No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

https://sph.unc.edu/sph-news/no-link-between-acetaminophen-use-during-pregnancy-and-adverse-birth-outcomes-study-finds/

by geox • 4 days ago

77 54 4 days ago

sph.unc.edu

eth0up6• 4 days ago

Just for the sake of honest balance, with minimal commentary and no opinions:

Acetaminophen and dementia correlation:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2877629/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01638...

Note that it's also hard on the liver. A lot fatalities due to taking after hangovers, etc: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322813 So if you insist, maybe take some NAC.

But apparently, Ibuprofen helps counter the dementia risk:

https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/home/PressRelease/624

I am not not asserting any clever marketing here. I am merely citing public information. Noting all the above, I am confident it's perfectly safe for children and fetuses, and if posing any risk at all, applies strictly to full grown adults. No doubts about child safety have been expressed here.

estearum5• 4 days ago

The first paper shows no evidence of any effect from Tylenol...? But yeah seems like lots of support for the ibuprofen protective effect, interestingly.

eth0up6• 4 days ago

If you do start munching on advil; note there are rumors, by medical researchers, case reports, and more, that if you dig beneath the shiny surface to find, do show a lot of compelling data for GI damage, heart risk and other serious side-effects. And depending on how fair one wants to be with 'evidence' -- almost all wording describing NSAIDs as "protective", uses easy-to-miss but distinct qualifiers such as "potential" and other such vague 'maybe'-equivalents that alone have been used to suppress and dismiss many other...potential medicines. Sometimes, conclusive just means inspired. And sometimes ambiguity means certainty, depending on levels of inspiration involved.

Of course, one might pause for a moment to consider just how potential the alluded benefits really are with ibuprofen, and ask why doctors aren't recommending it for mental health, or as a general health product. But that might point to the peculiar fact that there is substantially more evidence suggesting risk over health benefits, and the benefits really depend on what one wants to see. There is a reason it's not marketed as a health product, but with the way it's framed, it should be, nu? I mean, potential benefits sells a lot of snake oil and lowfat yogurt. Why not advil and acetaminophen?

And by similar logic used to dismiss acetaminophen here as a health risk, eg because there's no link with autism/ADHD it's safe; why not apply the same logic to opiates? We could just say opiates do not directly cause, eg , parkinsons, or AIDS, therefore it's safe for babies. Myself, I never correlated acetaminophen with autism/ADHD, but I know it has more side-effects than listen on the bottle.

greggsy• 4 days ago

The liver toxicity is well known, and overdose is not uncommon.

lokar• 4 days ago

A better policy fix would be to remove it from multi-drug products. Require it always be the only active ingredient.

mmooss3• 4 days ago

overdose is not uncommon

Anecdotally, I hear about it far more in Internet comments like the parent than elsewhere. How common is it?

ctoa4• 4 days ago

"A lot fatalities due to taking after hangovers" no, that's not how acetaminophen fatalities happen. In fact, the article you cited specifically mentions "there is no scientific evidence that people with AUD (alcohol use disorder) who take the recommended dose of acetaminophen increase their risk of liver damage."

Fatalities happen basically from: product stacking combination medicines people don't realize contain acetaminophen and/or multi-day accumulation exceeding max daily limit over multiple days.

Chronic drinkers have impaired acetaminophen processing so they can't handle otherwise safe doses, but fatalities still typically occur in multi-day accumulation scenarios. Their safe daily max is ~half that of a non drinker.

The effects of one round of acute drinking don't impair the liver in the same way. People are not dropping dead because they took a normal dose of acetaminophen for a hangover. Not that I'm recommending you start doing it, but it is a myth.

redwall_hp• 4 days ago

Fatalities happen basically from: product stacking combination medicines people don't realize contain acetaminophen and/or multi-day accumulation exceeding max daily limit over multiple days.

