Rushed Science, Real Harm: The Acetaminophen–Autism Preprint That Skips Peer Review and Silences Autistic Voices
First Impressions: The Premature Publication Problem
On Aug. 1, 2025, Preprints.org posted Evidence That Acetaminophen Triggers Autism in Susceptible Individuals Has Been Ignored and Mishandled for More than a Decade, authored by M.V. Patel, C. Travers, P.T. Corrigan, R. Anderson, J.P. Jones III, Z. Konsoula, L. Williamson, R.R. Bollinger and W. Parker. Affiliations include WPLab, Inc., the University of Tampa, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Duke University Medical Center and Northern Kentucky University. This manuscript bypassed peer review — a move increasingly common through preprint servers like arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv and Preprints.org, where researchers can post full manuscripts before independent vetting.
Publishing before peer review can serve legitimate goals — speeding up knowledge sharing, establishing priority or inviting feedback. But it also opens the door to unchecked errors, overreach and media amplification of unverified claims. In the autism research space, preprints can be especially high-impact — and high-risk — because they intersect with public health policy, disability rights and deeply contested narratives. Without peer review, the line between genuine early science and advocacy masquerading as science blurs quickly.
What They Claim — and What They Leave Out
The authors present their work as proof of “overwhelming evidence” that acetaminophen in pregnancy or infancy causes autism. They reject dissenting studies as flawed and weave in anti-vaccine-adjacent and RFK Jr.–style talking points as we characterize them (e.g., “ignored and mishandled,” “overwhelming evidence,” single-cause claims) alongside parental injury narratives, while disclosing only institutional and funding details. Notably, no author identifies as autistic in the paper, and the framing is biomedical-risk rather than neurodiversity-led — autism appears only as damage to be prevented. Because the paper is a preprint, no peer reviewers have scrutinized its claims.
Who Gets to Define the Story?
In this work, biomedical and toxicology insiders dominate the narrative, not autistic people or developmental scientists. The baseline assumption is clear: in their framing, autism is a tragedy, an error to prevent, and prevention is the highest public health priority. If autistic researchers led the frame, medication bans as a route to “eradicate” autism would be dismissed outright, replaced by a focus on safety, informed choice and inclusion. Missing entirely are autistic scientists, disability ethicists and developmental epidemiologists.
The Damage in Motion
This preprint redefines autism as toxic injury, encourages premature policy changes without safeguards and risks fueling stigma by implying autistic lives are preventable mistakes. The immediate beneficiaries are anti-vaccine and cure-focused misinformation networks, law firms eyeing pharmaceutical litigation and laboratories seeking funding by pathologizing autism. The immediate harms fall on autistic people and their families, especially those navigating real-time medical decisions.
The Method Behind the Message
The paper relies on selective emphasis, acknowledging but discounting large-scale studies as 'mishandled' or 'confounded,' and minimizing contrary findings. The manuscript claims a systematic assessment of 64 PubMed-indexed papers containing 'acetaminophen' and 'autism,' excluding coauthors' own studies. The claim that the evidence has been “ignored and mishandled” is asserted as fact, not demonstrated through a systematic review. Nowhere is there an ethical risk-benefit analysis weighing medication safety against the needs of pregnant people and infants.
Smarter Questions to Ask
What would a complete, balanced safety profile for acetaminophen look like? How can medication safety be studied without dehumanizing autistic people? What autistic-led guidelines could ensure that any medication risk management also protects maternal comfort, infant well-being and disability rights?
Final Word
Extraordinary claims without peer review aren’t courage — in our analysis, they’re reckless shortcuts. This preprint shapes public perception before facts are settled, accelerating harm. Autistic people will bear the first cost, followed by parents who may be led to believe that their child’s life was a medical error.