Scientist Behind Autism Study Cited By Trump Admin Paid $150K By Plaintiffs

[RAMROD 117,118]

The research scientist behind a study purporting to show a link between Tylenol use during pregnancy and increased rates of neurological disorders like autism spectrum disorder and ADHD was previously paid at least $150,000 to provide expert testimony for plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Tylenol’s then-manufacturer, Scripps News has learned.

The plaintiffs in that case, a group of parents and guardians of children later diagnosed with autism and ADHD, sought significant damages from Johnson & Johnson, alleging the use of Tylenol’s active ingredient acetaminophen contributed to their children’s diagnoses. Court filings reveal Dr. Andrea Baccarelli, then a professor at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, said in sworn testimony that he provided more than 200 hours of work on behalf of the plaintiffs at $700 per hour, totaling at least $150,000.

But Denise Cote, the federal judge overseeing the case in the Southern District of New York, ultimately dismissed the lawsuit and tossed out Baccarelli's expert testimony.

Baccarelli "cherry-picked and misrepresented study results and refused to acknowledge the role of genetics in the etiology" of autism and ADHD, Cote wrote in her opinion.

Appellate proceedings concerning the dismissal of the case are ongoing in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a statement obtained by Scripps News, Baccarelli — the current dean of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health — confirmed he consulted with the Trump administration ahead of its autism announcement. But he also distanced himself slightly from the conclusions suggested by Trump and his health officials that there was a definitive causal link between Tylenol use in pregnancy and autism.

It's not unusual for researchers to provide expert testimony in these sorts of lawsuits, experts say, but that Baccarelli was paid $150,000 by a group suing Tylenol's manufacturer over supposed autism links raises greater scrutiny into the veracity of his research.

Already, dozens of medical and public health groups have decried the Trump administration’s claims on acetaminophen and Tylenol, while the drug’s current manufacturer, Kenvue, says it's safe and “disagree[s] with any suggestion otherwise and are deeply concerned about the health risks and confusion this poses for expecting mothers and parents.”

Baccarelli did not immediately respond to inquiries from Scripps News about the lawsuit, his testimony or the White House event.

 

 

https://www.denver7.com/health/scientist-behind-autism-study-cited-by-trump-admin-paid-150k-by-plaintiffs-suing-tylenol-manufacturer

[pachinko 10,755]

Tylenol is safe. Period. 

[River 127,552]

I don't understand this obsession with autism, it's not like they are paying for the  meds..

[Bronco 25,131]

11 minutes ago, River said:

I don't understand this obsession with autism, it's not like they are paying for the  meds..

Because they're trying to legitimise disability etc as a political target because of the economic impact.

They're building the groundspace to come out with their own Aktion T4 policy. 

Watch red states start trying to ban paracetamol for pregnant mothers and testing mothers of autistic children for presence of the medicine for criminal proceedings.

[River 127,552]

25 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Because they're trying to legitimise disability etc as a political target because of the economic impact.

They're building the groundspace to come out with their own Aktion T4 policy. 

Watch red states start trying to ban paracetamol for pregnant mothers and testing mothers of autistic children for presence of the medicine for criminal proceedings.

That's sick

I don't know what to expect anymore, it's becoming more and more like a retake of Nazi Germany.

 

[TheFrenchGuy 5,635]

 

8 minutes ago, River said:

That's sick

I don't know what to expect anymore, it's becoming more and more like a retake of Nazi Germany.

 

It's literally play for play and it's already here. They have concentration camps, media control, unhinged speeches about "the enemy", they want to proscecute the left for terrorism and put handicapped people in camps and that's just the tip of the iceberg. We're almost 50% there and it's too late to go back 

https://www.project2025.observer/en 

Edited September 25, 2025 by TheFrenchGuy

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,172]

49 minutes ago, TheFrenchGuy said:

 

It's literally play for play and it's already here. They have concentration camps, media control, unhinged speeches about "the enemy", they want to proscecute the left for terrorism and put handicapped people in camps and that's just the tip of the iceberg. We're almost 50% there and it's too late to go back 

https://www.project2025.observer/en 

Again, in no way trying to downplay the clear authoritarian intentions, but: 93% of Trump’s EOs (the primary vehicles for his implementation of Project 2025) have already been struck down, “Alligator Alcatraz” has been decommissioned, the attempts from the FCC to censor Kimmel have failed, and the ANTIFA domestic terror designation basically has no legal teeth, they’ve had to reverse huge portions of the DOGE layoffs and cuts...

They clearly want an authoritarian takeover, but we can’t pretend that they’ve been outstandingly successful. This is not to say that there’s no fight or no danger, quite the opposite: the fact that people have fought in court, rallied public support and protests, and utilized the remaining guardrails to fight back, many of these attempts have failed or floundered and are why the full extent of the danger has been kept at bay. We are also incredibly lucky that these people are pretty grossly incompetent.

