How bad science in court threatens public health and public trust

A politician, a scientist and a lawyer enter a courtroom. No, this is not the beginning of a joke. Politics, science and law are colliding in a way that could harm Americans’ health and public trust.

The Texas attorney general has filed a lawsuit against the makers of Tylenol, alleging that the company marketed its painkiller as safe for pregnant women while concealing the “fact” that it increased the risk of autism. He cites recent statements by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. However, there is no reliable scientific evidence that acetaminophen—the active ingredient in Tylenol—causes autism or any other neurodevelopmental disorder.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated in a recent press release that no studies have found a causal link between Tylenol use during pregnancy and neurological conditions, although some have suggested an association. The agency also noted that Tylenol is “the only over-the-counter drug approved for use in the treatment of fever during pregnancy” and that high fever in pregnant women can pose risks to children.

Scientific consensus against false and misleading information

The claim that using Tylenol during pregnancy causes autism has been circulating in internet echo chambers and anti-vaccine forums for years. It gained traction when high-profile figures like President Donald Trump and Secretary Kennedy reinforced it publicly.

Major medical groups—including the FDA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and studies in GLASS— have found no evidence that acetaminophen increases the risk of neurological conditions. Some observational studies have noted associations, but correlation is not causation. And a 2024 GLASS study Using sibling controls found no increased risk of autism or ADHD after genetic and environmental factors were accounted for.

Despite this, the Texas complaint alleges that Johnson & Johnson and its consumer spinoff Kenvue “knew or should have known” that the product was unsafe for pregnant women. The case is not based on new data or whistleblower revelations, but on a selective reading of weak science that experts have repeatedly discredited.

The Standard of Proof

To win a false advertising or product liability case, the state must prove that the company made false or misleading statements about safety, that it knew those statements were false, and that it materially deceived consumers. That’s a steep climb: judges don’t decide medical truth, only whether the evidence meets a legal threshold.

In civil cases, this often means determining whether expert testimony is “scientifically reliable and relevant”—the Daubert standard used in federal courts. Weak or speculative science does not pass this test, and cases based on it often collapse long before a jury hears them.

So far, Texas has produced no internal documents showing Tylenol’s makers knew of any risks to pregnant women. That may change in discovery, but for now the case rests on shaky science, not smoking guns—and that’s a dangerous foundation for public policy.

Fishing for evidence

It’s possible the discovery process will reveal new information, but this lawsuit was filed before discovery, suggesting the state doesn’t yet have evidence of fraud and is instead hoping to find it. It reverses the usual order of proof: evidence must justify a hypothesis, not the other way around.

To see what genuine, evidence-based consumer protection looks like, consider the tobacco and opioid cases that changed public health law.

In United States v. Philip Morriscourts reviewed millions of pages of internal industry documents proving that companies knew nicotine was addictive and deadly, even if they publicly denied it. Those internal documents – made public in 1998 – helped courts find that tobacco executives had conspired to defraud the public and held the companies liable under racketeering laws.

The opioid trial told a similar story. Investigations into Purdue Pharma and other manufacturers have uncovered internal memos showing deliberate efforts to downplay addiction risks and target high-prescription doctors. These “smoking gun” documents—along with the overwhelming evidence of harm—led to historic settlements worth billions of dollars. Both cases combined overwhelming evidence of harm with a clear intent to deceive.

The danger of government speculation

The danger of Tylenol treatment is not only the effect, but also the aftereffect. Whenever power gives its voice to a lie, trust dies a little – and rumors learn to live forever.

False claims about vaccines already exist erode public trust. Speculation about routine drugs could do the same. In a recent national poll77 percent of parents said they had heard claims linking Tylenol to autism. almost a third believed them. Among Republicans, that share was 57 percent—demonstrating how political beliefs shape perceptions and beliefs.

In addition to wasting taxpayer dollars, this lawsuit is likely to fuel confusion, discourage safe and effective treatments, and undermine the authority of those charged with protecting public health. As Quang (“Q”) Dang, the executive director of the Public Health Law Network, told me, “Given Secretary Kennedy’s baseless allegations, a lawsuit like this sends a confusing message to parents, sows distrust in treatments based on decades of safety research, abuses an already overburdened legal system that could compensate individuals and families. them”.

What will happen next?

If Texas succeeds in moving the case forward, the court will have to decide whether the state’s evidence meets scientific and legal standards. Given the current consensus, this seems unlikely. But even if the lawsuit is dismissed, millions will have seen headlines suggesting Tylenol causes autism — and far fewer will notice if the case is dismissed for lack of evidence.

Whatever the verdict, the actual trial is beyond credibility. If science becomes a political weapon, public trust will be collateral damage.