By admin 
Tylenol faced a wave of backlash on Thursday after the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services resurfaced a 2017 post from the brand’s X account telling a consumer, “We actually don’t recommend using any of our products while pregnant,” a message amplified amid President Donald Trump’s recent claim that acetaminophen use in pregnancy causes autism.
The repost drew millions of views and immediate criticism from medical groups and Tylenol’s parent company, Kenvue, which said the years-old customer-service reply was being taken out of context and reaffirmed long-standing guidance that acetaminophen remains the preferred pain and fever treatment in pregnancy when used as directed.
The Washington Post reported that the administration’s accounts circulated the 2017 tweet as part of a campaign to warn pregnant people away from acetaminophen, prompting a broad online reaction and fueling confusion among expectant parents and clinicians.
The original post, sent by Tylenol’s verified account in March 2017 to a user asking about pregnancy safety, was surfaced by the White House’s X feed and other official channels, where it was presented as evidence that the company itself had once cautioned against prenatal use.
Screenshots shared by the administration and by supportive commentators showed the line, “We actually don’t recommend using any of our products while pregnant. Thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns today.”
News organizations verified the tweet’s authenticity and date, though Kenvue said the response did not represent its full guidance and that pregnant consumers should follow labels and talk to their clinicians—the same advice it gives today.
Kenvue issued fresh statements disputing the administration’s assertions and urging patients not to abandon a medication doctors have relied on for decades to reduce fever and treat pain during pregnancy.
“There is ‘no credible evidence linking acetaminophen to autism,’” the company said, adding in a separate statement to CBS News that “independent, sound science clearly shows that taking acetaminophen does not cause autism.”
The company warned that removing acetaminophen from prenatal care plans could force pregnant people to endure high fevers or turn to riskier alternatives such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
The policy backdrop shifted this week when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced it is initiating a process to update acetaminophen labeling with pregnancy-related language that acknowledges studies describing an association with some neurodevelopmental outcomes while emphasizing that causation has not been established.
In a press announcement dated Sept. 22, the agency said it would also notify physicians nationally; the FDA described a “considerable body of evidence” that warrants awareness but stated plainly that “a causal relationship has not been established,” noting at the same time that acetaminophen is the only over-the-counter antipyretic generally recommended in pregnancy and that untreated high fevers pose known risks to the fetus.
Major professional societies moved quickly to steady clinical guidance.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reaffirmed that acetaminophen “remains the analgesic and antipyretic of choice during pregnancy,” advising “judicious use at the lowest effective dose for the shortest necessary duration” in consultation with an obstetric clinician.
The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine issued a similar reminder after the White House event, and independent experts interviewed by PBS and other outlets stressed that fever and severe pain themselves can endanger pregnancy and that the accumulated evidence to date does not prove a causal link between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and autism.
The White House’s decision to elevate the 2017 post—and to frame it as confirmation of the president’s claim—was met with criticism from medical communicators who argued that a one-off brand reply from eight years ago is not authoritative clinical guidance.
The Washington Post reported that the administration’s reposts were part of a broader messaging drive tied to an “Autism Action Plan” and that health officials pointed to observational studies that report an association between frequent or prolonged acetaminophen use in pregnancy and later diagnoses of autism or ADHD.
Specialists in perinatal pharmacology and epidemiology countered that those studies, while important, are constrained by confounding factors such as the underlying conditions prompting medication use, dose and duration patterns self-reported by participants, and recall bias, and do not demonstrate causation.
Public-health agencies and academic centers broadened the caution against drawing hard conclusions from the administration’s presentation.
A PBS NewsHour explainer published last week summarized the research as showing that “doctors might even recommend taking Tylenol for pain or fever during pregnancy” because leaving those conditions untreated can carry its own risks, and noted that leading U.S. and international authorities still consider acetaminophen appropriate when clinically indicated.
A Nature news analysis posed the counterfactual of what could happen if pregnant patients avoid acetaminophen altogether, citing evidence that untreated febrile illness is linked to adverse outcomes and pointing to the lack of safer over-the-counter alternatives.
