I read the Swedish study (Ahlqvist et al.) carefully - the full article, not just the abstract, particularly looking at the "methods" - and it looked to me like they did not truly know how much Tylenol was even taken by the mothers. When Tylenol was prescribed by a physician, it was documented how many tablets the woman received from the pharmacy, but there was no determination of how much she truly took. For myself, I have numerous bottles of prescribed meds at home that I have never taken - for example, Tylenol with Codeine prescribed for dental work but I never took any of the medication; or Tylenol with codeine after a surgical procedure, when I only needed one tablet but received a dozen. A muscle relaxer that I never took after I read the side effects, though it was filled twice because my husband picked it up on my behalf, not realizing I didn't want it. So in this study - just looking at how many tablets were filled is not, in my opinion, a reasonable way to know how much Tylenol was taken, if any was even taken. They also considered that women may purchase nonprescription Tylenol that was not filled at the pharmacy, but from what they wrote it sounded like they really had not done a good job accounting for these either. If they don't know how much Tylenol was taken, or even if Tylenol was taken at all, the study is meaningless, even though it looks great from the abstract. But I think there methods of accounting for actual Tylenol use were very poor. I can't quote the article directly right now because I don't have access at the moment. My email account at the college where I teach got hacked last week and my password was frozen by IT who have not restored my account yet. But I read this carefully several days ago.
Even if you assume that everyone who filled a prescription truly did take some, it matters how much the mother took, because part of the criteria for determining causality (the Bradford Hill criteria) says that you would expect, if a med caused some problem, your chance of having the problem is greater if you took more of the meds, compared to someone else. So how much the woman took and of course knowing for sure if she took it at all, is important information that I don't think is accurately known from the methods used.
On the other hand, a different study, published August 14, 2025, analyzed 46 different studies on the association between Tylenol used by the mothers and autism and ADHD in the children. This is the study: Prada, D., Ritz, B., Bauer, A.Z. & Andrea Baccarelli. Evaluation of the evidence on acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders using the Navigation Guide methodology. Environ Health 24, 56 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-025-01208-0. And This study by Prada et al., , and found the majority of these studies showed a strong effect, plus also a dose effect, in that mothers who took Tylenol for more than four weeks, had the highest risk of having a child with autism or ADHD, a greater risk compared to mothers who took it for a shorter period of time.
According to the Bradford Hill criteria for causality, when you see an association & hope to figure out, is the one thing causing the other, you look at consistency - is this happening over and over in different studies? In this case, out of 46 studies, the majority showed this association, not just one or two. It also should be strong association, not a tiny, iffy one - and in this case, that was true. Then, the dose-response as I mentioned, which was present - the children of the women who took Tylenol for 4 weeks or longer had greater risk of having ADHD or autism. And then, is it plausible, is there any realistic explanation that is logical that shows how this could happen. And in fact, in our bodies, we all make glutathione which helps our bodies to inactivate harmful chemicals that we may be exposed to. But Tylenol depletes glutathione & leaves people more vulnerable to toxins. Tylenol itself is toxic, and is known to cause many cases of liver damage and even liver failure every year. It can damage cells & not only liver cells.
Because babies in the womb during weeks 4 through 8 have all their organs and organ systems rapidly developing during that time, that is a time of special vulnerability when exposure to any chemical might cause damage to the developing organ even something that might not bother at all later on. So, partly it may make a difference at what point in the pregnancy the mom took a medication. As pointed out in Dr. McCullough's article, many meds are associated with various problematic outcomes. It's good to minimize any meds that you don't have to take during pregnancy. But in the US, it is apparently recommended that women take 4 vaccines during pregnancy, one of them being the flu shot. The flu shot, or at least some flu vaccines, have aluminum in them, which is a neurotoxin. Aluminum can cross the placenta, and it can get into the babies brain. But if the mother takes Tylenol due to a vaccine reaction, maybe a fever or discomfort after the vaccine, she is depleting her glutathione which makes her then less able to inactivate various toxins in her body - so this has been proposed as a plausible mechanism by which Tylenol could be causing harm.
In the end, I think that probably the in utero exposures are not really the most important concern, but with all the aluminum that has been in the vaccines until about now, and kids getting repeated doses of aluminum from infancy through adulthood, and again, aluminum being a neurotoxin, the bigger concern might be all the aluminum that has been injected into children and then the infants or children being given Tylenol after the shots. Hopefully we'll get greater clarity on that soon with some of the new research that is anticipated to be available soon.
Simply out of abundance of care for the multi-variate situation, not to mention the study's inability to accurately account for dosage taken, it is a simple conclusion NOT to take this toxin during pregnancy. Whatever happened to the very special view of the past that severely restricts drugs and alcohol during pregnancy?
Though I have much respect for Dr McCullough your facts and studied analysis appear to fall on the more conservative side of this concerning issue as opposed to a need to show objectivity in agreement with 7 medical organizations.
Like the AMA and the pediatricians I trust none of them, period. I would not be proud to show affinity or ability to concede points to them in such an existential crisis of autism and world health.
You made some very good points that definitely should be taken into account. I still think there's an elephant in the room as we explore this topic. That would of course be the assumption that vaccines are safe for pregnancies and children. If you study how vaccines are approved and brought to market you can't help but see the obvious omissions and lack of evidence for safety. The more you drill down the more shocking it gets. Vaccines have become like a cult or religion, taken on faith and not to be questioned. The great Stanley Plodkin, who wrote the book, and received millions from Pharma was at a loss to
explain the lack of proper safety studies when deposed by Aaron Siri. The industry molded and used him to maintain the fiction of safe and effective vaccines. It was all about money, so deception and blind obedience was necessary.
One issue I have with the sibling controls portion of the study is that there is evidence that having a first child with autism lowers the chances of those parents having additional children by as much as a third. So, when you go to the sibling controls analysis you have potentially disproportionately cut children with autism out, as they are more likely to be only children. I don't know if they address this in the discussion, perhaps they do.
Good work Martha. I agree that the dosing amount would be critical in these evaluations and frankly that information seems bandied about in these otherwise “comprehensive” evaluations about acetaminophen.
OTC drugs and their liberal commercial marketing (especially after the 1987 laws releasing Pharma from vaccine liability and God knows what else), over decades gave the public, especially among my naturally groupthink TV Boomer generation (80 million, 1946-64), and their offspring the perception that it was “safe and effective”.
Imagine tens of millions of young mothers without internet access back then that did not exist in it’s current form thinking “headache, fever, oh yeah, Tylenol”, perhaps not even consulting a doctor because it was common knowledge and what the doctor advised the last time without prescription. But during Covid, the Nobel Prize winning super drug, non commercialized Ivermectin, was denigrated as horse de wormer.
Oh yeah, “safe and effective”, the number one media propagandized commercial about the Jab that would save us all from the big round ball with spikes that on “opening day” was immediately seen everywhere 24/7.
Academia and medicine have enjoyed the protection from dissenting peer review inquisition and authority through the use of their hierarchal academies since Aristotle brought them about, but the cozy relationship between academia, medicine, and media collusion since the coming of the “innocent” TV has become a matastisized cancer, especially in America. As long as they are permitted to conspire against the citizens of this unique Constitutional republic by corrupting the military at the top (Pentagon) as they covertly do before, during, and after every war with “research and development” as this money laundering axis began in earnest near the end of WWII and onward, they will use the “military industrial complex” as their media whipping boys.
The deep State knows the citizens must have a standing military, more so today than ever.
They continue to try to take the guns, emasculate the men, make fragile the women, create chaos and division from the youth at the most hierarchal universities, on fabricated hot button virtue signaling issues to divide, homogenize the middle with 50 million indifferent illegal voters for free stuff, and expunge the Executive Branch and CIC by coup or assassination.
The Leftist deep State that vowed to capture the institutions during the 1960’s and 70’s tumultuous years of riots and murder that makes today’s rioting by their grandchildren look like child’s play, are the same Leftist hate America cabals that decided to covertly use the Democrat banner as their vehicle. Their incubators are academia.
First of all, I don’t trust all the alphabet soup agencies you agree with. They have proven time and again to be untrustworthy. No one cares what they say anymore.
Secondly, the manufacturer itself was concerned about a link with autism, according to leaked emails, and did what Pharma always does and sweep it under the rug. That is concerning.
However, I still do not believe the link is strong. Why? Because nearly every pregnant woman probably takes Tylenol. They are told by their “trusted” doctors that it is the ONLY safe pain reliever/fever reducer to take during pregnancy. This has been true for decades. Thankfully, I did not take it during my two pregnancies over 2 decades ago, because I would not take any medications.
What is being missed in focusing on taking Tylenol during pregnancy, is that it is much more harmful to give to an infant. I remember 30 years ago, those in the holistic community warning about giving Tylenol after vaccines. Which again, is exactly what doctors tell parents to do when they spike a fever after vaccination. If I remember correctly, they believed it caused a Cytokine Storm which caused damage to the brain.
Are there any studies on giving Tylenol to infants after vaccination?
There are already thousands of parents who believe their child regressed into autism after routine vaccinations. It would be interesting to know how many of those children took Tylenol as well.
Alexandra, it looks like you may have been speaking to me in this post, but you said, "I don’t trust all the alphabet soup agencies you agree with." If so, you misunderstood me. I do not agree with the CDC and FDA who did nothing but lie their heads off during the pandemic.
