President Donald Trumpand Secretary of Health and Human ServicesRobert F. Kennedy, Jr.announced on September 22 what they referred to as “strong measures to address the autism surge.”
It’s certainly bold to mark the increase in autism diagnosesas an “epidemic,” taking into account the definition and diagnostic standardshave broadenedFrom autism alone to include autism spectrum disorder, a more comprehensive category that affects a larger number of individuals. Additionally, greater awareness andscreening among clinicians, educatorsand parents have led tomore children being diagnosed.
Nevertheless, the problem is genuine and demands exploration of its origins, prevention methods, and solutions. However, incorporating the prejudices of government officials into the research process is not only ineffective – it may skew the research direction and slow down advancements.
Begin your day with more knowledge. Receive all the essential news in your inbox every morning.
Allow scientific research to proceed. Remove the federal government from involvement.
For instance, Kennedy is interested inAdd a public warning to bottles of acetaminophen(Tylenol and similar medications), cautioning pregnant women that taking them during pregnancy may be linked to their children showing signs of autism.
While a comprehensive review published in August comprising 46 scientific studiesdiscovered that the majority of them recognized a link between prenatal acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental conditions (a general term that encompasses autism), a study involving almost2.5 million kids born in Sweden from 1995 to 2019, using sibling comparisons, found “no evidence that taking acetaminophen during pregnancy was linked to autism … or intellectual disability,” and determined that acetaminophen use during pregnancy was “not connected to children’s likelihood of developing autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists points to over 20 years of research regarding this topic. It states that there isNo connection between taking acetaminophen during pregnancy and autismor other neurodevelopmental conditions. It also highlights that unaddressed fever during pregnancy presents dangers, and the advantages of managing it with acetaminophen are greater than these risks.
It’s also crucial to take into account additional factors related to pregnancy. For instance,advancing maternal ageis associated with autism. More women are having children at an older age. According to aMarch 2025 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than one in five births in 2023 occurred among women older than 35.
Many substances, including alcohol and tobacco can negatively affect a growing fetus. It is logical to question if acetaminophen should be included in that group.
To date, the issue has been explored by independent clinical researchers, rather than government organizations. When Washington determines the outcome—through adding a warning label or supporting research aimed at validating a theory—it transforms from science into politics.
We’ve witnessed this before: The government’s “food pyramidlocked nutrition science into a faulty framework for many years. Kennedy’s campaign against acetaminophen, along with the National Institutes of Health’sAutism Data Science Research Programmentioned in the September 22 statement, dangers could lead research to biased outcomes rather than unbiased exploration.
The scientific community is already fulfilling its role. The federal government should refrain from interfering.
Reducing restrictions on prescribed drugs may be beneficial
Currently, many clinicians prescribe leucovorin, a drug that is relatively safe, to children with autism to address the folate deficiency that many of them experience, resulting in promising enhancements in their autism symptoms.
Since the Food and Drug Administration has not asserted that leucovorin is effective for treating autism, these prescriptions are referred to as “off-label.” This is permitted by law, although some insurance companies may decline to pay for it. As a second “brave” suggestion, Kennedy suggested expediting the process to update the label to address this issue.
Here’s an even bolder option: Kennedy could request Congress to eliminate the FDA’s requirement for effectiveness entirely. Prior to 1962,pharmaceutical companies only needed to demonstrate that a drug was safe and correctly labeled.
The Kefauver-Harris Amendmentsthat Congress created in the 1960s introduced effectiveness guidelines, which may cause delays in approvals for many years. However, once the FDA confirms a drug is effective for a particular condition,Physicians are legally allowed to prescribe it for many additional cases.
Such “unapproved” applications make upabout 20% of prescriptions. Why make doctors wait for years to treat condition A, while relying on their expertise for conditions B through Z? Bypassing the effectiveness barrier could allow treatments to reach patients much quicker.
Of the two “bold” measures Kennedy announced, one could push for a decision on acetaminophen before the scientific community has reached a consensus, while the other only partially supports the expertise of medical professionals. Real courage would involve allowing physicians to practice and scientists to study without being hindered.
The federal government needs to withdraw and allow facts, rather than political agendas, to guide development, as children on the autism spectrum gain more from solutions than from commands.
Jeffrey A. Singer, MD, is a general surgeon based in Phoenix and serves as a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. His most recent book is “Your Body, Your Healthcare.”
This piece first was published on USA TODAY:Trump and Kennedy exceed on Tylenol but do not go far enough on drug regulations | Opinion
