READER RESOURCES: THE APOCALYPSE ALMANAC: Hidden cures in our dystopian age. Check out the “Cure Cancer in Your Kitchen” chapter. FULLSCRIPT SUPPLEMENTS: top quality and economical. AFFILIATE STORE: I offer competitively priced productsHEREthat I have personally tested and used.
Disclosure and how this review was made
I know Tony Lyons, who heads Skyhorse Publishing, the publisher of this book. I have interviewed him multiple times.
Dr. William Parker sent me the PDF and answered my questions by email within hours. He knew before sending it that I was writing a review, not a promotion, and he sent it anyway. Everything he told me appears below and reflects his words. You will see that I gave him the last word because a relatively unsophisticated analysis told me that he was telling the truth
Summary
• Last week, I outlined the travesty of casual acetaminophen use. This week, I review the book that says it triggers most autism.
• William Parker, PhD, spent more than 27 years in Duke’s Department of Surgery and has published more than 150 peer-reviewed papers. Tylenol and Autism: Evidence, Scientific Blunders, and Medicine Gone Wrong is 312 pages long and includes 341 references.
• His group searched for the pediatric safety studies that everyone cites. They screened 3,096 papers. Fifty-two included a safety experiment. The median follow-up was 48 hours, and none examined the brain.
• A newborn cannot use the same pathway an adult uses to clear this drug. That pathway starts to develop after about two months, and becomes fully developed at about two years. Every veterinarian knows that this deficiency is fatal to a cat.
• Parker places the peak danger in the first days after birth. Every large study you have read about tested pregnancy instead.
• Pediatrics (the journal) rejected him twice, and he printed both sets of reviews, with his rebuttals as appendices C and D. A second journal then refused to publish his response to an attack it had published. I have never seen an author lay out the case against himself like this.
• His five clinical rules should be adopted tomorrow, and no theory of autism is required to justify any of them.
The man
Parker is not a crank, and the reviewers who treat him as one hand him the argument.
He earned a doctorate in chemistry in 1992 and, the following year, joined Duke’s transplantation research group as its biochemist. He worked in the Department of Surgery for more than 27 years alongside the surgeon-immunologist Randy Bollinger, who wrote the foreword to this book. In 2004, his group described bacterial biofilms in the healthy human gut. In 2007, he published the work for which he is best known, identifying the appendix as a reservoir that repopulates the colon with beneficial organisms after a purge. That paper drew national coverage and received about 500 citations.
He shifted his focus to acetaminophen around 2015, and Duke subsequently declined to renew his research contract. He declined an appointment at Duke for teaching, officially retiring in 2021. He now directs WPLab, Inc., a nonprofit in Durham, and holds a visiting appointment at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
I have watched sequences like this for ten years. A productive investigator turns to a question that threatens a revenue stream, and the institutional welcome cools. (A less charitable interpretation would credit the institutions with being implicit with the worldwide cabals’ mass-murder agendas.)
Fifty-two experiments, forty-eight hours
Begin where his critics never begin.
In 2022, Parker’s group published a study in the European Journal of Pediatrics that did something no one had bothered to do. They asked where the claim that this drug is safe for children came from. They screened 3,096 papers and found 218 that asserted the drug was safe for infants or children. They traced 103 of those back to the authority behind the claim, and 52 of those sources reported an experiment.
The median follow-up in those experiments was 48 hours. Not one monitored neurodevelopment. None of them counted how much a child had taken since birth.
That is not an argument, and no opinion about autism is required to verify it. It is a finding about the contents of a library, and anyone with a search box and a few weeks can pursue it. Four years have passed, yet nobody else has. The most-used pediatric drug on earth entered universal use based on two days of observation per study, and what years of repeated dosing do to a growing brain was never asked.
Look at what he did not claim. The same paper says the evidence is sufficient to conclude that the drug does not cause acute liver damage in children when used as directed. His title says the drug was never shown to be safe for neurodevelopment. A man building a case would have taken the stronger line. He took the accurate one.
What happens inside a newborn
Any physician will recognize this.
The body clears acetaminophen in three ways. Glucuronidation dominates in adults and eliminates the drug without harm. Sulfation dominates in young children and continues until the pathway saturates. Whatever the first two cannot handle is metabolized by cytochrome P450 to N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine, an electrophile that glutathione neutralizes on contact. Five to ten percent of a therapeutic dose follows that route in an adult. If glutathione is overwhelmed, the metabolite begins binding to proteins.