What I stated in my post was that I read the actual research which anyone could and should do instead of reading what people say about it - I read the actual research and found that the study by Prada et al. published in August reviewed 46 other studies, and when I looked at what they found, I recognized that their research on Tylenol and autism was very well done and met several of the criteria for determination causation. I think for now there will continue to be discussion and I understand that McCullough has some new research that is soon to be released, so we may know more soon - but I did find problems with the methodology and I explained that as above.
It is not the case that I "agree" that if the FDA says something, then I say "okay, here's the truth, because the FDA said so," rather, when substackers write their commentary about recently published peer reviewed studies, it is my own practice to find the actual article, read it carefully and see whether I notice anything that the substacker overlooked, or whether I agree with their comments. In the case of both the studies I mentioned, there has been no shortage of online discussions, on you tube, in email groups I'm in, and one more than one substack, and no shortage of heated opinions. I'm not taking the side of the FDA or CDC or defending them - I think there are some good people now within HHS, but many who misled us during Covid.
What I did was to read the actual article, which anyone may do, looking carefully, and pointing out some points that no one else has mentioned that I have seen - and the methodology of the Ahlqvist study is problematic in my opinion. This has nothing to do with what the CDC did or didn't say, and actually there are some other pieces of info about autism, Tylenol and vaccines that I may share just a bit later, but at the moment, I'm out of time. But seriously, if people are going to discuss articles, start reading the original articles instead of only reading what other people say about the research. But for me, when I was younger and trying to get pregnant, I was very careful and would not take ANY meds during pregnancy because I know that when the baby's brain is developing, meds can cause problems that may be unanticipated especially in early pregnancy before the women even knows she is pregnant though most especially during the 4th-8th week after conception. In most cases, I don't believe that it is terribly likely that one Tylenol one time is going to be the main cause of autism, but in the Prada study, the women who took it for four weeks or longer had the highest risk, and it does make sense if the mom is taking Tylenol which depletes glutathione and then cannot get rid of toxins as readily, there could be a variety of toxins circulating including Tylenol which does act as toxin to an extent, and that could potentially affect the developing brain.
But here's a thing that people don't get. Most moms tell their kids, "Don't smoke cigarettes, you'll get cancer." Schools may say that too. But it's not like cigarettes are "THE" cause of cancer and nothing else causes it. There are actually hundreds of chemicals in cigarette smoke and maybe at least 69 I think are known to be carcinogens - so any of those 69 chemicals, if I'm remember the exact number correctly, any of those, or all of them together could cause cancer. Yet - there are people who never, ever smoked, but they had industrial or workplace exposures to various toxic chemicals they inhaled, and they did get lung cancer. Or there was asbestos in your insulation in an old house, or radon in the basement, and you never smoked cigarettes but you still got lung cancer - or the other way about, you smoked like my dad, and you never did get cancer because maybe there was some mitigating factor. But it is true that cigarettes are a cause of cancer for many who get lung cancer.
For autism, I am pretty sure not everyone who takes Tylenol is going to have autism, and I don't think you can say it's 100% proven that Tylenol is a cause of autism, but it could be for some kids. But that does not mean it is going to be the ONLY cause. But due to depletion of glutathione, there may be kids who do have autism that they would not have had but for the Tylenol - and the manufacturer even has said they have never "recommended" that women take it during pregnancy.
For me, years ago one of my professors said, if you take enough Tylenol over a period of several years, you will end up with kidney failure on dialysis. He may (or may not) have stated it too strongly, and I don't recall his exact words after several decades, but while I do take Tylenol at times, I try to avoid it. I also know that Tylenol is known to be an important cause of liver failure every year. So - there is no question it can cause cellular damage, so it should not be surprising if it turns out it can harm the developing baby. These days any time I take Tylenol I also take n-acetylcysteine, aka "NAC" 600 mg. because it helps to replenish your glutathione. And if someone was overdose on Tylenol and came to the ER to get treatment - the overdose is likely to cause liver failure and death, that can be prevented by Glutathione. So when I take Tylenol, instead of two extra strength tabs, I might start with one and see if that is enough rather than start with two of the 500 mg. and I also take it with NAC. I don't take an "overdose" but there has been some research that for some people the normal dose can be a bit too strong and cause some degree of liver damage, and knowing this, I'm cautious. People I know are freaking because they disagree because it was Pres. Trump saying something about Tylenol and it can't be true - but I've known for decades this is not like skittles or M & M's, it is something to be careful with and maybe this gives some additional context to consider.
Martha I was actually referring to Dr. McCullough when I made that comment. He stated he agreed with all those agencies he named about this topic. While I respect him as a physician and epidemiologist and ultimately agree with his conclusion, I do not respect, nor have I ever respected any of those agencies. I have known for decades that they are corrupt and captured by industry. So my point was while I trust him and his research, I do not trust them.
I did not even read your previous comment, but thank you for the well thought out comment. I completely agree with you.
Thanks very much. I am sorry I misunderstood. The thing about the FDA and CDC - you are right, I agree about the corruption and the regulatory capture - but I do have hopes of things getting better under RFK. Because the country is so divided I think, sadly, he is right to proceed cautiously, but he does understand about regulatory capture, and I think he is genuinely trying to do well and little by little I have hopes. I sent something about aluminum in vaccines, and about Tylenol to a small group of women I have been friends with for 20 years, and one of them, a nurse said, "This is wrong on so many ways, misinformation, but I don't have time..." I think part of it was either from Dr. McCullough or from Nicolas, and some of my own thoughts, and I am certain that the post I shared had good information - but even people who used to be friends have their own fixed ideas and won't consider alternative ideas to whatever narrative they have come to believe. It seems like today many people just pick a team, and whatever their team says is right - but nobody should just stop thinking and blindly agree to anything. Of course, over the past few years, pharma and the 3-letter agencies have chosen to lie about most things, and there has been much research produced that was intentionally misleading in support of the approved narrative, one has to approach all of it with eyes open and brain activated.
Nothing about these prenatal studies surprises me. My daughter in her MD residency was forced to take the clot-shot while pregnant with my 2nd grandson. He was born with cancer (glioma) covering 1/3 of the brain. Can't prove the shot did it but my girl filed a VAERS report and as a part-time GP does little to force vaccinations on anyone, especially infants. BTW, the best pediatric brain surgeons in the world have appeared to successfully remove the tumor when he was a week old (along with a ton of prayer) and my my grandson is a happy 3 1/2 year old, although physically compromised from the surgery. Thanks you Dr Mc & please continue to fight for our children.
I am so sorry that this happened. There are various substack writers who have been writing about how the vaccines caused these turbo cancers, it seems to me it is almost certain to have been the vaccine that caused that - I have never before heard of a baby being born with cancer. Maybe it has happened, but I have never heard of it, to have to have cancer surgery one week after birth.
Grandson had seizures in the 1st week of life and scans/tests showed a "rare" cancer. He was born with it. The medical staff operated a few days later, after needing time to get an "A" team together. Thanks for the support.
Thank you for reporting the most reliable source, but I would like to highlight a risk factor that hasn't yet been adequately recognized.
Paracetamol is overused; most people use it when it's unnecessary, and it alters or confuses the assessment of each patient's health status.
Patients no longer have a body temperature that corresponds to their illness, and they are also accustomed to not feeling themselves, but only through the doctor's interpretation.
In short, this too often alters the temperature; doctors don't realize that it renders temperature measurement virtually useless, and even the simplest and most natural symptom to evaluate is no longer independent of the doctor. Furthermore, it impedes one of the body's natural defenses and limits the natural production of glutathione.
There is no doubt at all, in my mind, that Dr. McCullough is an outstanding, competent, honest, independent and courageous health practitioner, who has done so much to help mitigate a lot of the predicament we´ve found ourselves in for decades. And, from his posture in medicine, I have noticed that he is also a very open-minded person, willing to go the extra mile to accomodate new meaninful knowledge. This is why I would like to give my humble contribution in a bid to enrich this long overdue debate on the spiralling chronic diseases, not only in USA, but worldwide, with devastating consequences.
To start with, I would like to state, document and share the fact of common sense that if A can lead to B and B can lead to C, then A could inevitably lead to C. So, it seems totally reasonable and responsible to say: «if you don´t want to end up in C, do not take the route A, just because you may end up in C, which you definitely don´t want. If Tylenol can cause Glutathione deficiency (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15878691/) and Glutathione deficiency can cause neurodevelopmental disorders (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8229148/pdf/ijms-22-06171.pdf), then it should be a common sense to realize that Tylenol can cause brain damages, whatever you want to call it (ADHD, ADD, ASD, Encephalitis, etc., etc.).
It seems that the reason why conventional medical doctors prescribe Tylenol or other pain-killers so promptly, may have to do with the fact that they seem to have been trained not to undeerstand the root causes of pain (a language the body uses to tell us that something is not right), but yes, they seem to have been trained to just identify the symptoms and shut them off with anaesthetics or pain-killers, instead of trying to figure out what are the underlining factors contributing to the symptoms. It is just embarrassing. I feel sorry for those doctors, who have just been turned into little more than sales reps for Big Pharma. It looks obvious to me that if the Big Pharma wants to sell its drugs, it will not fund conventional medical schools to teach medical students how to cure diseases, unless it wants to go bankrupt.