Edited September 25, 2025 by Ladle Ghoulash

[TheFrenchGuy 5,635]

28 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Again, in no way trying to downplay the clear authoritarian intentions, but: 93% of Trump’s EOs (the primary vehicles for his implementation of Project 2025) have already been struck down, “Alligator Alcatraz” has been decommissioned, the attempts from the FCC to censor Kimmel have failed, and the ANTIFA domestic terror designation basically has no legal teeth, they’ve had to reverse huge portions of the DOGE layoffs and cuts...

They clearly want an authoritarian takeover, but we can’t pretend that they’ve been outstandingly successful. This is not to say that there’s no fight or no danger, quite the opposite: the fact that people have fought in court, rallied public support and protests, and utilized the remaining guardrails to fight back, many of these attempts have failed or floundered and why the full extent of the danger has been kept at bay. We are also incredibly lucky that these people are pretty grossly incompetent.

Trump’s daily ramblings are just the tip of the iceberg. Behind the scenes they’re drafting executive orders to shift power, trying to gut independent agencies and using coordinated propaganda to brand opponents as “enemies”.

It is true that many executive orders have been struck down and some high-profile initiatives have failed, but that does not mean the danger has passed. Project 2025 is a detailed plan to reshape the federal government, weaken checks and balances, and consolidate power. Courts and protests have slowed them, but these are temporary roadblocks. Authoritarian regimes historically move methodically, and early resistance only works until institutions are fully captured.

This is similar to how it unfolded in Weimar Germany. Early pushback slowed Hitler, but once the courts, press, and civil service were under control, opposition became nearly impossible. If those guardrails fall here, lawsuits and protests will no longer stop anything. It is important to recognize the threat now rather than assume incompetence will save us. Pay close attention to the midterms, as the next few years could determine how much of this plan is actually executed.

 

(strange to talk about this to Patti Lupone)

Edited September 25, 2025 by TheFrenchGuy

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,172]

13 minutes ago, TheFrenchGuy said:

Trump’s daily ramblings are just the tip of the iceberg. Behind the scenes they’re drafting executive orders to shift power, trying to gut independent agencies and using coordinated propaganda to brand opponents as “enemies”.

While it is true that some of Trump’s executive orders have been struck down and that a few headline-grabbing projects have failed, but taking that as proof the danger has passed is a mistake. Project 2025 is a detailed plan to restructure the federal government.

This is exactly how authoritarian regimes consolidated power in the past. In Weimar Germany, early resistance slowed Hitler’s rise but once courts, the press and civil service were captured, opposition became impossible. If those guardrails fall here, lawsuits and protests will no longer stop anything. That is why it is important to see the danger clearly now rather than assuming incompetence will save us later. Watch out for the midterms. 

I’m not talking about his daily ramblings. Did you read my comment? His EOs have a 90-93% failure rate in court. Project 2025, while horrific in theory, generally doesn’t have a good sense of how to implement its preferred policy; see: how egregiously they overplayed their hand on Kimmel and how quickly it backfired, which was a plan implemented and botched by Brendan Carr, the FCC chair who is also the author of P2025’s section on weaponizing the FCC to consolidate power).

They have already tried to implement many executive orders to shift power and gut independent agencies and many of them have failed. It’s, of course, detrimental that they’re trying to do this, but it’s not as if there’s an on/off switch for authoritarianism, the government doesn’t work that way. Weimar is also not a great reference point because it was a nascent democracy (lasted about 19 years total) that, for the first few years, was embroiled in constant street fighting between partisan paramilitaries and much of judicial and civil life was more predisposed to authoritarianism because of their affinity for the recent deposed monarchy.
 

Again, as I said in my original comment, I’m not saying they can’t or won’t succeed, but I also see no benefit of giving them victories they haven’t actually won and think it’s more beneficial to point to the ways that oppositional action has actually hindered them. Maybe this is misplaced, but I get a little tired of seeing doomerism/assumed victories because, to me, it feels like preemptive compliance, but there’s a decent chance we may just be arguing past each other here.

Edited September 25, 2025 by Ladle Ghoulash

[TheFrenchGuy 5,635]

2 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I’m not talking about his daily ramblings. Did you read my comment? His EOs have a 90-93% failure rate in court. Project 2025, while horrific in theory, generally doesn’t have a good sense of how to implement its preferred policy; see: how egregiously they overplayed their hand on Kimmel and how quickly it backfired, which was a plan implemented and botched by Brendan Carr, the FCC chair who is also the author of P2025’s section on weaponizing the FCC to consolidate power). They have already tried to implement many executive orders to shift power and gut independent agencies and many of them have failed. Again, it’s detrimental that they’re trying to do this, but it’s not as if there’s an on/off switch for authoritarianism, the government doesn’t work that way. 
 