I find it obnoxious that NyQuil has taken over as the default brand people grab for cough syrup, for that reason. It has acetaminophen, while Robitussin or such have the other active ingredients without that risk.

The typical person doesn't read and understand active ingredients, and it's lucky if they even check dosage instructions.

phendrenad2• 4 days ago

This article is about "how early a child is born or a child’s weight at birth". I don't know why we're talking about other possible negatives of Acetaminophen. Seems off-topic to me.

eth0up6• 4 days ago

So a guy who beckons to "Keep HN weird." and has a history of non-strict adherence to subject titles with his/her own comments implies I must not challenge a title that claims "no adverse birth outcomes" from acetaminophen with closely related acetaminophen concerns and possible counter data? And that is some kind of special, golden? double standard?

But truly, if I am the only rascal here on HN, deviating slightly from the subject title, I will gather the tinder. Let's burn me with haste!

DANmode2• 4 days ago

Now do the study in mutated (MTHR, MTHFR, COMT, others, some combination of them) sample populations.

estearum5• 4 days ago

Why?

DANmode2• 4 days ago

Because those mutations change detox efficiencies.

Not sure I understand the question!

qsera5• 4 days ago

clean chit!

tootie• 4 days ago

And yet I still see MAHA defenders even on HN.

zulux2• 4 days ago

Some of us appreciate the "Eat fucking food, and do some exercise" part of it. The rest of it is a big meh. Not like I was looking to Rachel Levine as a paradigm either.

UncleMeat2• 4 days ago

"Eat healthy food and exercise" has been recommendation #1 for ages. The idea that RFK and his friends are somehow novel in this public communication is bizarre.

dyauspitr2• 4 days ago

on how early a child is born or a child’s weight at birth

These are not particularly important. The concerns are autism and ADHD.

Also don’t equate that MAHA crap with disagreement on this topic. I’m as anti MAGA as it gets but this study doesn’t do anything to assuage people’s primary concerns about this.

anonymousiam2• 4 days ago

This paper says there are no adverse effects to the mother, but it does not mention possible adverse effects to the child beyond "birth health" and does not address the recent controversy about a possible link to autism.

dofm3• 4 days ago

Why would it need to? There is no medical controversy.

There’s only a weak and now discounted statistical association that was seized upon by two disgraceful anti-science politicians to create a political controversy.

ourmandave• 4 days ago

I can't figure it out. What is the actual reason they knowingly LIED about it?

Some personal grievance against Tylenol brand?

More graft from a competitor?

Appease their conspiracy loving dumbass base?

Destroy the scientific reputation of the US?

Trump is actually that fucking stupid?

All of the above?

dyauspitr2• 4 days ago

It’s hard to ignore a link when the n is this large. A 15% greater chance of getting autism is very significant.

A 2024 study of nearly 2.5 million children initially found:

* Autism by age 10: 1.53% with prenatal exposure versus 1.33% without * ADHD: 2.87% versus 2.46%

qsera5• 4 days ago

Why would it need to?

Because that is what everyone (I mean, not if you are pharma) is interested in...

anonymousiam2• 2 days ago

Perhaps you believe there is no medical controversy, but there is a legal one:

https://reason.com/volokh/2026/07/20/the-second-circuits-pro...

erelong• 4 days ago

is this just lying with statistics?

surely some abuse of the drug could lead to adverse reactions?

are they just arguing for specific doses to not have negative effects? (that would be true of a lot of things we consider harmful)

gdulli• 4 days ago

How could you think that anyone would argue that arbitrary doses of any medication are safe? Drinking too much water will kill you.

tsoukase• 4 days ago

It's very difficult and boring to follow a newborn until at least their 16th year of age, when mental development and IQ stabilise. It would be interesting if we new about the effects of eg. breast feeding, co-sleeping, parenting types and even mother's drugs like anti epileptics during pregnancy. There are some long term studies that follow newborns and they tell a lot, although they swim in a confounding ocean.

No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

Related Stories