The same thing goes for vaccines. If the vaccines are made safe and effective to prevent diseases or disease factors (viral, parasitic, bacterial or fungal infections), how is the Big Pharma going to sell its lucrative products and avoid bankrupcy? I have the impression that the majority of the conventional medical doctors have not yet understood this equasion, which is, in itself, pretty problematic. When conventional medical schools and doctors become independent again, they will teach and learn how to reduce and/or eliminate physical pain, in minutes or few hours, with adequate personalised mechanotransduction (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01501-9), adequate personalised natural chelation (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3654245/) and, given that we´re the results of what we consume, personalised nutrition (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8224682/).
The fact that western medical instituitions approaches do not want and have not yet identified the definitive link and the exact mechanism of action of its procuct-induced diseases and neurodevelopmental disorders, is not prove that Tylenol, other drugs and vaccines are safe. Far from it. It is clear and understandable that the disease industrial complex has a desire to not find links between its products and diseases. It is clear that ill-intended procedures have been put in place to make it difficult to find links between pharmaceutical products and diseases. By the time competent, honest and independent doctors, scientists and experts manage to overcome the hurdles and establish definitive factors and links to real chronic diseases, billions of people will have been injured, and perished from the same chronic diseases. Pretty sad, indeed!
I intend to forward further personal info to Dr. McCullough, so he becomes aware of where I am coming from.
The glands in the human brain are sensitive to toxic matter in the bloodstream. What ever is ingested or injected will affect the brain. The glands (and organs) need nutrients from unprocessed food in order to function; providing humans with the ability to think and aid in emotional development. Any substances in the bloodstream other than food will-damage the brain. Drugs and vaccines are composed of many items, which silently attack the glands in the brain and the other organs. Med schools do not promote nutrition...and as someone who has been studying this subject of nutrition for 64 years, I am aware of the effect that the right or wrong nutrition has on the body and the brain through years of personal experimentation.
I do hope that you sent to Mr. Kennedy a copy of this very compelling and authoritative analysis. I do seriously doubt that he (or most lay folks) would understand its message. Thanks for being a responsible epidemiologist.
SSRIs are not recommended to be stopped cold turkey due to severe problems that may ensue from withdrawal. What is the recommendation for women taking SSRIs who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy that leads to saving both lives?
What I try to do when I have treated women of child-bearing age, is to look carefully at the meds I believe to be the safest during a possible pregnancy that is also potentially effective, discuss it, and then start the medication with the idea that if they did get pregnant, this something that she and I agree could be continued during pregnancy, and I have especially done that with women who have had serious needs for potentially longer term psych meds. And I've had women ask me to switch their meds to "safer" meds before they try getting pregnant. But if a brand new patient was on an antidepressant that was working and became pregnant, I would generally not stop if, though usually we have a conversation about meds, and I will go through some of the research with them and we talk about what the risks may be - risks of continuing meds, and other risks of NOT continuing the meds.
I do not know what the official recommendation is today, but I do know that normally OB's in my area will tell their patients if they are already on an antidepressant, if the psychiatrist thinks they should be taking it, it should not be discontinued - or that's my experience, and I think that's correct. (We have a med school in the city where I live and a reasonably high quality of medical in our city.) Very often, a symptom of clinical depression is that a person may stop eating or decrease food intake enough to cause weight loss. If medication were stopped, and the woman had no interest in food, the decreased nutrition could be harmful to the baby. Many people with clinical depression don't care about taking care of health, and a substantial minority will become at risk for suicide. None of this helps the baby. So - while there could be some risks that we don’t know about, there has not been a clear link between autism and anti-depressants and I'm not convinced that is the case now.
In the 1990's a careful study was done of outcomes in children who had been exposed to Prozac (fluoxetine) in utero. It was a large study and they followed the children until age 6 as I recall and there was fairly careful evaluation of the children - and no adverse effects of that early exposure to Prozac was observed, so I thought that seemed quite safe. I don’t recall the name of the author(s) – it’s been more than 30 years ago now.
Prozac has a long half-life so it can take a month or longer to totally get “out of your system,” and in a sense you could say it “self-tapers” to some extent – even if you stop it entirely, it may be weeks before you feel it, though with all antidepressants it is recommended that you decrease gradually and not all at once. For one thing, there is a risk of depression coming back when meds are gone, but also some people have adverse effects like nausea, headaches, tingling or electric sensations. So to minimize all these things, IF there is a reason to decrease or discontinue, it’s better to decrease gradually, working with the prescriber to monitor how you are doing for any patient, whether pregnant or not, and it most often would be done gradually over a period of weeks or even months, but there is no one size fits all. And do it gradually even if it is Prozac with its’ long half-life, or any other antidepressant or other psych med. That is between the patient and the prescriber, and the pace of tapering is not one size fits all. Antidepressant discontinuation doesn’t cause serious harm to the patient, no danger of death as with some of the drugs of abuse / addiction though recurrence of depression can be bad for mother and baby. And stopping an antidepressant during pregnancy could actually be harmful to the baby.
I can think of a couple of women I have known, who were in the past taken off Zoloft by their OB during pregnancy, who had adverse effects from discontinuing the med, and they miscarried. In a subsequent pregnancy, these two women each came to, and both were on Zoloft at the time. I recommended staying on Zoloft and not stopping it at all, and they did not miscarry, they had healthy babies.
Of course, at that time, I was not thinking about autism, this was years ago and I don’t think it was being studied back then. I can't say for sure that the children did or did not have autism that showed up later, but the women need to be well in order to care for their children both during the pregnancy and after birth, and women who are clinically depressed may not bond as well to their children and that matters. Plus, they had both had the experience of stopping Zoloft and having a miscarriage, and I thought staying on the medication and not stopping might be the wiser course, which is how it turned out.
Obviously, if there had been research in the past showing a strong association between antidepressants and autism, I would have thought about it differently - but in the past I never saw any research that raised red flags, and women with clinical depression need to have it controlled during pregnancy and post-partum and beyond to be able to enjoy their children and care for them, as well because the women themselves deserve to feel well. There are treatments for depression that don't require medication, and I do use non-pharmaceutical treatment also - but a lot of times in my experience, you really do need the meds.
All the SSRI's work in a similar and have been generally considered reasonably safe in pregnancy, though I know there has been concern about Paxil (paroxetine) having possible cardiac problems in the baby, but Paxil also has the most side effects generally of anything in this class, in my opinion, so years ago I tried prescribing it, had patients who complained of nausea, which can occur with any SSRI though usually doesn't if one starts with a low dose and increases gradually - but Paxil seemed to be the worst for nausea - but all the SSRI's are generally similar to each other.
Within the past couple years, I had a patient who was clinically depressed, who had a newborn infant, and I know that Zoloft (sertraline) has been the only antidepressant that pediatricians recommended for breastfeeding women. This woman had previously expressed thoughts of suicide which is why she was referred to me, but she was very concerned that Zoloft would hurt her child, so I did a literature search, read quite a number of studies, and found that very little of it gets into breast milk, and despite it being detectable at low levels in breast milk, it's actually not detectable in breast fed babies, and there have not been harmful effects in the babies from what I could find, which I told her. But she was starting to feel better around the time I started treating her, and she did not take the medication and did okay.
But part of what I was reading was about use of Zoloft during pregnancy, and I figured if it is not causing harm to the fetus, and it also had been found to be safe for children with depression, it was logical that it would also be safe with breastfeeding if necessary to use it – and Zoloft is the one that pediatricians recommend, I think with good reason.
It appears the practice of prescribing depression relief to women bent on becoming pregnant is pregnant with multi-variate issues-- compromises in both directions.
Looking only at the black and white of this issue it seems the best course is to counsel these women NOT to get pregnant and keep them on what "works" until they can be weaned themselves.
"Based on this comprehensive analysis a reasonable conclusion is that acetaminophen alone taken during pregnancy is not a cause of autism that develops years later in an afflicted child."
"acetaminophen alone taken" - what an odd way to phrase it. I will put aside my radar going up when things are phrased weirdly, and just focus on this: how common in a normal setting is it "alone taken"? Not very, I suspect.
First, let me thank you Dr. McCullough for your sharing of your immense knowledge us. My grandson has just a baby boy, and has listened and reserched the vaccines. He is asking me for information on Beyfortus (Nirsevimab) the monoclonal anitbody shot for infants born during the RSV season. HIs son is a healthy 9 lb baby. Could you direct me to some research. Thank you for your time. / or anyone reading this that has reliable information.
Unfortunately, Thorp's analysis is deeply flawed and the 82% figure grossly inflated. I have posted on this elsewhere. Sadly, this got featured in Sen. Johnson's hearing, and undermines MAHA credibility.
As with all things and medicine, it is called practicing medicine because there is no absolute. People use judgments and try to use the best evidence to make the best decision for themselves, which is why no procedure can be mandated because it’s an individual decision and interpretation of the information.
That said, I fully respect Dr. McCullough’s opinion and agree with him probably 99% of the time, but there are a few things that I don’t always agree with because my approach would be different.
Interestingly, he has always stated that the sacred rule is not to experiment on pregnant women. That should never be something that is done due to the significant harms and risks that go along with it.
Saying that one study is the best study and therefore making a recommendation that it’s OK to take a medication during pregnancy feel is a bit reckless when we don’t absolutely know why certain people would be affected while others wouldn’t be.
Finally, I also find it interesting that to support his argument. Dr. McCullough is aligning himself with other professional organizations yet in other circumstances, he rips into these organizations stating that they are not objectively evaluating evidence and data. I find this very ironic that he uses it as part of his Recommendation to support his position when in other instances, tearing these organizations apart as being an organization that supports that business practice. It is not an organization that is not without conflict of interest.