Every clinician who has managed an overdose knows this pathway. Parker’s contribution is to ask where it goes in a newborn. Glucuronidation is not developed during the first weeksof life. That is textbook pharmacology, not his invention. Sulfation takes over, saturates, and the overflow has one place to go.
Then he adds the children who are least equipped for it. Those later diagnosed with autism often have impaired sulfation and low glutathione levels. About 75 percent have autoantibodies against the cerebral folate receptor, and folate supports glutathione synthesis. The homozygous GSTM1 deletion, which weakens glutathione handling, doubles the risk of autism.
His twenty-sixth line of evidence is the key. Veterinarians do not give acetaminophen to cats, and most cat owners know this. Cats lack a functional glucuronidation pathway, and a single Tylenol tablet kills them. Human newborns lack the same pathway for their first two months. As he puts it, if we know cats have a problem that makes this drug toxic, and we know babies have the same problem, what are we thinking?
He offers a second mechanism. The drug works by blocking prostaglandin synthesis, and prostaglandins govern aspects of brain development. Margaret McCarthy’s work with rats showed that blocking that synthesis within a narrow window after birth produces lasting changes in brain structure, reduced social interaction, and blunted sensory function in males but not in females. This is the most structured explanation I have seen for the male predominance in autism.
Coffee or codeine
Chapter 3 is the heart of the book, and its argument is simpler than the statistics that surround it. Parker demonstrates this with two drugs any physician knows.
Coffee is safe. If a study finds that coffee drinkers have higher rates of lung cancer, the coffee is innocent, and the cigarettes did it. Smoking is what a statistician calls a confounding factor, a nuisance that creates a spurious association. The right move is to adjust for it.
Codeine is different. It does nothing until the body converts it to morphine, and the enzyme CyP2D6 performs that conversion. Give codeine to a baby whose enzyme is overactive, and morphine arrives too quickly, stopping his breathing. That is why we stopped giving codeine to small children. The enzyme is not a nuisance. The enzyme is the mechanism.
Parker’s charge is that the whole field decided acetaminophen is like coffee, even though the evidence shows it is like codeine. The big studies adjusted for infection, fever, other medicines, maternal illness, smoking, and social class before comparing anyone. Those are the conditions that produce oxidative stress, and oxidative stress is what makes a child vulnerable to this drug. Adjust them away, and you have paved over the road the injury travels down.
I asked him whether I had understood him. His reply:
Yes, basically, after approximately 30 variables are “adjusted for” (before the entire cohort except the siblings is excluded), the p-value is already greater than 0.05.
In plain terms, he says the association had already disappeared before the sibling comparison everyone quotes was run. Nobody has disputed that to date.
Everyone is arguing about the wrong nine months
Parker has said for years that use during pregnancy accounts for no more than 20 percent of autism cases, probably closer to 10 percent. His own table shows 50 to 60 percent for the period from birth through day five, when the cord has been cut and the newborn has to clear the drug alone.
Now look at what has been tested. Sweden, 2.5 million children. Denmark, 1.5 million. Hong Kong, 708,000. Japan, 218,000. Each one examined exposure during pregnancy.
Not one has looked at the window he is pointing at.
When a headline tells you the science has settled this, it means the science has settled a question Parker set aside years ago. He answered my email on the point without ceremony. Since the President’s announcement, 35 articles on PubMed have claimed Trump was wrong, all of them resting on the same Swedish analysis and all of them about pregnancy.
Where he stops
Two paragraphs after the graph that anchors his statistical case, Parker writes:
While this demonstrates that the Drexel team’s calculations obscured a real association, it doesn’t prove that acetaminophen plus oxidative stress causes autism. We need to look at more evidence to know if acetaminophen is involved in the induction of autism.
I have read a good deal of the coverage of this man, and not one piece quotes that sentence. He marks the limit of his argument in his book on the page where a weaker writer would have declared victory.
He is equally candid about why the settling study has not been done. It would require pairs of similar siblings who differed in whether the mother received the drug during labor, with cord blood banked at the moment of clamping to determine how much the newborn had to handle alone. No parent would agree to random assignment. Hundreds of samples would be needed to yield a handful linked to a diagnosis. Twins are useless because their exposure is identical. His summary is that a valid sibling study can be designed but probably cannot be executed.
That is a scientist marking the edge of what can be known, and it is the book’s most useful paragraph.
What the journals did
Here is the part of the story that made me angry, and it has not been reported anywhere.
