trump said, adding Mr al Sharaa is a “tough guy” and “I like him”.
Mr Sharra has “had a rough past”, but added, “we’ve all had a rough past”, he added.
Trump shared a picture of the two leaders on social media. Pic: Truth Social
Mr Trump has become one of the Syrian president’s more enthusiastic backers, considering the nation of strategic importance.
He didn’t provide any policy details about the meeting, but said “we’ll do everything we can to make Syria successful because that’s part of the Middle East”.
Read more: Why this meeting is a big deal
Trump and al Sharaa appeared to get on well. Pics: AP
‘What the hell are we doing?’
Mr al Sharaa was greeted by a cheering crowd of supporters, some waving Syrian flags, upon his arrival on Monday.
But not everyone was overjoyed at the historic meeting.
Far-right activist Laura Loomer, a self-proclaimed “Islamophobe” who wields influence in Mr Trump’s MAGA movement, posted on X that Mr al Sharaa was “the ISIS ‘President’ of Syria”.
“What the hell are we doing?” she wrote of his White House visit.
Days before the meeting, Mr Trump told reporters “a lot of progress has been made” on Syria and Mr al Sharaa was “doing a very good job”.
Read more from Sky News
At least eight people killed in car explosion in New Delhi
Ex-French president Nicolas Sarkozy released from prison
al Sharaa waves as he greets supporters outside the White House. Pics: AP
Last week, the US voted to lift a series of sanctions on the Syrian president and members of his government.
Mr al Sharaa is hoping for a permanent repeal of sanctions placed on Syria for allegations of human rights abuses by Assad’s government and security forces – but congressional action would be needed for a permanent repeal.
Mr Trump and Mr al Sharaa first met in May in Saudi Arabia. At the time, the US president described Mr al Sharaa as a “young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past, very strong past. Fighter”.
Monday’s meeting came after Syria launched raids against Islamic State cells.
It was the first official encounter between the US and Syria since 2000, when then president Bill Clinton met Hafez Assad.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024