Therefore, their positions must be taken with a grain of salt, unfortunately as we’ve all noticed, since the pandemic opened many people’s eyes
Love the conversation and I for one would limit the use of any medication’s or pharmaceutical products during pregnancy. it’s not worth the risk.
Absolutely. There are probably about 150 studies, and almost every one of them showing the same thing. If you have even one abortion, your very next pregnancy is more likely to be pre-term, and just a couple days early, or even a week or two early - you have increased risk for a baby that is "very pre-term" even one of those 24-weekers that has a long NICU stay and may end up with various disabilities including risk of cerebral palsy, and of course some very pre-term babies do not live, though in the US, we continue to get better at saving lives, but often at a cost - a huge economic cost for our country, and the cost in additional health risks from the too-early birth. These studies have been done on every continent, numerous different countries, huge numbers of pregnancies included - in one study, there were one million or more cases. You can also see a "dose response" in that one abortion is associated with some numerical risk, but if you have 2 abortions, the risk of a pre-term birth in a subsequent pregnancy is higher, and it keeps going up, the more abortions, the greater the risk, which shows that is quite likely due to the abortion and not some confounder. Several different mechanisms for this have been considered - inflammation of the cervix is thought to be one of the causes, which can come from the abortion, and it has been seen not only with surgical abortion but with mifepristone abortions. You can read more at the website www.aaplog.org You would have to search there for information on "preterm birth" but you should be able to find practice guidelines, and also a bibliography of all the studies. Women are typically not being warned about this possible adverse effect related to abortion, but it should be something to consider.
The risk is also there with so-called "medication abortions." Part of the problem may be surgical instrumentation causing weakening of the cervix. However, what is not really advertised as a problem with mifepristone abortions or other types of pharmaceutical abortions is that they are not always successful and there is a percentage of women who will not have a completed abortion from the chemicals alone (in the U.S. it's usually mifepristone and misoprostol, two drugs), and the abortion ends up having to be completed surgically, so then you have whatever risks come with the drugs, and then you still have to have a surgical procedure and get whatever risks come with that. The causes have not been fully sorted out - I have seen in one article five proposed causes that are logical and there may be multiple factors operating. But - you do see increased risk whether it is surgical or "medication abortion." But to be clear - the majority of women who have medication abortion do not have to have surgery, but it's not like one in a million. Mifepristone blocks progesterone receptors on the placenta and in the uterus, and when progesterone is absent, the pregnancy will not continue. The placenta starts to deteriorate, the fetus doesn't get nutrition, it dies - then misoprostol causes hard contractions to expel the fetus. But sometimes the unborn child remains inside the woman which can cause an infection, and if the remains do not pass, which might be 10% of the time, in early abortions, then surgery is necessary. The later the medication abortion is undertaken, the greater the risk of a failed abortion that will require surgery; each week that goes by brings greater risk of an incomplete abortion that will require surgery, but still, it's definitely not the majority who end up having surgery. But if there are 1 million or more women having abortions annually, which is true in the U.S., even a small percentage of women is a big number. And actually there are many studies that show a "surgical abortion" has less bleeding, less pain, less nausea and vomiting, and a shorter time period of any bleeding, less of any adverse effects you could think of, compared to the "abortion pill" (mifepristone and misoprostol). Women choose medication abortions thinking it seems very easy and they expect it to be a more natural or less unpleasant way to do this, but it's just the opposite of what they expect, for many of them. Again, you can find a bibliography and a "practice guideline" on preterm birth after previous abortion at www.aaplog.org But there is increased risk of preterm birth with any abortion of any type, and the causes are not definitely fully clear to my understanding; there are some plausible causes that may be operating, but the studies show the association and the dose effect - that more abortions produce greater risk of having a pre-term or very pre-term baby, but the type of research that has been done can't "prove" what the specific cause is, but cervical damage and also inflammation seem to be part of it, and some other factors I've forgotten.
As you probably know, there is evidence that mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 increases risk of spontaneous abortions, making it another in the class of pharmaceutical abortion treatments. If that increases the risk of early termination of later pregnancies, then the tragic effects are compounded. Your remarks make me wonder about that.
I think this was intentional. Dr. Michael Yeadon is a retired researcher who at one time was a Vice President at Pfizer in England, with his areas of expertise being respiratory viruses and vaccines. Before the vaccines were ever rolled out, he was seeing red flags and warning about potential problems which is the reason I never took the shots - I was waiting to see actual data and all I was seeing was what I recognized as propaganda. Our medical board sent out statements like, "Be sure to get all your patients to take the vaccine so we can all get back to normal," cheer leading for pharma without providing the kind of data that I have always seen for normal meds. Anyway, one thing Yeadon said before rollout - and he was no longer at Pfizer by that time - but he said that the vaccines were all focused on the spike protein which looks very, very similar to the S protein on the placenta - and if you got immunized against spike protein, would you also be immunized against pregnancy? Would women's immune system attack the placenta and thus prevent babies from being born? He said that proper reproductive studies had not been done, and that was true, I was waiting for them. They were urging the vaccines on pregnant women before they ever had reproductive data, and they should have studied animal reproduction first. You want to make sure that after the vaccine, females are still able to get pregnant, but then also to follow through the pregnancy and make sure females are able to give birth to health young, and the part about being able to complete a healthy pregnancy was not done on animals or else if done never provided anyone to look at prior to rollout, and then the human reproductive trials were not done till pregnant women had already been taking it. The data available now shows that the Covid vaccines are about as effective as mifepristone abortions, I think it was 82% of pregnancies ended in miscarriage or stillbirth when women got Covid vaccines during pregnancy. Dr. Naomi Wolf is an investigative reporter who is the main editor of The Covid Papers - she's not an MD, but has a PhD in something from Oxford University - but she has been reporting on women's health for many years - and you may remember that 200 American scientists and researchers filed Freedom of Information requests to get the records from vaccine trials and vaccine research to study and FDA and Pfizer refused, the scientists went to court and got a court order to get the data - but FDA and Pfizer said it would take 75 years to release all the data because they had to reiview everything first to make sure that certain things got redacted - judge said they had to release much more quickly, so FDA said they didn't have the manpower to do it, and would it be okay if Pfizer helped - so the papers have been released, but apparently in random order so it was hard to organize hundreds of thousands of pages sent randomly like that - Naomi Wolf worked with a team of physicians, scientists, researchers etc. and investigative reporters to organize the material and publish important parts which are now available, but she has been writing a substack, and even before she had all the "Pfizer papers" to work with, she was writing about what she called the "great Baby Die-Off," there was data available that showed babies were dying during pregnancy in massive numbers, it's true. There is also a Dr. James Thorp who is a board certified OB/GYN who has published on this. One thing many people do not know - In Japan their equivalent of our FDA said they would not approve any vaccines unless they had a "drug distribution study" to show where all it travels in the body - well the vaccine gets everywhere in the body, and it particularly concentrates in the ovaries and testes. Is that where our body produces antibodies? No. So why would they design a vaccine that concentrates in the ovaries. A man will make sperm all his life, but a woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have, she can't make new ones if the originals are damaged. She does not make antibodies in her ovaries, so why a vaccine that concentrates there? Maybe someone had in mind to harm her fertility and help her not to become pregnant? Another thing that most people do not know - the World Health Organization at one time was involved in helping to produce a vaccine that would immunize against pregnancy, and there was an attempt to create a vaccine against HCG, Human Chorionic Gonadatropin, which is what tells the woman's body to produce progesterone to maintain a pregnancy when she is pregnant. HCG is what is measured in pregnancy tests to find out if a woman is pregnant. Anyway, I had read years ago that an anti-HCG vaccine had been created and it had been mixed in with tetanus vaccines and given to women in a few developing nations in an effort to lower the population - the women were not informed, it was sneaked in without any informed consent, but it was found out, and my original source was in a sense alternative media, but I was able to confirm this in a medical journal - it happened. But what happened with Covid was not the same vaccine, but when I heard Mike Yeadon's concerns about the reproductive issues, because I knew about the earlier vaccine, I believed this kind of thing was possible - and just kept watching and waiting, looks like it to me - but of course people who have not read any of the actual research will just howl "misinformation," but it's a problem. Fertility rates all over the world, especially in highly vaxxed countries keep dropping. I think it's both the damage to ovaries and testes, plus vaccine effects that may still be harming a woman's ability to carry a pregnancy to term. For more information on some of this - look for The Pfizer Papers, Naomi Wolf on Amazon, go to Naomi Wolf's substack archives and look for the "Baby Die-Off" or something like "We Regret to Announce a Genocide." You'll find something along these lines. Dr. James Thorp wrote a book that I think is on Amazon, or google him - there are videos and things he's written that can be found. There are a lot of good scientists and health professionals who have been trying to get the truth out, but a lot of people do NOT want to listen at all. And there some who get every shot, every time they get a chance.