Parker submitted a manuscript to Pediatrics, the flagship journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, on February 7, 2024. He received two hostile reviews and was rejected. He then printed both rounds of reviews and his rebuttals as appendices C and D of this book, unedited and in full. Almost no author does that. It is what a man does when he wants you to judge the argument instead of taking his word.
Then this. In mid-August 2025, a group led by Professor Andrea Baccarelli at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health published a review of acetaminophen and neurodevelopment in Environmental Health. The Trump administration cited the review. In the review, the authors called Parker’s mathematical proof speculative.
When someone disparages your work in a journal, editors typically give you a chance to respond. Parker’s team wrote a brief rebuttal within the journal’s word limits and submitted it on August 17, three days after the criticism appeared.
Professor Philippe Grandjean, a founder of the journal and an adjunct professor at Harvard Chan, rejected it the next day, where Baccarelli is dean of the faculty. The letter stated that the manuscript did not offer sufficient new environmental health information for the journal’s international readership.
They resubmitted and explained that they were responding to a paper the journal itself had published days earlier. They received the same rejection, word for word. On August 27, an editorial office assistant at Springer Nature confirmed that Grandjean was making the decisions.
A journal published an attack on a man’s work and then twice, in identical language, told him that his answer held nothing new for its readers. That is a door held shut. When people ask why a scientist with 150 papers ends up publishing through an advocacy imprint, that is the answer, not that his arguments were tested and failed.
Two questions I would like him to answer
He gets the last word here, so I will ask my questions plainly rather than deliver verdicts he cannot reply to.
First, on August 3 of this year, six weeks after this book was printed, the ECHO Cohort Consortium published a direct test of the circumcision line in JAMA Pediatrics, following 2,771 American boys, of whom 1,840 were circumcised. Autism was diagnosed in 6 percent of the circumcised and 9 percent of the uncircumcised. He has been careful about the limits of the older Danish circumcision data, quoting Frisch and Simonsen’s own statement that they had no analgesic records. How does he read the new American cohort, and does it change the weight he gives that line?
Dr. Parker’s response: I will first offer condolences: Brandolini’s law dictates that it takes more effort to effectively address nonsense than it does to produce nonsense. I find this law to be accurate. My research group and collaborators have been working on a response to that ECHO article, but the process takes time. Here is a brief summary of that response-in-progress.
By way of background, treatment for the pain of circumcision has improved over the decades, and acetaminophen is seldom used any longer for that purpose in US hospitals. However, parents are still told to give it to their newborn when they get home if he is uncomfortable, and use of acetaminophen in that context was not tracked in any of the studies described here.
The older Danish study found a statistically significant difference of about 2-fold more infantile autism (non-regressive autism) in circumcised boys compared to uncircumcised boys. The study was conducted because investigators were concerned that giving acetaminophen at the time of birth to treat the pain of circumcision might lead to autism. The results of the Danish study supported this concern. In the more recent ECHO study, 27 investigators from at least 18 prestigious institutions, all funded by the National Institutes of health, found no association between circumcision and autism. They concluded that something was possibly wrong with the older Danish study.
The first question is, should we expect the same result for boys born in Denmark from 1994 through 2003 and for boys born in the US from 2003 through 2023? The answer is, as some might suspect, no. Almost all of the US boys had a good reason besides circumcision to receive acetaminophen very early in life: they received a number of vaccines by the two-month mark, before the glucuronidation pathway begins to develop in the average infant. The typical Danish boy would have received zero vaccines during this same period of development. Further, theoretical considerations and experimental results tell us that acetaminophen exposure with a potent inflammatory stimulus (vaccine or infection) will likely carry a greater risk than an exposure without such a stimulus (uncomplicated circumcision or teething). The inflammatory stimulus provides the cofactor, oxidative stress, for the acetaminophen-induced induction of autism. In addition, intravenous acetaminophen and opioid-sparing protocols for labor and delivery and for the neonatal intensive care units were developed in the 2010’s, leading to increased exposures to acetaminophen very early in development. Thus, we expect that a number of factors will overshadow or swamp out any effect of acetaminophen exposure due to circumcision in the US boys.
Further, even if we make the very wrong assumption that the effect of acetaminophen exposure from circumcision adds onto the effects of other acetaminophen exposures (rather than is swamped out by other exposures carrying greater risks), the prevalence of autism was so incredibly high in the ECHO study that the absolute effect of circumcision seen in the Danish study (less than about a 0.7% absolute change in autism prevalence) would have been too small to observe in the ECHO study.