The frenzy over the revived tweet unfolded alongside an unusual federal communications strategy.
Bloomberg first reported that HHS had reposted the old Tylenol message, and the White House followed on X with the same screenshot, juxtaposing it with the president’s remarks and with a “fact” article on the official website asserting that “there is mounting evidence” of a connection between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and autism.
The administration’s page did not announce a ban, and the FDA release underscored that decisions remain individualized; nevertheless, the prominence of the posts spurred a storm of commentary and competing declarations from doctors, state health departments, and advocacy groups striving to contain public anxiety.
Even as researchers continue to study prenatal medication exposures and child neurodevelopment, clinicians urged pregnant patients to keep context in view.
Yale School of Public Health summarized the state of the science this week by noting that large observational studies have found associations in some settings—especially with frequent or prolonged use—but emphasized, in the words of epidemiologist Zeyan Liew, “We do not know yet for sure whether acetaminophen causes autism.”
University and hospital guidance circulated on Thursday reiterated the concept of “judicious use,” combining short-course acetaminophen when clearly needed with non-drug measures and clinician supervision.
The controversy also revived memories of litigation that had alleged links between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and neurodevelopmental diagnoses; while high-profile federal cases faltered on expert-evidence rulings in earlier years, the administration’s announcements and the FDA’s label-review step have again put the issue before consumers, many of whom turned to social media for answers after seeing the resurfaced tweet.
The Washington Post said the White House’s amplification generated millions of impressions within hours, while local broadcasters and health departments issued posts trying to clarify that the single 2017 message did not reflect a broad corporate policy.
In Illinois, the state health department summarized the position many clinicians echoed: a historical brand tweet is not medical advice, and pregnant people should consult their own providers.
Kenvue, spun out of Johnson & Johnson in 2023 and steward of a suite of over-the-counter staples, said its guidance today is consistent with that of obstetric groups and international regulators: for fever and significant pain in pregnancy, acetaminophen remains the safest option available without a prescription.
It also argued that politicized messaging risks public harm by discouraging treatment of maternal fever, which experts say is associated with congenital anomalies, preterm birth and other complications.
“Without it, women face dangerous choices: suffer through conditions like fever that are potentially harmful to both mom and baby or use riskier alternatives,” the company told CBS News; it reiterated to Axios that it sees “no credible evidence” tying acetaminophen to autism.
For many obstetricians, the immediate concern was practical: patients abruptly stopping a commonly recommended medication out of fear.
ACOG’s advisory—reissued in the wake of the White House event—again asked pregnant patients to use the lowest effective dose for the shortest necessary time and to contact their clinicians with questions.
Perinatal specialists cautioned that ibuprofen and other NSAIDs are associated with fetal risks at various points in pregnancy, and that aspirin has different, specific indications under medical supervision; acetaminophen’s long safety record relative to those alternatives is a principal reason it has remained first-line.
Hospital systems likewise told patients not to make medication decisions based on viral posts, pointing to the FDA’s simultaneous acknowledgment that causality has not been proved and to the agency’s reminder that acetaminophen may still be appropriate in specific scenarios.
By day’s end, the administration’s messaging remained at odds with mainstream medical advice even as the FDA took steps to add cautionary context to labels.
The uproar over a one-sentence brand reply from eight years ago, recast as a definitive warning against use, underscored the volatility of health communication when political actors, regulators, manufacturers and clinicians speak to the same audience at once.
For expectant patients, the immediate takeaways were unchanged from longstanding practice bulletins: discuss symptoms with a clinician, treat fever and significant pain appropriately, and avoid chronic or unnecessary medication use—guidance that experts say protects maternal health without elevating theoretical risks supported only by association studies.
The White House’s social posts ensured the debate will continue; the FDA’s notice put a formal review on the calendar; and Kenvue’s pushback, echoed by ACOG and others, sought to restore confidence in a drug that, for now, remains the recommended option when pregnant patients truly need relief.