I read the Swedish study (Ahlqvist et al.) carefully - the full article, not just the abstract, particularly looking at the "methods" - and it looked to me like they did not truly know how much Tylenol was even taken by the mothers. When Tylenol was prescribed by a physician, it was documented how many tablets the woman received from the pharmacy, but there was no determination of how much she truly took. For myself, I have numerous bottles of prescribed meds at home that I have never taken - for example, Tylenol with Codeine prescribed for dental work but I never took any of the medication; or Tylenol with codeine after a surgical procedure, when I only needed one tablet but received a dozen. A muscle relaxer that I never took after I read the side effects, though it was filled twice because my husband picked it up on my behalf, not realizing I didn't want it. So in this study - just looking at how many tablets were filled is not, in my opinion, a reasonable way to know how much Tylenol was taken, if any was even taken. They also considered that women may purchase nonprescription Tylenol that was not filled at the pharmacy, but from what they wrote it sounded like they really had not done a good job accounting for these either. If they don't know how much Tylenol was taken, or even if Tylenol was taken at all, the study is meaningless, even though it looks great from the abstract. But I think there methods of accounting for actual Tylenol use were very poor. I can't quote the article directly right now because I don't have access at the moment. My email account at the college where I teach got hacked last week and my password was frozen by IT who have not restored my account yet. But I read this carefully several days ago.
Even if you assume that everyone who filled a prescription truly did take some, it matters how much the mother took, because part of the criteria for determining causality (the Bradford Hill criteria) says that you would expect, if a med caused some problem, your chance of having the problem is greater if you took more of the meds, compared to someone else. So how much the woman took and of course knowing for sure if she took it at all, is important information that I don't think is accurately known from the methods used.
On the other hand, a different study, published August 14, 2025, analyzed 46 different studies on the association between Tylenol used by the mothers and autism and ADHD in the children. This is the study: Prada, D., Ritz, B., Bauer, A.Z. & Andrea Baccarelli. Evaluation of the evidence on acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders using the Navigation Guide methodology. Environ Health 24, 56 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-025-01208-0. And This study by Prada et al., , and found the majority of these studies showed a strong effect, plus also a dose effect, in that mothers who took Tylenol for more than four weeks, had the highest risk of having a child with autism or ADHD, a greater risk compared to mothers who took it for a shorter period of time.
According to the Bradford Hill criteria for causality, when you see an association & hope to figure out, is the one thing causing the other, you look at consistency - is this happening over and over in different studies? In this case, out of 46 studies, the majority showed this association, not just one or two. It also should be strong association, not a tiny, iffy one - and in this case, that was true. Then, the dose-response as I mentioned, which was present - the children of the women who took Tylenol for 4 weeks or longer had greater risk of having ADHD or autism. And then, is it plausible, is there any realistic explanation that is logical that shows how this could happen. And in fact, in our bodies, we all make glutathione which helps our bodies to inactivate harmful chemicals that we may be exposed to. But Tylenol depletes glutathione & leaves people more vulnerable to toxins. Tylenol itself is toxic, and is known to cause many cases of liver damage and even liver failure every year. It can damage cells & not only liver cells.
Because babies in the womb during weeks 4 through 8 have all their organs and organ systems rapidly developing during that time, that is a time of special vulnerability when exposure to any chemical might cause damage to the developing organ even something that might not bother at all later on. So, partly it may make a difference at what point in the pregnancy the mom took a medication. As pointed out in Dr. McCullough's article, many meds are associated with various problematic outcomes. It's good to minimize any meds that you don't have to take during pregnancy. But in the US, it is apparently recommended that women take 4 vaccines during pregnancy, one of them being the flu shot. The flu shot, or at least some flu vaccines, have aluminum in them, which is a neurotoxin. Aluminum can cross the placenta, and it can get into the babies brain. But if the mother takes Tylenol due to a vaccine reaction, maybe a fever or discomfort after the vaccine, she is depleting her glutathione which makes her then less able to inactivate various toxins in her body - so this has been proposed as a plausible mechanism by which Tylenol could be causing harm.
In the end, I think that probably the in utero exposures are not really the most important concern, but with all the aluminum that has been in the vaccines until about now, and kids getting repeated doses of aluminum from infancy through adulthood, and again, aluminum being a neurotoxin, the bigger concern might be all the aluminum that has been injected into children and then the infants or children being given Tylenol after the shots. Hopefully we'll get greater clarity on that soon with some of the new research that is anticipated to be available soon.
Fantastic post Martha.
Simply out of abundance of care for the multi-variate situation, not to mention the study's inability to accurately account for dosage taken, it is a simple conclusion NOT to take this toxin during pregnancy. Whatever happened to the very special view of the past that severely restricts drugs and alcohol during pregnancy?
Though I have much respect for Dr McCullough your facts and studied analysis appear to fall on the more conservative side of this concerning issue as opposed to a need to show objectivity in agreement with 7 medical organizations.
Like the AMA and the pediatricians I trust none of them, period. I would not be proud to show affinity or ability to concede points to them in such an existential crisis of autism and world health.
Your post deserves a response by Dr. McCullough.
You made some very good points that definitely should be taken into account. I still think there's an elephant in the room as we explore this topic. That would of course be the assumption that vaccines are safe for pregnancies and children. If you study how vaccines are approved and brought to market you can't help but see the obvious omissions and lack of evidence for safety. The more you drill down the more shocking it gets. Vaccines have become like a cult or religion, taken on faith and not to be questioned. The great Stanley Plodkin, who wrote the book, and received millions from Pharma was at a loss to
explain the lack of proper safety studies when deposed by Aaron Siri. The industry molded and used him to maintain the fiction of safe and effective vaccines. It was all about money, so deception and blind obedience was necessary.
Excellent comment!
One issue I have with the sibling controls portion of the study is that there is evidence that having a first child with autism lowers the chances of those parents having additional children by as much as a third. So, when you go to the sibling controls analysis you have potentially disproportionately cut children with autism out, as they are more likely to be only children. I don't know if they address this in the discussion, perhaps they do.
I have not seen any discussion of that. That is an excellent point.
Good work Martha. I agree that the dosing amount would be critical in these evaluations and frankly that information seems bandied about in these otherwise “comprehensive” evaluations about acetaminophen.
OTC drugs and their liberal commercial marketing (especially after the 1987 laws releasing Pharma from vaccine liability and God knows what else), over decades gave the public, especially among my naturally groupthink TV Boomer generation (80 million, 1946-64), and their offspring the perception that it was “safe and effective”.
Imagine tens of millions of young mothers without internet access back then that did not exist in it’s current form thinking “headache, fever, oh yeah, Tylenol”, perhaps not even consulting a doctor because it was common knowledge and what the doctor advised the last time without prescription. But during Covid, the Nobel Prize winning super drug, non commercialized Ivermectin, was denigrated as horse de wormer.
Oh yeah, “safe and effective”, the number one media propagandized commercial about the Jab that would save us all from the big round ball with spikes that on “opening day” was immediately seen everywhere 24/7.
Academia and medicine have enjoyed the protection from dissenting peer review inquisition and authority through the use of their hierarchal academies since Aristotle brought them about, but the cozy relationship between academia, medicine, and media collusion since the coming of the “innocent” TV has become a matastisized cancer, especially in America. As long as they are permitted to conspire against the citizens of this unique Constitutional republic by corrupting the military at the top (Pentagon) as they covertly do before, during, and after every war with “research and development” as this money laundering axis began in earnest near the end of WWII and onward, they will use the “military industrial complex” as their media whipping boys.
The deep State knows the citizens must have a standing military, more so today than ever.
They continue to try to take the guns, emasculate the men, make fragile the women, create chaos and division from the youth at the most hierarchal universities, on fabricated hot button virtue signaling issues to divide, homogenize the middle with 50 million indifferent illegal voters for free stuff, and expunge the Executive Branch and CIC by coup or assassination.
The Leftist deep State that vowed to capture the institutions during the 1960’s and 70’s tumultuous years of riots and murder that makes today’s rioting by their grandchildren look like child’s play, are the same Leftist hate America cabals that decided to covertly use the Democrat banner as their vehicle. Their incubators are academia.
First of all, I don’t trust all the alphabet soup agencies you agree with. They have proven time and again to be untrustworthy. No one cares what they say anymore.
Secondly, the manufacturer itself was concerned about a link with autism, according to leaked emails, and did what Pharma always does and sweep it under the rug. That is concerning.
However, I still do not believe the link is strong. Why? Because nearly every pregnant woman probably takes Tylenol. They are told by their “trusted” doctors that it is the ONLY safe pain reliever/fever reducer to take during pregnancy. This has been true for decades. Thankfully, I did not take it during my two pregnancies over 2 decades ago, because I would not take any medications.
What is being missed in focusing on taking Tylenol during pregnancy, is that it is much more harmful to give to an infant. I remember 30 years ago, those in the holistic community warning about giving Tylenol after vaccines. Which again, is exactly what doctors tell parents to do when they spike a fever after vaccination. If I remember correctly, they believed it caused a Cytokine Storm which caused damage to the brain.
Are there any studies on giving Tylenol to infants after vaccination?
There are already thousands of parents who believe their child regressed into autism after routine vaccinations. It would be interesting to know how many of those children took Tylenol as well.
Alexandra, it looks like you may have been speaking to me in this post, but you said, "I don’t trust all the alphabet soup agencies you agree with." If so, you misunderstood me. I do not agree with the CDC and FDA who did nothing but lie their heads off during the pandemic.
What I stated in my post was that I read the actual research which anyone could and should do instead of reading what people say about it - I read the actual research and found that the study by Prada et al. published in August reviewed 46 other studies, and when I looked at what they found, I recognized that their research on Tylenol and autism was very well done and met several of the criteria for determination causation. I think for now there will continue to be discussion and I understand that McCullough has some new research that is soon to be released, so we may know more soon - but I did find problems with the methodology and I explained that as above.