It is a wonder that the 27 scientists working on this NIH-funded project did not mention any of these issues, but rather questioned the older study, which was much better powered from a statistical perspective and was less affected by ethnic-based differences than their own study.
We now come to another important issue: the authors of the ECHO study found that the absolute differences in autism prevalence between uncircumcised and circumcised boys were due in large part to ethnicity and year of birth. After all of their calculations were run, no statistically significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised boys were found. The earlier Danish study had been adjusted for ethnic factors and year of birth, and the results were still significant.
The ECHO study showed that Black boys had more than twice the prevalence of autism as white boys, but the study team did not mention this issue in the text of their document. This observation corroborates data from the California Public School systems published in late March, 2026 by investigators at Rutgers University, which found dramatic increases in the prevalence of autism associated with low socioeconomic status and Black ethnicity.
We suspect that cannabis use disorder, the prevalence of which depends profoundly on socioeconomic status, affects the toxicity of acetaminophen during early brain development. The profound rise in autism prevalence in California coincides with the legalization of recreational cannabis use in that state. Further, cannabis and acetaminophen affect the same signaling pathways in the brain, and a study in laboratory animals in 2019 identified a lethal drug-drug interaction between cannabis and acetaminophen. That drug/drug interaction is currently the only explanation (hypothesis) offered for the emerging socioeconomic-associated increases in autism prevalence.
The ECHO study is yet another case of getting exactly what we might expect to get if our conclusions about acetaminophen are correct. Not only can we put our finger on what might have caused the dramatic rise of autism since 2000, but the effects of possible acetaminophen use for circumcision in the Danish and in the US are exactly as we might expect given known differences between the Danish boys and the US boys.
Sadly, the manuscript published by the ECHO study team is yet another example of getting exactly what we have been getting. Another study team has the evidence in front of them, and seem to be blind to a reasonable explanation for that evidence which explains not only their evidence, but dozens of other lines of scientific evidence.
Second, this is the one I want most. He told me he has never seen a study come back empty and that the studies yield what they should if oxidative stress and acetaminophen together trigger autism. I follow the argument. If the adjustment destroys the signal before the analysis begins, an empty result is an artifact, and interpreting it as a refutation is the error he has spent a decade describing.
So what would the other answer look like? What result from what study would show him he was wrong? If he has one, it would be the strongest thing he could say, because a claim that specifies its own disproof is the kind that wins in the end. I would print his answer in full.
Dr. Parker’s answer:
By way of background, susceptibility to acetaminophen-mediated neurodevelopmental injury starts to decrease after about two months of age, but remains relatively high for about two years based on the observations of parents regarding the timing of their child’s regression into autism. Finally, some susceptibility is still present until approximately the sixth birthday, after which regression into autism is extremely rare.
The best way to approach this problem is to avoid acetaminophen exposure from conception to the sixth birthday in a cohort of humans, and monitor the prevalence of autism in that cohort. If, in that cohort, the prevalence of autism is not extremely low, then my research team, my collaborators, and I are all profoundly wrong. It would take about 2.5 years of close monitoring for the expected results to be obvious, although it would take longer for the study to be completed, of course.
The five rules
Whatever you conclude about autism, chapter 11 should change practice tomorrow. Parker is careful to say that he cannot give medical advice and can only state what the standards ought to be, which he correctly calls the job of a scientist. Here are his rules, in my words.
One. Stop giving acetaminophen in ways it was never meant to be given. That covers treating temperatures that do not amount to a fever, and dosing more often or higher than the label says.
Two. Stop giving it where the evidence shows it does not work. That covers the pain of circumcision and probably the treatment of fever to prevent febrile seizures.
Three. Stop giving it when no evidence shows long-term benefit. That covers routine fever treatment and prophylactic dosing before labor and delivery.
Four. Stop giving it when the governing medical bodies no longer recommend it, including routine dosing alongside vaccination.
Five. Where the evidence indicates it helps, do not give it without informing the parents that the long-term question about the brain remains unanswered. They are entitled to weigh both sides.
Each of those follows from the safety literature alone. As Parker notes, even the most ardent advocate for drug use in infants would approve of the first. I would adopt all five today, and so should every pediatrician in this country.
Synthesis
I opened this book expecting a polemic and closed it having read a scientist.
