'Basic' readers can't make sense of the Tylenol-autism debate

President Trump urged pregnant women to avoid Tylenol, because of a possible link between acetaminophen use and autism.

Doctors have been telling women to limit acetaminophen use during pregnancy for years, but nearly all say the link with autism is unproven. Trump's warnings “appear to ignore research...that tells us that pain and high fever in pregnant people can be a health risk to parent and child,” the National Autistic Taskforce told Newsweek.

In response to the warnings, pregnant women began posting videos of themselves taking --or pretending to take Tylenol, reports Newsweek. One women showed herself with the caption: "Me taking Tylenol as soon as I find out I'm pregnant because this whole Autism thing seems to be working for Mark, Elon and all other Tech billionaires."

Pregnant women have been trying to avoid alcohol, cigarettes, pain relievers, deli meats, raw seafood and so forth for years now. When I was pregnant, 45 years ago, only caffeine was banned. (I don't smoke, so I wouldn't have noticed a cigarette ban.) Despite every new restriction, autism rates keep rising here and around the world.

Years ago, I looked at the research into vaccines and autism. There was lots of it, including huge studies in Scandinavian countries where everyone's enrolled in the health system. There's no link. In countries where vaccine rates went down, autism rates kept rising.

Most Americans can't read well enough to evaluate competing scientific claims, writes Robert Pondiscio on The 74. "It requires the ability to parse complex studies, distinguish correlation from causation, weigh evidence and spot bias."

As the 12th-grade NAEP results show, two-thirds of Americans read at the "basic" or "below basic level." They "may read the words, but they can't test the arguments."

They don't have the literacy skills to read scientific language, Pondiscio writes. They are unable to tell the difference between anecdotes, correlations and a randomized, controlled study. They have trouble synthesizing information from multiple sources "to form a tentative, reasoned judgment."

Pondiscio thinks they can't "evaluate credibility and motives." For example, "is the claim coming from trial lawyers, pharmaceutical companies, advocacy groups or independent researchers?"

I'm not sure about that. I think many people question everyone's motives. They end up believing what they want to believe, or what a trusted "influencer" says or the opposite of whatever Trump says.

"Basic" and "below basic" readers live in "intellectual second-class citizenship — with no option other than to defer to authority or rely on third parties," writes Pondiscio. On a whole range of issues, "they must either trust or reject the messenger wholesale."

That "aids and abets cynicism and partisanship," he concludes. "Misinformation thrives."