It is not the case that I "agree" that if the FDA says something, then I say "okay, here's the truth, because the FDA said so," rather, when substackers write their commentary about recently published peer reviewed studies, it is my own practice to find the actual article, read it carefully and see whether I notice anything that the substacker overlooked, or whether I agree with their comments. In the case of both the studies I mentioned, there has been no shortage of online discussions, on you tube, in email groups I'm in, and one more than one substack, and no shortage of heated opinions. I'm not taking the side of the FDA or CDC or defending them - I think there are some good people now within HHS, but many who misled us during Covid.
What I did was to read the actual article, which anyone may do, looking carefully, and pointing out some points that no one else has mentioned that I have seen - and the methodology of the Ahlqvist study is problematic in my opinion. This has nothing to do with what the CDC did or didn't say, and actually there are some other pieces of info about autism, Tylenol and vaccines that I may share just a bit later, but at the moment, I'm out of time. But seriously, if people are going to discuss articles, start reading the original articles instead of only reading what other people say about the research. But for me, when I was younger and trying to get pregnant, I was very careful and would not take ANY meds during pregnancy because I know that when the baby's brain is developing, meds can cause problems that may be unanticipated especially in early pregnancy before the women even knows she is pregnant though most especially during the 4th-8th week after conception. In most cases, I don't believe that it is terribly likely that one Tylenol one time is going to be the main cause of autism, but in the Prada study, the women who took it for four weeks or longer had the highest risk, and it does make sense if the mom is taking Tylenol which depletes glutathione and then cannot get rid of toxins as readily, there could be a variety of toxins circulating including Tylenol which does act as toxin to an extent, and that could potentially affect the developing brain.
But here's a thing that people don't get. Most moms tell their kids, "Don't smoke cigarettes, you'll get cancer." Schools may say that too. But it's not like cigarettes are "THE" cause of cancer and nothing else causes it. There are actually hundreds of chemicals in cigarette smoke and maybe at least 69 I think are known to be carcinogens - so any of those 69 chemicals, if I'm remember the exact number correctly, any of those, or all of them together could cause cancer. Yet - there are people who never, ever smoked, but they had industrial or workplace exposures to various toxic chemicals they inhaled, and they did get lung cancer. Or there was asbestos in your insulation in an old house, or radon in the basement, and you never smoked cigarettes but you still got lung cancer - or the other way about, you smoked like my dad, and you never did get cancer because maybe there was some mitigating factor. But it is true that cigarettes are a cause of cancer for many who get lung cancer.
For autism, I am pretty sure not everyone who takes Tylenol is going to have autism, and I don't think you can say it's 100% proven that Tylenol is a cause of autism, but it could be for some kids. But that does not mean it is going to be the ONLY cause. But due to depletion of glutathione, there may be kids who do have autism that they would not have had but for the Tylenol - and the manufacturer even has said they have never "recommended" that women take it during pregnancy.
For me, years ago one of my professors said, if you take enough Tylenol over a period of several years, you will end up with kidney failure on dialysis. He may (or may not) have stated it too strongly, and I don't recall his exact words after several decades, but while I do take Tylenol at times, I try to avoid it. I also know that Tylenol is known to be an important cause of liver failure every year. So - there is no question it can cause cellular damage, so it should not be surprising if it turns out it can harm the developing baby. These days any time I take Tylenol I also take n-acetylcysteine, aka "NAC" 600 mg. because it helps to replenish your glutathione. And if someone was overdose on Tylenol and came to the ER to get treatment - the overdose is likely to cause liver failure and death, that can be prevented by Glutathione. So when I take Tylenol, instead of two extra strength tabs, I might start with one and see if that is enough rather than start with two of the 500 mg. and I also take it with NAC. I don't take an "overdose" but there has been some research that for some people the normal dose can be a bit too strong and cause some degree of liver damage, and knowing this, I'm cautious. People I know are freaking because they disagree because it was Pres. Trump saying something about Tylenol and it can't be true - but I've known for decades this is not like skittles or M & M's, it is something to be careful with and maybe this gives some additional context to consider.
Martha I was actually referring to Dr. McCullough when I made that comment. He stated he agreed with all those agencies he named about this topic. While I respect him as a physician and epidemiologist and ultimately agree with his conclusion, I do not respect, nor have I ever respected any of those agencies. I have known for decades that they are corrupt and captured by industry. So my point was while I trust him and his research, I do not trust them.
I did not even read your previous comment, but thank you for the well thought out comment. I completely agree with you.
Thanks very much. I am sorry I misunderstood. The thing about the FDA and CDC - you are right, I agree about the corruption and the regulatory capture - but I do have hopes of things getting better under RFK. Because the country is so divided I think, sadly, he is right to proceed cautiously, but he does understand about regulatory capture, and I think he is genuinely trying to do well and little by little I have hopes. I sent something about aluminum in vaccines, and about Tylenol to a small group of women I have been friends with for 20 years, and one of them, a nurse said, "This is wrong on so many ways, misinformation, but I don't have time..." I think part of it was either from Dr. McCullough or from Nicolas, and some of my own thoughts, and I am certain that the post I shared had good information - but even people who used to be friends have their own fixed ideas and won't consider alternative ideas to whatever narrative they have come to believe. It seems like today many people just pick a team, and whatever their team says is right - but nobody should just stop thinking and blindly agree to anything. Of course, over the past few years, pharma and the 3-letter agencies have chosen to lie about most things, and there has been much research produced that was intentionally misleading in support of the approved narrative, one has to approach all of it with eyes open and brain activated.
an inference:
Women "trained" like seals by their respected obstetricians to take Tylenol during pregnancy or for any other pain will be more likely to
. . . feed the same sh_t to their kids.
Nothing about these prenatal studies surprises me. My daughter in her MD residency was forced to take the clot-shot while pregnant with my 2nd grandson. He was born with cancer (glioma) covering 1/3 of the brain. Can't prove the shot did it but my girl filed a VAERS report and as a part-time GP does little to force vaccinations on anyone, especially infants. BTW, the best pediatric brain surgeons in the world have appeared to successfully remove the tumor when he was a week old (along with a ton of prayer) and my my grandson is a happy 3 1/2 year old, although physically compromised from the surgery. Thanks you Dr Mc & please continue to fight for our children.
I am so sorry that this happened. There are various substack writers who have been writing about how the vaccines caused these turbo cancers, it seems to me it is almost certain to have been the vaccine that caused that - I have never before heard of a baby being born with cancer. Maybe it has happened, but I have never heard of it, to have to have cancer surgery one week after birth.
Grandson had seizures in the 1st week of life and scans/tests showed a "rare" cancer. He was born with it. The medical staff operated a few days later, after needing time to get an "A" team together. Thanks for the support.
In retrospect. . . too late I suppose, the hospital and its corporate leaders all should be sued to hell and back.
Thank you for reporting the most reliable source, but I would like to highlight a risk factor that hasn't yet been adequately recognized.
Paracetamol is overused; most people use it when it's unnecessary, and it alters or confuses the assessment of each patient's health status.
Patients no longer have a body temperature that corresponds to their illness, and they are also accustomed to not feeling themselves, but only through the doctor's interpretation.
In short, this too often alters the temperature; doctors don't realize that it renders temperature measurement virtually useless, and even the simplest and most natural symptom to evaluate is no longer independent of the doctor. Furthermore, it impedes one of the body's natural defenses and limits the natural production of glutathione.
for those not in Europe:
Paracetamol is another name for acetominofphen (Tylenol, Excedrin)
thank you
There is no doubt at all, in my mind, that Dr. McCullough is an outstanding, competent, honest, independent and courageous health practitioner, who has done so much to help mitigate a lot of the predicament we´ve found ourselves in for decades. And, from his posture in medicine, I have noticed that he is also a very open-minded person, willing to go the extra mile to accomodate new meaninful knowledge. This is why I would like to give my humble contribution in a bid to enrich this long overdue debate on the spiralling chronic diseases, not only in USA, but worldwide, with devastating consequences.
To start with, I would like to state, document and share the fact of common sense that if A can lead to B and B can lead to C, then A could inevitably lead to C. So, it seems totally reasonable and responsible to say: «if you don´t want to end up in C, do not take the route A, just because you may end up in C, which you definitely don´t want. If Tylenol can cause Glutathione deficiency (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15878691/) and Glutathione deficiency can cause neurodevelopmental disorders (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8229148/pdf/ijms-22-06171.pdf), then it should be a common sense to realize that Tylenol can cause brain damages, whatever you want to call it (ADHD, ADD, ASD, Encephalitis, etc., etc.).
It seems that the reason why conventional medical doctors prescribe Tylenol or other pain-killers so promptly, may have to do with the fact that they seem to have been trained not to undeerstand the root causes of pain (a language the body uses to tell us that something is not right), but yes, they seem to have been trained to just identify the symptoms and shut them off with anaesthetics or pain-killers, instead of trying to figure out what are the underlining factors contributing to the symptoms. It is just embarrassing. I feel sorry for those doctors, who have just been turned into little more than sales reps for Big Pharma. It looks obvious to me that if the Big Pharma wants to sell its drugs, it will not fund conventional medical schools to teach medical students how to cure diseases, unless it wants to go bankrupt.
