Health
White House Announces Tylenol–Autism Link, Opens Door to Vaccines
The pathway to developmental regression begins with vaccines, not acetaminophen.
In a MAJOR development, both Trump and RFK Jr. also acknowledged the possibility that vaccines contribute to autism. As Trump said:
“They pump so much stuff into those beautiful little babies, it’s a disgrace.”
Although most of the spotlight fell on Tylenol, the evidence is undeniable: acetaminophen is NOT the root cause. At most, it weakens defenses and heightens vulnerability. The true trigger — then and now — is VACCINES.
 |
The Evidence
Prenatal Exposure
The most comprehensive review to date, by Prada et al, evaluated acetaminophen use during pregnancy:
- 27 studies found a positive association with neurodevelopmental disorders (ASD/ADHD).
- 9 studies showed no link.
- 4 studies suggested protective effects.
Autism was never diagnosed at birth. In every study, it emerged years later—typically ages 2–8, the very same window when children are loaded with a battery vaccines. None of these papers accounted for vaccination as a confounder. This shows prenatal Tylenol exposure may predispose children, but the neurological injuries are detected during the vaccine years.
 |
Postnatal Exposure
Schultz et al (2008): Children given Tylenol after MMR vaccination were about six times more likely to later be diagnosed with autism. In those who regressed (lost previously acquired skills), the risk was nearly fourfold, and in those with clear post-vaccine complications, the risk spiked to over eightfold. By contrast, ibuprofen showed no association.
 |
Yengst et al (2025): In a Medicaid cohort of 674,000+ children, repeated episodes of fever, ear infections, or other “Tylenol-triggering” illnesses were linked to a 2½-fold higher risk of autism. Among girls with multiple fevers, the risk climbed to nearly fourfold.
 |
Taken together, these studies reveal a consistent pattern: autism risk intensifies in the post-vaccine period, when febrile reactions are most common, and acetaminophen use in this context may amplify the likelihood of developmental regression.
Acetaminophen depletes glutathione, the body’s master antioxidant/detox system, exactly when the brain faces inflammatory/oxidative stress (e.g., fever, seizure, immune activation). Some pediatric practices have even recommended Tylenol before vaccine visits “just in case,” meaning kids arrive with defenses already depleted as the shots provoke fever/immune activation—priming them for worse outcomes.
Confounding by Indication
Tylenol is rarely given at random. It is usually given because a child has spiked a fever or suffered a seizure — often after vaccination. This creates what’s known as confounding by indication: the very reason for giving Tylenol (a serious post-vaccine reaction) is already linked to elevated risk.
Across studies, a clear pattern emerges:
- Diagnoses cluster in early childhood (ages 2–8), the most intensive vaccine years.
- Greater fever/illness burden — situations when Tylenol is typically used — corresponds to higher odds of autism.
- Regression subgroups show the largest risks following vaccination (Schultz).
Together, the evidence points to vaccination as the trigger, with Tylenol lowering defenses by depleting glutathione and thereby magnifying the neurologic damage.
Timeline Reality
- Tylenol was released in the 1950s. Autism rates stayed flat.
- The surge began in the late 1980s and 1990s, exactly when the childhood vaccine schedule doubled and tripled.
If Tylenol alone were the driver, autism would have spiked in the 1950s. It didn’t.
 |
The Missing Evidence
- There are no case reports of regression to autism from acetaminophen alone.
- By contrast, there are thousands of parental reports and multiple peer-reviewed studies documenting developmental regression after vaccination.
Nonetheless, today’s announcement has opened the door for an official investigation into the glaring link between childhood vaccination and autism.
At the McCullough Foundation, we are finalizing one of the most comprehensive analyses ever conducted on the causes of autism — untainted by fraud, bias, and corruption. You can rest assured that all risk factors will be included, INCLUDING VACCINES.
No stone will be left unturned — and no protected interest will be spared.
Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation
Support our mission: mcculloughfnd.org
Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.
FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse) is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
From the Fraser Institute
By Nadeem Esmail and Tegan Hill
The Smith government may soon allow Albertans to privately purchase diagnostic screening and testing services, prompting familiar cries from defenders of the status quo. But in reality, this change, which the government plans to propose in the legislature in the coming months, would simply give Albertans an option already available to patients in every other developed country with universal health care.
It’s important for Albertans and indeed all Canadians to understand the unique nature of our health-care system. In every one of the 30 other developed countries with universal health care, patients are free to seek care on their own terms with their own resources when the universal system is unwilling or unable to satisfy their needs. Whether to access care with shorter wait times and a more rapid return to full health, to access more personalized services or meet a personal health need, or to access new advances in medical technology. But not in Canada.
That prohibition has not served Albertans well. Despite being one of the highest-spending provinces in one of the most expensive universal health-care systems in the developed world, Albertans endure some of the longest wait times for health care and some of the worst availability of advanced diagnostic and medical technologies including MRI machines and CT scanners.
Introducing new medical technologies is a costly endeavour, which requires money and the actual equipment, but also the proficiency, knowledge and expertise to use it properly. By allowing Albertans to privately purchase diagnostic screening and testing services, the Smith government would encourage private providers to make these technologies available and develop the requisite knowledge.
Obviously, these new providers would improve access to these services for all Alberta patients—first for those willing to pay for them, and then for patients in the public system. In other words, adding providers to the health-care system expands the supply of these services, which will reduce wait times for everyone, not just those using private clinics. And relief can’t come soon enough. In Alberta, in 2024 the median wait time for a CT scan was 12 weeks and 24 weeks for an MRI.
Greater access and shorter wait times will also benefit Albertans concerned about their future health or preventative care. When these Albertans can quickly access a private provider, their appointments may lead to the early discovery of medical problems. Early detection can improve health outcomes and reduce the amount of public health-care resources these Albertans may ultimately use in the future. And that means more resources available for all other patients, to the benefit of all Albertans including those unable to access the private option.
Opponents of this approach argue that it’s a move towards two-tier health care, which will drain resources from the public system, or that this is “American-style” health care. But these arguments ignore that private alternatives benefit all patients in universal health-care systems in the rest of the developed world. For example, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Australia all have higher-performing universal systems that provide more timely care because of—not despite—the private options available to patients.
In reality, the Smith government’s plan to allow Albertans to privately purchase diagnostic screening and testing services is a small step in the right direction to reduce wait times and improve health-care access in the province. In fact, the proposal doesn’t go far enough—the government should allow Albertans to purchase physician appointments and surgeries privately, too. Hopefully the Smith government continues to reform the province’s health-care system, despite ill-informed objections, with all patients in mind.
Nadeem Esmail
Tegan Hill
From HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy’s Facebook Page
Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder
Biden’s Autopen Orders declared “null and void”
Study promotes liver transplants from Canadian euthanasia victims
Canada’s combative trade tactics are backfiring
-
Energy2 days agoEby should put up, shut up, or pay up
-
Business2 days agoPulling back the curtain on the Carney government’s first budget
-
Daily Caller2 days agoUS Eating Canada’s Lunch While Liberals Stall – Trump Admin Announces Record-Shattering Energy Report
-
Business2 days agoThe Liberal budget is a massive FAILURE: Former Liberal Cabinet Member Dan McTeague
-
Business1 day agoCarney’s budget spares tax status of Canadian churches, pro-life groups after backlash
-
COVID-191 day agoFreedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich to appeal her recent conviction
-
Justice1 day agoCarney government lets Supreme Court decision stand despite outrage over child porn ruling
-
espionage21 hours agoU.S. Charges Three More Chinese Scholars in Wuhan Bio-Smuggling Case, Citing Pattern of Foreign Exploitation in American Research Labs