He found a window in the first weeks of life that no one has studied. He proved that the safety literature everyone cites was never compiled. He made a precise, testable claim about the Swedish analysis that no one has answered for four years. He identified the exact reason the settling study cannot be run, which is the least-cited paragraph in the book and the most useful. And he stated the limit of his own case in print, on the page where it cost him the most.
What I did not expect was the paper trail. Rejected twice by Pediatrics, with the reviews printed against him. Called speculative by a Harvard-led review, then refused a reply twice by that journal in identical language, by an editor at the same school.
Two generations of American children took this drug under 48 hours of observation. The man who noticed lost his university appointment, and the journals will not publish his response to the people who criticized him in their pages. That is the scandal, and every word of it stands whether or not he turns out to be right about autism.
Buy the book. Read chapter 3 twice, then read appendices C and D, and decide for yourself who is acting like a scientist.
Parting shot
Two things. First, pediatrics as a specialty is outrageously corrupt and probably the worst-influenced specialty in medicine, as it receives massive kickbacks to force vaccines on every one of its helpless patients. The second brief anecdote I will hand you is that they advocated for bottle feeding over breastfeeding and have commercial ties to formula manufacturers. I have been writing about these subjects for several years, and my archives are full of it. Second, if you believe medical publications or their editors have anything approaching integrity, read my book Butchered by “Healthcare.” I have a full chapter on this corrupt disaster.
Dr. Parker, the floor is yours.
I thank Dr. Yoho for his careful consideration of the evidence presented, and for the opportunity to address the two questions he asked. Although the scientific evidence pointing at acetaminophen toxicity for brain development is quite clear, that science has not gotten us to the tipping point. Rather, I believe that outreach efforts by objective individuals such as Dr. Yoho will be the driving force for getting us to a tipping point that will, in turn, eventually lead to the end of the pandemic of autism.
Selected references
William Parker, Tylenol and Autism: Evidence, Scientific Blunders, and Medicine Gone Wrong, Skyhorse Publishing and Children’s Health Defense, 2026. Publisher page
Cendejas-Hernandez J, et al. “Paracetamol (acetaminophen) use in infants and children was never shown to be safe for neurodevelopment: a systematic review with citation tracking.” European Journal of Pediatrics, 2022. Link
Parker W, et al. “The role of oxidative stress, inflammation and acetaminophen exposure from birth to early childhood in the induction of autism.” Journal of International Medical Research, 2017. Link
Parker W, et al. “The Dangers of Acetaminophen for Neurodevelopment Outweigh Scant Evidence for Long-Term Benefits.” Children, 2024. The source of the five rules. Link
Jones JP, et al. “Evaluating the Role of Susceptibility Inducing Cofactors and of Acetaminophen in the Etiology of Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Life, 2024. The simulation paper. Link
Parker W, et al. “Evidence that acetaminophen triggers autism in susceptible individuals has been ignored and mishandled for more than a decade.” Journal of the Academy of Public Health, 2025. Link
Ahlqvist VH, et al. “Acetaminophen Use During Pregnancy and Children’s Risk of Autism, ADHD, and Intellectual Disability.” JAMA, 2024. Link
Prada D, Ritz B, Bauer AZ, Baccarelli AA. “Evaluation of the evidence on acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders using the Navigation Guide methodology.” Environmental Health, 2025. The review that called Parker’s proof speculative. Link
McGrath M, et al. “Neonatal Medical Male Circumcision and Child Autism Diagnosis.” JAMA Pediatrics, 2026. Johns Hopkins summary
Frisch M, Simonsen J. “Ritual circumcision and risk of autism spectrum disorder in 0- to 9-year-old boys.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2015. Link
Viberg H, et al. “Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) Administration During Neonatal Brain Development Affects Cognitive Function and Alters Its Analgesic and Anxiolytic Response in Adult Male Mice.” Toxicological Sciences, 2014. Link
Nevison C, Zahorodny, W. “Accelerating Autism Prevalence in California with Changepoint Circa Birth Years 2015–2016 and Divergence by County and Socioeconomic Indicators.” Preprints 2026. Link
Parker W, et al. “Hypothesis: Emerging Evidence Might Suggest That Increases in Cannabis Use Disorder Following Legalization of Recreational Cannabis Significantly Contribute to Socioeconomic-Dependent Increases in the Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder” Preprints 2026. Link
Duke Medicine is a horror. They literally try to kill people, I think. From MY experience, it it proven true. ALSO, they were the Southern center for gender change surgeries/child molestation.
Hard to believe, isn’t it?