The same thing goes for vaccines. If the vaccines are made safe and effective to prevent diseases or disease factors (viral, parasitic, bacterial or fungal infections), how is the Big Pharma going to sell its lucrative products and avoid bankrupcy? I have the impression that the majority of the conventional medical doctors have not yet understood this equasion, which is, in itself, pretty problematic. When conventional medical schools and doctors become independent again, they will teach and learn how to reduce and/or eliminate physical pain, in minutes or few hours, with adequate personalised mechanotransduction (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01501-9), adequate personalised natural chelation (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3654245/) and, given that we´re the results of what we consume, personalised nutrition (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8224682/).
The fact that western medical instituitions approaches do not want and have not yet identified the definitive link and the exact mechanism of action of its procuct-induced diseases and neurodevelopmental disorders, is not prove that Tylenol, other drugs and vaccines are safe. Far from it. It is clear and understandable that the disease industrial complex has a desire to not find links between its products and diseases. It is clear that ill-intended procedures have been put in place to make it difficult to find links between pharmaceutical products and diseases. By the time competent, honest and independent doctors, scientists and experts manage to overcome the hurdles and establish definitive factors and links to real chronic diseases, billions of people will have been injured, and perished from the same chronic diseases. Pretty sad, indeed!
I intend to forward further personal info to Dr. McCullough, so he becomes aware of where I am coming from.
We must win! The Truth should prevail!
Kind regards
good post Martix.
The glands in the human brain are sensitive to toxic matter in the bloodstream. What ever is ingested or injected will affect the brain. The glands (and organs) need nutrients from unprocessed food in order to function; providing humans with the ability to think and aid in emotional development. Any substances in the bloodstream other than food will-damage the brain. Drugs and vaccines are composed of many items, which silently attack the glands in the brain and the other organs. Med schools do not promote nutrition...and as someone who has been studying this subject of nutrition for 64 years, I am aware of the effect that the right or wrong nutrition has on the body and the brain through years of personal experimentation.
hmmmm. Personal experimentation. . .
You are a brave woman Barbara.
Your logic sure seems good to me!
I do hope that you sent to Mr. Kennedy a copy of this very compelling and authoritative analysis. I do seriously doubt that he (or most lay folks) would understand its message. Thanks for being a responsible epidemiologist.
see Martha's take on this.
Ha! I hope he sends HERS.
SSRIs are not recommended to be stopped cold turkey due to severe problems that may ensue from withdrawal. What is the recommendation for women taking SSRIs who find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy that leads to saving both lives?
What I try to do when I have treated women of child-bearing age, is to look carefully at the meds I believe to be the safest during a possible pregnancy that is also potentially effective, discuss it, and then start the medication with the idea that if they did get pregnant, this something that she and I agree could be continued during pregnancy, and I have especially done that with women who have had serious needs for potentially longer term psych meds. And I've had women ask me to switch their meds to "safer" meds before they try getting pregnant. But if a brand new patient was on an antidepressant that was working and became pregnant, I would generally not stop if, though usually we have a conversation about meds, and I will go through some of the research with them and we talk about what the risks may be - risks of continuing meds, and other risks of NOT continuing the meds.
I do not know what the official recommendation is today, but I do know that normally OB's in my area will tell their patients if they are already on an antidepressant, if the psychiatrist thinks they should be taking it, it should not be discontinued - or that's my experience, and I think that's correct. (We have a med school in the city where I live and a reasonably high quality of medical in our city.) Very often, a symptom of clinical depression is that a person may stop eating or decrease food intake enough to cause weight loss. If medication were stopped, and the woman had no interest in food, the decreased nutrition could be harmful to the baby. Many people with clinical depression don't care about taking care of health, and a substantial minority will become at risk for suicide. None of this helps the baby. So - while there could be some risks that we don’t know about, there has not been a clear link between autism and anti-depressants and I'm not convinced that is the case now.
In the 1990's a careful study was done of outcomes in children who had been exposed to Prozac (fluoxetine) in utero. It was a large study and they followed the children until age 6 as I recall and there was fairly careful evaluation of the children - and no adverse effects of that early exposure to Prozac was observed, so I thought that seemed quite safe. I don’t recall the name of the author(s) – it’s been more than 30 years ago now.
Prozac has a long half-life so it can take a month or longer to totally get “out of your system,” and in a sense you could say it “self-tapers” to some extent – even if you stop it entirely, it may be weeks before you feel it, though with all antidepressants it is recommended that you decrease gradually and not all at once. For one thing, there is a risk of depression coming back when meds are gone, but also some people have adverse effects like nausea, headaches, tingling or electric sensations. So to minimize all these things, IF there is a reason to decrease or discontinue, it’s better to decrease gradually, working with the prescriber to monitor how you are doing for any patient, whether pregnant or not, and it most often would be done gradually over a period of weeks or even months, but there is no one size fits all. And do it gradually even if it is Prozac with its’ long half-life, or any other antidepressant or other psych med. That is between the patient and the prescriber, and the pace of tapering is not one size fits all. Antidepressant discontinuation doesn’t cause serious harm to the patient, no danger of death as with some of the drugs of abuse / addiction though recurrence of depression can be bad for mother and baby. And stopping an antidepressant during pregnancy could actually be harmful to the baby.
I can think of a couple of women I have known, who were in the past taken off Zoloft by their OB during pregnancy, who had adverse effects from discontinuing the med, and they miscarried. In a subsequent pregnancy, these two women each came to, and both were on Zoloft at the time. I recommended staying on Zoloft and not stopping it at all, and they did not miscarry, they had healthy babies.
Of course, at that time, I was not thinking about autism, this was years ago and I don’t think it was being studied back then. I can't say for sure that the children did or did not have autism that showed up later, but the women need to be well in order to care for their children both during the pregnancy and after birth, and women who are clinically depressed may not bond as well to their children and that matters. Plus, they had both had the experience of stopping Zoloft and having a miscarriage, and I thought staying on the medication and not stopping might be the wiser course, which is how it turned out.
Obviously, if there had been research in the past showing a strong association between antidepressants and autism, I would have thought about it differently - but in the past I never saw any research that raised red flags, and women with clinical depression need to have it controlled during pregnancy and post-partum and beyond to be able to enjoy their children and care for them, as well because the women themselves deserve to feel well. There are treatments for depression that don't require medication, and I do use non-pharmaceutical treatment also - but a lot of times in my experience, you really do need the meds.
All the SSRI's work in a similar and have been generally considered reasonably safe in pregnancy, though I know there has been concern about Paxil (paroxetine) having possible cardiac problems in the baby, but Paxil also has the most side effects generally of anything in this class, in my opinion, so years ago I tried prescribing it, had patients who complained of nausea, which can occur with any SSRI though usually doesn't if one starts with a low dose and increases gradually - but Paxil seemed to be the worst for nausea - but all the SSRI's are generally similar to each other.
Within the past couple years, I had a patient who was clinically depressed, who had a newborn infant, and I know that Zoloft (sertraline) has been the only antidepressant that pediatricians recommended for breastfeeding women. This woman had previously expressed thoughts of suicide which is why she was referred to me, but she was very concerned that Zoloft would hurt her child, so I did a literature search, read quite a number of studies, and found that very little of it gets into breast milk, and despite it being detectable at low levels in breast milk, it's actually not detectable in breast fed babies, and there have not been harmful effects in the babies from what I could find, which I told her. But she was starting to feel better around the time I started treating her, and she did not take the medication and did okay.
But part of what I was reading was about use of Zoloft during pregnancy, and I figured if it is not causing harm to the fetus, and it also had been found to be safe for children with depression, it was logical that it would also be safe with breastfeeding if necessary to use it – and Zoloft is the one that pediatricians recommend, I think with good reason.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply.
It appears the practice of prescribing depression relief to women bent on becoming pregnant is pregnant with multi-variate issues-- compromises in both directions.
Looking only at the black and white of this issue it seems the best course is to counsel these women NOT to get pregnant and keep them on what "works" until they can be weaned themselves.
But that is just me. . .
"Based on this comprehensive analysis a reasonable conclusion is that acetaminophen alone taken during pregnancy is not a cause of autism that develops years later in an afflicted child."
"acetaminophen alone taken" - what an odd way to phrase it. I will put aside my radar going up when things are phrased weirdly, and just focus on this: how common in a normal setting is it "alone taken"? Not very, I suspect.
First, let me thank you Dr. McCullough for your sharing of your immense knowledge us. My grandson has just a baby boy, and has listened and reserched the vaccines. He is asking me for information on Beyfortus (Nirsevimab) the monoclonal anitbody shot for infants born during the RSV season. HIs son is a healthy 9 lb baby. Could you direct me to some research. Thank you for your time. / or anyone reading this that has reliable information.
Unfortunately, Thorp's analysis is deeply flawed and the 82% figure grossly inflated. I have posted on this elsewhere. Sadly, this got featured in Sen. Johnson's hearing, and undermines MAHA credibility.
As with all things and medicine, it is called practicing medicine because there is no absolute. People use judgments and try to use the best evidence to make the best decision for themselves, which is why no procedure can be mandated because it’s an individual decision and interpretation of the information.
That said, I fully respect Dr. McCullough’s opinion and agree with him probably 99% of the time, but there are a few things that I don’t always agree with because my approach would be different.
Interestingly, he has always stated that the sacred rule is not to experiment on pregnant women. That should never be something that is done due to the significant harms and risks that go along with it.
Saying that one study is the best study and therefore making a recommendation that it’s OK to take a medication during pregnancy feel is a bit reckless when we don’t absolutely know why certain people would be affected while others wouldn’t be.