Weimar is also not a great reference point because it was a nascent democracy (lasted about 19 years total) that, for the first few years, was embroiled in constant street fighting between partisan paramilitaries and much of judicial and civil life was more predisposed to authoritarianism because of their affinity for the recent deposed monarchy.
 

Again, as I said in my original comment, I’m not saying they can’t or won’t succeed, but I also see no benefit of giving them victories they haven’t actually won and think it’s more beneficial to point to the ways that oppositional action has actually hindered them. Maybe this is misplaced, but I get a little tired of seeing doomerism/assumed victories because, to me, it feels like preemptive compliance. 

I rewrote my comment because it wasn't clear but you were faster than I was lol 

When I say Trump's ramblings I'm reffering to the headline-catching projects we've seen fail (Alcatraz, Kimmel, etc).

Regarding Germany, the comparison is meant only to illustrate a general pattern: when authoritarian movements systematically capture legal and institutional power, early resistance can slow them but rarely stops them entirely. It’s not a prediction that the U.S. will follow the exact same path, but a warning that relying on incompetence or minor failures isn’t enough to prevent serious erosion of checks and balances.

I understand and appreciate your resilience, i'm just not as hopeful about the future unfortunately. But like you say, there is no on/off switch for authoritarianism and that's my point; it's happening very slowly even with the bumps on the road. Yes, many plans have failed but they were grains of sand in the bigger plan. Project 2025 is 47% done. That means that a good part of what they are trying to do worked and that's were the important stuff happens. To me, focusing on the failures risks underestimating the bigger picture. It’s not preemptive compliance because pointing out the danger doesn’t mean giving them power or acting as if they’ve already won. But it's very hard to be optimistic when you look at the historical parallels. I don't mean to be a doomer but yeah, it's not looking good either

 

[Ladle Ghoulash 53,172]

19 minutes ago, TheFrenchGuy said:

I rewrote my comment because it wasn't clear but you were faster than I was lol 

When I say Trump's ramblings I'm reffering to the headline-catching projects we've seen fail (Alcatraz, Kimmel, etc).

Regarding Germany, the comparison is meant only to illustrate a general pattern: when authoritarian movements systematically capture legal and institutional power, early resistance can slow them but rarely stops them entirely. It’s not a prediction that the U.S. will follow the exact same path, but a warning that relying on incompetence or minor failures isn’t enough to prevent serious erosion of checks and balances.

I understand and appreciate your resilience, i'm just not as hopeful about the future unfortunately. But like you say, there is no on/off switch for authoritarianism and that's my point; it's happening very slowly even with the bumps on the road. Yes, many plans have failed but they were grains of sand in the bigger plan. Project 2025 is 47% done. That means that a good part of what they are trying to do worked and that's were the important stuff happens. To me, focusing on the failures risks underestimating the bigger picture. It’s not preemptive compliance because pointing out the danger doesn’t mean giving them power or acting as if they’ve already won. But it's very hard to be optimistic when you look at the historical parallels. I don't mean to be a doomer but yeah, it's not looking good either

 

I honestly also disagree with the assertion that Project 2025 is 47% complete. I don’t really think that figure is accurate given those trackers often count an attempt to implement the policy as equivalent to completion and often use overly broad criterion to assess implementation (upon secondary research, it seems like they’ve maybe completed 28%). You’re saying that focusing on things like a 93% failure rating in court is a “minor failure” when I think, if you actually look at what these trackers are adding up to get towards a 47% “completion” number for P2025, I feel it’s pretty clear that the failures are greater and more numerous than the victories (ie failing to consolidate power over the entire corporate media vs. successfully shifting a policy to prioritizing USAID funding for faith based organizations). That being said, it’s pretty clear our assessment of the problem is roughly similar, but perhaps our view of the trajectory is different. 

Edited September 25, 2025 by Ladle Ghoulash

[TheFrenchGuy 5,635]

20 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

I honestly also disagree with the assertion that Project 2025 is 47% complete. I don’t really think that figure is accurate given those trackers often count an attempt to implement the policy as equivalent to completion and often use overly broad criterion to assess implementation (upon secondary research, it seems like they’ve maybe completed 28%). You’re saying that focusing on things like a 93% failure rating in court is a “minor failure” when I think, if you actually look at what these trackers are adding up to get towards a 47% “completion” number for P2025, I feel it’s pretty clear that the failures are greater and more numerous than the victories (ie failing to consolidate power over the entire corporate media vs. successfully shifting a policy to prioritizing USAID funding for faith based organizations). That being said, it’s pretty clear our assessment of the problem is roughly similar, but perhaps our view of the trajectory is different. 

Yeah it's a glass half empty or half full situation. I admire your ability to see the light in this situation. 

[Lord Mayhem 3,430]

If this were a Dem majority administration...we'd impeach him already cuz wtf