I remember my best friend saying this to me when we both had two children each, u201CI hope Tylenol isnu2019t bad because Iu2019m giving (babyu2019s name) bottles of it.u201D Thinking back on that time now is horrifying.
Not only did doctors tell us it was safe, they actually recommended it to be administered 20 minutes before vaccines were administered.
Now that I know what I know, I wonu2019t even have it in my house. The damage that has been caused by the pharmaceutical industrial complex working hand in hand with the medical industrial complex is so devastating. God help the youngest and most vulnerable amongst us.
Agreed….however, I do not consider it “damage,” implied by mistaken or misguided interpretations and actions. They know exactly what they are doing and they know exactly the deaths and injuries they are causing. The pharma executives and their sales forces are merely a coven of psychopaths.
I personally don’t think the word “damage” implies mistaken or misguided… I think it simply means harm, insult, or injury.
I agree with you though that some people responsible know the damage they are causing but certainly not all medical personnel. I think a lot of the doctors and nurses are actually quite ignorant and just have been indoctrinated and brainwashed by their education into trusting the system. Having said that, I do think that many of them subconsciously choose to stay ignorant of the harm that they are doing because it would be very financially and emotionally destructive for them to confront the reality of the situation. And they are stuck in a completely backwards system that doesn’t have easy answers in order to turn it all around. After covid, I have less sympathy for anyone choosing to stay ignorant. How can they still not see it? It’s now morphing into more a conscious choice for most of them.
Mainly.Ignorant, yes.
A doctor is only lying if he’s moving his lips.
laughing and crying at the same time while reading this truthful comment…
Dr Yoho, have you examine the vaccine autism connection, but autism as actually “vaccine induced encephalopathy?” https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/stop-calling-it-autism-start-calling
The title “Stop Calling It Autism. Start Calling It Vaccine-Induced Encephalopathy” is spot on. We need to be vociferous about this. The needless suffering vaccines cause is incalculable. Much appreciation for this article Franklin.
Another outstanding piece of research and presentation, doctor. You are to be commended for your efforts and the work you produce. When i got to the line…..”pediatrics as a specialty is outrageously corrupt and probably the worst-influenced specialty in medicine,….” I found myself saying “YES”….out loud. The behavior of the pediatric colleges and associations of authority is worse than organized crime in that the latter actually did have a code of conduct based upon ethical standards. I consider pediatrics, dermatology and oncology to be so completely corrupted that they could be indicted for conspiracy to commit fraud. It is as though Morris Fishbein never died, but still walks the halls.
Canute, you are on the mark.
Thank you doctor….keep up the battle……people are awakening out there.
I could put my head in my hands and just cry. What we do to our children and babies is horrific in the extreme. During pregnancy it would be best if mothers JUST DIDN’T TAKE ANY DRUG, period. Cannabis is not a drug, it is a plant, it is a herb. So to claim it is a drug is fallacious. Drugs are manufactured. Nature doesn’t make drugs. So there’s that. But the idea of circumcision is utterly barbaric. Yet we speak about it as though it is acceptable. It is not, not in my book. It is a disgusting ritual and we need to shout it out from the rafters. Then to inject the little innocents with needles perforating their membrane which is sovereign and filling them with toxins, or anything. I know that sovereignty sounds like a political word but it would behoove us all to respect our sovereignty and that of others and we would fix the world by doing this. I hold the parents totally responsible because they are the ones who have the care of this little human. They are the ones that need to research EVERY SINGLE THING that goes into that baby and into the mother who holds the gestating fetus.
Then there is the “science”. This is not science. What the medical establishment is carrying out is necromancy, the desecration of life, the exploitation of the innocent in order to make profit. So all who are involved in $cience are essentially whoring themselves and causing untold damage to humanity.
Doctor Yoho, you are a gem for doing this work. You are so appreciated. What a gargantuan stronghold you are trying to enlighten. But people are getting sick of it and having no trust in medical $cience, and rightfully so.
u201CNature doesn’t make drugs.u201D That absolutist claim shows that you are completely ignorant of all the drugs derived from nature. Digitalis is a cardiac drug, derived from the leaves of an herb (foxglove plant). Atropine, scopolamine, and hyoscyamine are anticholinergic drugs derived from an herb (deadly nightshade). Aspirin is an anti-inflammatory drug, derived from the bark of a tree (white willow). I could go on for pages, but I suspect your ignorant claim is simply to justify your recreational use of cannabis, which you claim is u201Cnot a drugu201D because it an herb.