Finally, I also find it interesting that to support his argument. Dr. McCullough is aligning himself with other professional organizations yet in other circumstances, he rips into these organizations stating that they are not objectively evaluating evidence and data. I find this very ironic that he uses it as part of his Recommendation to support his position when in other instances, tearing these organizations apart as being an organization that supports that business practice. It is not an organization that is not without conflict of interest.
Therefore, their positions must be taken with a grain of salt, unfortunately as we’ve all noticed, since the pandemic opened many people’s eyes
Love the conversation and I for one would limit the use of any medication’s or pharmaceutical products during pregnancy. it’s not worth the risk.
I believe that study never asked the mothers if they took acetaminophen. True?
Is there a relationship between mothers who had an abortion and upon a subsequent pregnancy experienced a pre-mature birth?
Absolutely. There are probably about 150 studies, and almost every one of them showing the same thing. If you have even one abortion, your very next pregnancy is more likely to be pre-term, and just a couple days early, or even a week or two early - you have increased risk for a baby that is "very pre-term" even one of those 24-weekers that has a long NICU stay and may end up with various disabilities including risk of cerebral palsy, and of course some very pre-term babies do not live, though in the US, we continue to get better at saving lives, but often at a cost - a huge economic cost for our country, and the cost in additional health risks from the too-early birth. These studies have been done on every continent, numerous different countries, huge numbers of pregnancies included - in one study, there were one million or more cases. You can also see a "dose response" in that one abortion is associated with some numerical risk, but if you have 2 abortions, the risk of a pre-term birth in a subsequent pregnancy is higher, and it keeps going up, the more abortions, the greater the risk, which shows that is quite likely due to the abortion and not some confounder. Several different mechanisms for this have been considered - inflammation of the cervix is thought to be one of the causes, which can come from the abortion, and it has been seen not only with surgical abortion but with mifepristone abortions. You can read more at the website www.aaplog.org You would have to search there for information on "preterm birth" but you should be able to find practice guidelines, and also a bibliography of all the studies. Women are typically not being warned about this possible adverse effect related to abortion, but it should be something to consider.
I hope to see more posts from you Martha!
Outstanding. Thank you.
Thanks very much.
Interesting! I have never heard that before. Do you know if pharmaceutical abortions have the same result, or is it only surgical abortions?
The risk is also there with so-called "medication abortions." Part of the problem may be surgical instrumentation causing weakening of the cervix. However, what is not really advertised as a problem with mifepristone abortions or other types of pharmaceutical abortions is that they are not always successful and there is a percentage of women who will not have a completed abortion from the chemicals alone (in the U.S. it's usually mifepristone and misoprostol, two drugs), and the abortion ends up having to be completed surgically, so then you have whatever risks come with the drugs, and then you still have to have a surgical procedure and get whatever risks come with that. The causes have not been fully sorted out - I have seen in one article five proposed causes that are logical and there may be multiple factors operating. But - you do see increased risk whether it is surgical or "medication abortion." But to be clear - the majority of women who have medication abortion do not have to have surgery, but it's not like one in a million. Mifepristone blocks progesterone receptors on the placenta and in the uterus, and when progesterone is absent, the pregnancy will not continue. The placenta starts to deteriorate, the fetus doesn't get nutrition, it dies - then misoprostol causes hard contractions to expel the fetus. But sometimes the unborn child remains inside the woman which can cause an infection, and if the remains do not pass, which might be 10% of the time, in early abortions, then surgery is necessary. The later the medication abortion is undertaken, the greater the risk of a failed abortion that will require surgery; each week that goes by brings greater risk of an incomplete abortion that will require surgery, but still, it's definitely not the majority who end up having surgery. But if there are 1 million or more women having abortions annually, which is true in the U.S., even a small percentage of women is a big number. And actually there are many studies that show a "surgical abortion" has less bleeding, less pain, less nausea and vomiting, and a shorter time period of any bleeding, less of any adverse effects you could think of, compared to the "abortion pill" (mifepristone and misoprostol). Women choose medication abortions thinking it seems very easy and they expect it to be a more natural or less unpleasant way to do this, but it's just the opposite of what they expect, for many of them. Again, you can find a bibliography and a "practice guideline" on preterm birth after previous abortion at www.aaplog.org But there is increased risk of preterm birth with any abortion of any type, and the causes are not definitely fully clear to my understanding; there are some plausible causes that may be operating, but the studies show the association and the dose effect - that more abortions produce greater risk of having a pre-term or very pre-term baby, but the type of research that has been done can't "prove" what the specific cause is, but cervical damage and also inflammation seem to be part of it, and some other factors I've forgotten.
As you probably know, there is evidence that mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 increases risk of spontaneous abortions, making it another in the class of pharmaceutical abortion treatments. If that increases the risk of early termination of later pregnancies, then the tragic effects are compounded. Your remarks make me wonder about that.
I think this was intentional. Dr. Michael Yeadon is a retired researcher who at one time was a Vice President at Pfizer in England, with his areas of expertise being respiratory viruses and vaccines. Before the vaccines were ever rolled out, he was seeing red flags and warning about potential problems which is the reason I never took the shots - I was waiting to see actual data and all I was seeing was what I recognized as propaganda. Our medical board sent out statements like, "Be sure to get all your patients to take the vaccine so we can all get back to normal," cheer leading for pharma without providing the kind of data that I have always seen for normal meds. Anyway, one thing Yeadon said before rollout - and he was no longer at Pfizer by that time - but he said that the vaccines were all focused on the spike protein which looks very, very similar to the S protein on the placenta - and if you got immunized against spike protein, would you also be immunized against pregnancy? Would women's immune system attack the placenta and thus prevent babies from being born? He said that proper reproductive studies had not been done, and that was true, I was waiting for them. They were urging the vaccines on pregnant women before they ever had reproductive data, and they should have studied animal reproduction first. You want to make sure that after the vaccine, females are still able to get pregnant, but then also to follow through the pregnancy and make sure females are able to give birth to health young, and the part about being able to complete a healthy pregnancy was not done on animals or else if done never provided anyone to look at prior to rollout, and then the human reproductive trials were not done till pregnant women had already been taking it. The data available now shows that the Covid vaccines are about as effective as mifepristone abortions, I think it was 82% of pregnancies ended in miscarriage or stillbirth when women got Covid vaccines during pregnancy. Dr. Naomi Wolf is an investigative reporter who is the main editor of The Covid Papers - she's not an MD, but has a PhD in something from Oxford University - but she has been reporting on women's health for many years - and you may remember that 200 American scientists and researchers filed Freedom of Information requests to get the records from vaccine trials and vaccine research to study and FDA and Pfizer refused, the scientists went to court and got a court order to get the data - but FDA and Pfizer said it would take 75 years to release all the data because they had to reiview everything first to make sure that certain things got redacted - judge said they had to release much more quickly, so FDA said they didn't have the manpower to do it, and would it be okay if Pfizer helped - so the papers have been released, but apparently in random order so it was hard to organize hundreds of thousands of pages sent randomly like that - Naomi Wolf worked with a team of physicians, scientists, researchers etc. and investigative reporters to organize the material and publish important parts which are now available, but she has been writing a substack, and even before she had all the "Pfizer papers" to work with, she was writing about what she called the "great Baby Die-Off," there was data available that showed babies were dying during pregnancy in massive numbers, it's true. There is also a Dr. James Thorp who is a board certified OB/GYN who has published on this. One thing many people do not know - In Japan their equivalent of our FDA said they would not approve any vaccines unless they had a "drug distribution study" to show where all it travels in the body - well the vaccine gets everywhere in the body, and it particularly concentrates in the ovaries and testes. Is that where our body produces antibodies? No. So why would they design a vaccine that concentrates in the ovaries. A man will make sperm all his life, but a woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have, she can't make new ones if the originals are damaged. She does not make antibodies in her ovaries, so why a vaccine that concentrates there? Maybe someone had in mind to harm her fertility and help her not to become pregnant? Another thing that most people do not know - the World Health Organization at one time was involved in helping to produce a vaccine that would immunize against pregnancy, and there was an attempt to create a vaccine against HCG, Human Chorionic Gonadatropin, which is what tells the woman's body to produce progesterone to maintain a pregnancy when she is pregnant. HCG is what is measured in pregnancy tests to find out if a woman is pregnant. Anyway, I had read years ago that an anti-HCG vaccine had been created and it had been mixed in with tetanus vaccines and given to women in a few developing nations in an effort to lower the population - the women were not informed, it was sneaked in without any informed consent, but it was found out, and my original source was in a sense alternative media, but I was able to confirm this in a medical journal - it happened. But what happened with Covid was not the same vaccine, but when I heard Mike Yeadon's concerns about the reproductive issues, because I knew about the earlier vaccine, I believed this kind of thing was possible - and just kept watching and waiting, looks like it to me - but of course people who have not read any of the actual research will just howl "misinformation," but it's a problem. Fertility rates all over the world, especially in highly vaxxed countries keep dropping. I think it's both the damage to ovaries and testes, plus vaccine effects that may still be harming a woman's ability to carry a pregnancy to term. For more information on some of this - look for The Pfizer Papers, Naomi Wolf on Amazon, go to Naomi Wolf's substack archives and look for the "Baby Die-Off" or something like "We Regret to Announce a Genocide." You'll find something along these lines. Dr. James Thorp wrote a book that I think is on Amazon, or google him - there are videos and things he's written that can be found. There are a lot of good scientists and health professionals who have been trying to get the truth out, but a lot of people do NOT want to listen at all. And there some who get every shot, every time they get a chance.