Editorial: Overdosing on misinformation

If one were to ask themselves what the biggest problem in our country is right now, they might say climate change, gun violence, political polarization or one of the other disparaging topics ravaging headlines. 

Regardless of the answer, there’s a low chance one would pick the over-the-counter medicine we grab when we have a headache or fever.

The idea that Tylenol is something we should be worried about is the message many of us have opened our phones to in the past few weeks, following claims from the administration that taking acetaminophen during pregnancy causes autism.

But organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Food and Drug Administration maintain that acetaminophen remains safe for use during  pregnancy and early childhood.

“Today’s announcement by the United States Department of Health and Human Service is not backed by the full body of scientific evidence and dangerously simplifies the many and complex causes of neurologic challenges in children,” ACOG wrote in a statement to Scientific American. “It is highly unsettling that our federal health agencies are willing to make an announcement that will affect the health and well-being of millions of people without the backing of reliable data.”

Making claims without sufficient evidence, especially about health creates unnecessary panic.

Although many health organizations quickly refuted any link between autism and Tylenol, the initial scare can linger.

Parents may blame themselves for a genetic condition their children have, even when nothing could’ve prevented it.  Pregnant women may push through fevers and pain to follow headlines, believing they’re protecting their babies. People allergic to other pain relievers may worry about the  harm they’ve caused by relying on Tylenol.

These fears played out across social media after Trump’s statement sparked a wave of confusion. 

As someone with more than 100 million followers on X and tens of millions on Instagram, the president obviously holds immense influence. His words spread rapidly, and, in this case, proved almost as damaging as the misinformation itself. 

Autism remains a condition not fully understood, with different symptoms, stages of development and no cure, which makes it especially vulnerable to false claims.

People are often looking for ways to explain the world around them, and making Tylenol the scapegoat for autism, as vaccines once were, is an easy out as opposed to dedicating more time and research on the disorder.

Attributing autism to an over-the -counter pill, without further research behind that statement, is ignorant to the challenges people with the disorder or families with someone on the spectrum face. It belittles and overlooks the necessary research that should be conducted to help these people and instead acts like it can be “solved” with a quick change. 

But accepting easy explanations without evidence is a disservice to the advancement of science and to ourselves. 

It’s natural to want answers quickly, especially when a child’s health and safety is at stake. But good things often take time. And reliable scientific research is one of those things.

Until we can get the answers we need, we must remember to be patient and critique those who are presenting claims as facts without evidence.

Leaders must also recognize the weight their words carry.  While they don’t have to censor themselves, they have a responsibility to consider the impact of spreading misinformation.

Social media gives their message the reach of a global news outlet — but without the same standards. 

Politicians and public figures have an ethical duty to share accurate, evidence-based information, much like journalists do.  

With the rise of artificial intelligence generated content and deepfakes that mimic people in power, the need for truth has never been greater.

Before posting or speaking publicly, accuracy checks and fact verification, tasks that could easily be handled by staff, would reduce the spread of falsehoods, especially if it relates to the public’s wellbeing. 

Unlike print outlets, social media platforms are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, giving them immunity from lawsuits about the credibility and accuracy of third-party content. While that protection allows free expression, it also fuels the spread of fake news.

As younger generations turn to social media as their main source of news, ensuring access to factual, verified information is vital to public health and to the health of our democracy.

After all, there are far too many things we should actually be able to devote our time and energy to instead of needing to worry about over the counter pills we grab when we have a headache.