“It” is the slanting of a big story in a way to lead the public away from the facts of a case and toward the demagoguery that since Trump and Republicans are pushing a point it must be without merit and irresponsible.
Take this Associated Press headline appearing in thousands of news sites in the last week of October: “Texas Lawsuit Against Companies Behind Tylenol Asserts Unproven Claims of Autism Risk.”
That’s not exactly what is happening with the Texas case but it’s how liberal legacy media newsrooms are trying to frame the narrative of the story about possible dangers of acetaminophen, the ingredient in the brand Tylenol.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
The lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Paxton is one that hits on two areas. First, it is about whether Johnson & Johnson, and now Kenvue, engaged in deceptive advertising in touting the safety of acetaminophen for use by women in pregnancy. Secondly the Texas claim, as described by the Office of Attorney General, is that Johnson & Johnson “violated the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act by fraudulently transferring liabilities arising from Tylenol to a separate company, Kenvue, in order to shield their [sic] assets against lawsuits arising from the harmful impact Tylenol had on children.”
Both are specific legal issues that likely deserve litigation. Neither of the two Texas claims match the reporting of the Associated Press that Texas is asserting “unproven claims of autism risk.” Worse than that bit of misdirection from AP is that such reporting ignores bonafide claims of autism risk, proven or not we do not know, of which Johnson & Johnson appears to have been aware and taken seriously.
It is certainly acceptable, or even required responsibility, to include statements on stories about the brand Tylenol and its ingredient acetaminophen that we are currently short of hard, absolute evidence that the pain reliever is a certain cause of autism through use by mothers during pregnancy. But it is not responsible to ignore two things about the subject, as have many legacy media stories, and these are:
One, Tylenol’s maker has been aware of evidence suggestive of a link to the drug causing autism for a significant amount of time.
Two, scientists and other professionals at the firm understood the suggestive evidence as being significant and worthy of serious discussion yet the firm continued to make safety claims that may reach as far as being deceptive under Texas law.
The story documents, using emails and other documents from within Johnson & Johnson, that the firm’s scientists “acknowledged the likelihood of an association between its drug in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism in children seven years ago.”
In 2018, Rachel Weinstein, U.S. director of epidemiology for Janssen, the pharmaceutical arm of Johnson & Johnson, wrote about suggestive evidence of a link between acetaminophen and autism: “The weight of the evidence is starting to feel heavy to me.”
“A decade before Weinstein’s email, in 2008, Johnson & Johnson began receiving queries from consumers and physicians about a possible link, emails show,” the Daily Caller reported. Prompting the Johnson & Johnson Office of Consumer Medical Safety Lead Andre Mann, in 2008, to write: “Not much choice but to consider this a safety signal that needs to be evaluated.”
The story at the Daily Caller is packed with evidence, directly from top officials at the firm, that it knew of sound and serious studies suggesting a link to autism.
“Weinstein, the company epidemiologist, wrote to one of the authors [of a study suggesting a link to autism] lauding the ‘substantial strengths of the study design,’ the ‘strength and robustness of the association,’ and the study’s ability ‘to control for possible confounding by indication,’ that ‘lend support to the findings,’” the Daily Caller story reports.
Many in media want you to think the Texas lawsuit brought by Paxton is an argument over scientific evidence of a link between acetaminophen use by pregnant mothers and autism when it is not. The suit is about whether the drug firm overstated safety claims when it knew better from the information its team had on hand, which appears to have been increasing for years.
We don’t need political demagoguery on the subject; we need accurate reporting and all sides held to an honest accounting. Skepticism of all claims is good but dismissing claims despite evidence to the contrary just because such claims are made, and yes often overstated, by Trump, is not journalism but propaganda. In this case it is dangerous propaganda.
Media in demagoguery mode on Texas lawsuit related to Tylenol, autism
“It” is the slanting of a big story in a way to lead the public away from the facts of a case and toward the demagoguery that since Trump and Republicans are pushing a point it must be without merit and irresponsible.
Take this Associated Press headline appearing in thousands of news sites in the last week of October: “Texas Lawsuit Against Companies Behind Tylenol Asserts Unproven Claims of Autism Risk.”
That’s not exactly what is happening with the Texas case but it’s how liberal legacy media newsrooms are trying to frame the narrative of the story about possible dangers of acetaminophen, the ingredient in the brand Tylenol.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
The lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Paxton is one that hits on two areas. First, it is about whether Johnson & Johnson, and now Kenvue, engaged in deceptive advertising in touting the safety of acetaminophen for use by women in pregnancy. Secondly the Texas claim, as described by the Office of Attorney General, is that Johnson & Johnson “violated the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act by fraudulently transferring liabilities arising from Tylenol to a separate company, Kenvue, in order to shield their [sic] assets against lawsuits arising from the harmful impact Tylenol had on children.”
Both are specific legal issues that likely deserve litigation. Neither of the two Texas claims match the reporting of the Associated Press that Texas is asserting “unproven claims of autism risk.” Worse than that bit of misdirection from AP is that such reporting ignores bonafide claims of autism risk, proven or not we do not know, of which Johnson & Johnson appears to have been aware and taken seriously.
It is certainly acceptable, or even required responsibility, to include statements on stories about the brand Tylenol and its ingredient acetaminophen that we are currently short of hard, absolute evidence that the pain reliever is a certain cause of autism through use by mothers during pregnancy. But it is not responsible to ignore two things about the subject, as have many legacy media stories, and these are:
One, Tylenol’s maker has been aware of evidence suggestive of a link to the drug causing autism for a significant amount of time.
Two, scientists and other professionals at the firm understood the suggestive evidence as being significant and worthy of serious discussion yet the firm continued to make safety claims that may reach as far as being deceptive under Texas law.
On 26 September 2025, the Daily Caller News Foundation (Daily Caller) published a major investigative story by Emily Kopp headlined: “SCOOP: Tylenol Maker Privately Admitted Evidence Was Getting ‘Heavy’ For Autism Risk In 2018.”
The story documents, using emails and other documents from within Johnson & Johnson, that the firm’s scientists “acknowledged the likelihood of an association between its drug in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism in children seven years ago.”
“A decade before Weinstein’s email, in 2008, Johnson & Johnson began receiving queries from consumers and physicians about a possible link, emails show,” the Daily Caller reported. Prompting the Johnson & Johnson Office of Consumer Medical Safety Lead Andre Mann, in 2008, to write: “Not much choice but to consider this a safety signal that needs to be evaluated.”
The story at the Daily Caller is packed with evidence, directly from top officials at the firm, that it knew of sound and serious studies suggesting a link to autism.
“Weinstein, the company epidemiologist, wrote to one of the authors [of a study suggesting a link to autism] lauding the ‘substantial strengths of the study design,’ the ‘strength and robustness of the association,’ and the study’s ability ‘to control for possible confounding by indication,’ that ‘lend support to the findings,’” the Daily Caller story reports.
Many in media want you to think the Texas lawsuit brought by Paxton is an argument over scientific evidence of a link between acetaminophen use by pregnant mothers and autism when it is not. The suit is about whether the drug firm overstated safety claims when it knew better from the information its team had on hand, which appears to have been increasing for years.
We don’t need political demagoguery on the subject; we need accurate reporting and all sides held to an honest accounting. Skepticism of all claims is good but dismissing claims despite evidence to the contrary just because such claims are made, and yes often overstated, by Trump, is not journalism but propaganda. In this case it is dangerous propaganda.