Your second ignorant claim is that u201Ccircumcision is utterly barbaric.u201D I might remind you that the Creator of the universe and all life within it, including human life, commanded His people to perform circumcision of baby boys on the eighth day after birth. In U.S. hospitals, circumcision is performed within the first 48 hours, before discharge. But God knows better than doctors. Vitamin K and prothrombin (Factor II) peak around day 8 of life, with prothrombin typically reaching 110% of normal u2014 the only day in a personu2019s life that it exceeds 100%. This reduces bleeding. Plus, the pain of circumcision is less during the first two weeks or so of a babyu2019s life. A 2009 observational study (n=581) found that the first two weeks of life is the window for “pain-free” circumcision, because: 1) The foreskin is smaller, thinner, and less vascularized; 2) Nerve endings are less developed. After 4 weeks, the foreskin begins to thicken and the blood supply increases, raising both pain and bleeding risk.
The only u201Cbarbaricu201D circumcision is the Muslim practice of circumcising a young womanu2019s clitoris to prevent her from experiencing pleasure during intercourse.
Well, I disagree; circumcision is terrible. It has a lot of complications associated with it, and also the idea that pot is harmless. It’s not. But we live in a world of diversity, and everybody has their opinions.
Iu2019m guessing most of the complications are because itu2019s done at the wrong time u2014 the day of birth or the day after. Pediatricians think they are smarter than God, so it would be interesting to compare the incidence of complications in gentile boys, circumcised at the doctoru2019s convenience on Day 0 or 1, vs. Jewish boys, circumcised according to Godu2019s commandment on Day 8.
You got to the detail I wanted to share. Did any of these studies compare circumcised boys and control for the date of circumcision? The doctor we took our boys to only does these procedures and he keeps statistics. Only does them after the first week and found that fewer than 10% of parents reported using pain relief drugs on the child.
uD83DuDCAFuD83DuDC4D
Many years ago that is how it was. When I was sick with a really bad cold my doctor said u201Csuck it up buttercup, you are pregnantu201D. So I did and I am still here to talk about it.
Love it.
I like your sentiments, but pot is a big problem. I wrote a book on drugs that you can obtain from behind the paywall and, soon, should be able to obtain in hardcover. Cannabis has its own chapter.
This is disgusting but not surprising. In too many areas, the conventional medical system, at least in the USA has betrayed the very people it is supposed to serve.
Take, for example, the insistence on giving newborn infants the Hep B vaccine, even though there are serious, science-based questions about the safety of giving vaccines of any kind to any newborns. The vectors for Hep B are unprotected sex with an infected partner and sharing needles for intravenous drug use with an infected partner. Last I checked, most infants are not having sex, nor using intravenous drugs.
I could go on citing examples for many, many pages.
One thing that surprises me is how few pediatricians even question these dangerous and absurd policies.
Pediatricians are the most corrupt medical specialty because they are poisoning our future with vaccines. They’re paid to do this with hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
On a side note, one way to deal with alleviating circumcision pain is to stop doing them.
Besides the immediate pain and the downsides of using drugs to control the pain, what about the long-term emotional trauma of having one’s sexual organs cut at such a young age, or at any age, for that matter.
You would not believe the angry pushback I got from members of a normally calm and generally tolerant writers’ group when I suggested that the practice of circumcision was barbaric and caused a great deal of harm for no real benefit. I could never have predicted how angry people became.
Circumcisions are another conspiracy.
Does all of this apply to the other neuro issues besides full on autism? The spectrum, ADHD, ADD, health issues including psoriasis, crohn’s, asthma etc….
Are all these other milder issues affecting almost all kids these days included in the word autism?
I heard that in a Vancouver WA school district a third of all kids now have some sort of neuro issue.
They have full classrooms of kids on the spectrum.
Thank you for another terrific article, and I hope it gets widely read. I will share it wherever I can.
In addition to the scientific issues that you raise, you touch on a related but slightly different issue that I want to highlight. Among those who do not know better, the widespread assumption is that the so-called “scientific” and “medical journals” are unbiased and operate with the agenda of furthering the sum total of the knowledge that emerges from medical research.
I wish that were true – that these journals were unbiased and only functioned as the guardians and publishers of the science.
Unfortunately, that is absolutely untrue.
There are countless examples where perfectly good science has been rejected out of hand by the journals, usually without any logical or rational explanation. Occasionally, this censorship reaches a level where it is so obvious and egregious that it catches the attention of enough of the public and the offending journal has to issue an apology. But mostly this very harmful, unscientific, and completely unethical bias and censorship goes largely unnoticed, and there is little pushback.
As usual, following the money provides some insight into the motivation for the bias, both explicit and implicit.
The harm done to society by having journals that are assumed to be unbiased and authoritative and that are in fact highly biased and entangled with profit-driven interests, is difficult to calculate. But, clearly, in many cases, the costs come down to life and death as a result of the systemic suppression of potentially life-saving information and the distortion of the science.
We are urged over and over again to “follow the science.” Good advice, but hard to follow when that science is withheld or distored.
This is heavily documented in “Butchered by Healthcare.”
I have been fighting against this particular form of evil for the entire 47 + years that I have been in practice.
Sorry not buying it. I donu2019t believe in taking Tylenol or giving it to children but I also do not believe it causes autism. I do not believe it contributes to autism.
Fortunately, your u201Cbeliefu201D will not harm you, because you are not a newborn infant.
The lack of the Glucuronidation pathway to clear Tylenol in infants makes perfect sense to me. Especially when it’s stated that the same pathway is missing in cats, and Tylenol kills cats. Why wouldn’t Tylenol have some adverse reaction in infants?
This is the way it is done.
So if a mother breastfeeds and uses Tylenol, can I safely assume the infant is receiving it?
Ha,Ha !What are pathological finding in Autism? Acetaminophen is toxic to Liver , #2 cause of Liver Transplant.When was name Autism u201C born?u201DBefore u201C mass Vaccinationsu201Dthis clinical Picture was supper rare.Clinical Data collection :ask Parents exactly to report of giving their Children Acetaminophen , what Age?, how much? , how long and how close to Vaccination Event.(Ask all Parents of Children!!! afflicted w/ this Complication.Report it to VEARS, and here to Yahoo, so all can read the Data and see for themselves.( Tylenol is a Name for Acetaminophen).
This is super important, and I expected a lot more commentary. If you get a chance to read this, have a close look. This author is sincere, academic, and was picked up by this major publisher because of the importance of his work.
Iu2019m just curious does Tylenol cause dementia? Iu2019ve read some articles that say it does. Even if it doesnu2019t Iu2019m still telling my Psychiatrist that it does so I can tell him thatu2019s another drug of the list.. lol
Doctors hate me. They ask the dumbest questions. Are you suicidal. Of course I am I just wanted to make sure I was in perfect health so I can go off myself. Are you homicidal; of course I am I see dead people oops your one. Are you bipolar: well if you but me a house in the North and South Pole and a jet Iu2019ll be bipolar. I have so many more answers to doctoru2019s dumb questions. Even if youu2019re in a mental hospital. Are you having hallucinations: how would I know Iu2019m f ed up. Do you see me battling things in the air well then guess Iu2019m it doesnu2019t take a genius to figure that one out. I know you would not want me as a patientu2026 lol
If you would please let me know. Thank you and have a great night. I do have to say I love your articles and find them to contain very valuable information.
Most drugs are a disaster…just ask your body. It will tell you that you are crazy for subscribing to this demonic practice of poisoning a body with big pharma toxic drugs. The sad thing is that the medical mafia wants you to believe these drugs are medicines. The joke is on you for taking this garbage and never questioning anything.
uD83DuDC4D Meds/Vaccines/Chemo/Radiation: regardless of how they get it into our body whether it’s via injections, transdermal, topical, sublingual, inhalation, via the gut .. matters not. All of them slowly (or rapidly), weaken, sicken, destroy the human CNS.
CNS = both body and brain.
Autism is predominantly induced by vaccines. All vaccines do cardiovascular damage.
The Tylenol cause is a “misdirection”.
Parents: Don’t vac your children… period.
I did not know about the mechanism about babies and infants and tylenol. If they can’t process it, and the pathway takes 2 years to develop, that’s a real problem.
Is it just me or does this thing about “well baby visits” feel like depopulation?
This is something of a side note. In the recent months I have noticed you and several other substack authors change their writing style. A way of arguing that includes a response to objections, and that acknowledges the strength as well as the flaws of the objections has become widespread. I first noted this technique in A. C. Rosenthal’s substack . Frankly, I find it refreshing and helpful, and it helps build respect for writing that is not making simply one sided statements and hiding from possible obje tons. Plus, it leads to more objectively stated points that don’t simply become vilification.
Praise to all who are perhaps, following a good and worthy example.