How Opiophobia Paved the Way for Tylenol Hysteria

By Crystal Lindell

The dirty little secret about alternatives to opioids is that they are all mostly bullshit.

They’re expensive, sometimes outright dangerous, and perhaps worst of all, ineffective.

So when doctors are telling you that you don’t need opioids to treat your pain, what they are really saying is that you don’t need pain treatment at all.

And that’s exactly the message that people are getting from the Trump administration’s recent guidance to avoid taking Tylenol while pregnant.

Specifically, the administration is now advising women not to use acetaminophen — which goes by the brand name Tylenol — for pain and fever during pregnancy due to claims that it raises the risk of their babies developing autism. 

Aside from the fact that science behind this claim is not definitive, the other major problem is that there is no safe alternative to acetaminophen that a woman can take for pain and fever while pregnant. Over-the-counter pain relievers like aspirin and ibuprofen can damage the kidneys of unborn babies.

President Trump admitted as much during the press conference about the new guidance, putting the onus on pregnant women to “tough it out” by not taking Tylenol

“Sadly, first question, what can you take instead? It's actually, there's not an alternative to that,” Trump said. “And as you know, other medicines are absolutely proven bad. I mean, they've been proven bad, the aspirins and the Advils and others, right?

“But if you can't tough it out, if you can't do it, that's what you're going to have to do. You'll take a Tylenol, but it'll be very sparingly.”

That’s a genuinely inhumane response to the pain pregnant women often endure, because what he’s really saying is that you just should not treat pain while pregnant. It’s also on-brand messaging for an opiophobic country that’s been dismissing everyone’s pain for almost a decade now.

As it turns out, when you tell people that their pain doesn’t deserve to be treated by opioids, then it’s a quick path to the idea that pain shouldn’t be treated by other substances, be they cannabis or kratom or Tylenol. 

In the end, it all really comes down to a fundamental question of whether or not pain is worthy of treatment.

And unfortunately, for many healthcare professionals and government officials, the answer is a resounding “no.” They do not believe that pain is worthy of treatment – as long as it’s not their pain. Because, make no mistake, when these types of policies come out, that’s exactly who they apply to: other people.

They know that they themselves will get to use opioids if and when the time comes that they need them for their own pain. And they don’t expect to have a pregnancy themselves, so of course they don’t care if pregnant women can’t have their pain treated.

It's why Trump can so dismissively say "there's no downside in not taking it." He means there is no downside to him if you don’t take Tylenol.

But for pregnant women, there most certainly is a downside. Failing to treat fever and significant pain can pose serious risks to both the mother and baby, resulting in miscarriages, birth defects, depression, infections and high blood pressure.

Enduring untreated pain can wear you down in ways you can’t even predict. It will destroy your sleep, steal your hope, and even make you mean. When it’s your pain, you’ll do anything to make it stop.

Pain is a medical condition on its own, and “toughing it out” is not an effective treatment. Until we as patients and voters demand better, I fear both the government and our healthcare system will continue chipping away at the pain treatments we still have — until there is literally nothing left but silent prayers and fleeting wishes.

Scientific Review Dismantles Myths Behind ‘Opiophobia’

By Crystal Lindell

“There is little evidence that physicians and surgeons prescribing opioids for short-term pain relief leads to substantial levels of opioid use disorder (OUD), addiction, or death.”

That one sentence, found in a new scientific review, cuts straight to the heart of America’s irrational fear of opioids — also known as opiophobia.

Published in ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science and authored by John Bumpus, PhD, the paper looks at the irrational fear that prescribing opioids in any capacity is harmful – and how little evidence there is to back up such claims. 

Bumpus opens his report by saying that there is a false narrative that “even short-term (seven days or less) use of opioids under medical supervision to treat acute pain will often lead to opioid use disorder (OUD) and/or addiction.”

As a result of that narrative, many healthcare professionals and policy makers believe that the best way to address this problem is to “avoid using opioids altogether or to severely limit the use of prescription opioids, especially after surgery.” 

Bumpus says many providers also assume that limiting prescriptions will significantly reduce overdose deaths. Then he adds the line that cuts to the heart of opiophobia: 

“There is, however, substantial evidence that this is not the case.”

In that one sentence, Bumpus dismantles the main argument that’s often used to claim that opioid restrictions are necessary: the idea that such restrictions are “evidence-based.” 

His report lays out how opioid-related misconceptions have led to policy decisions that are not only unsupported by evidence — but are often harmful. Anyone who has had trouble accessing needed opioid medications over the last few years will find the article both cathartic and affirming.  

Bumpus, who’s a Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Northern Iowa, starts the paper by defining "'opiophobia'" based on the definition shared in a 2023 paper, “Opiophobia and the tragedy of needless pain”

Opiophobia led many patients and providers to “fear, avoid or condemn the use of these compounds,” which Bumpus calls ‘the most effective family of analgesics known.”

While large chunks of the report focuses on surgical patients in post-operative pain, Bumpus says that many chronic pain patients use opioids “successfully and appropriately,” but have been “adversely affected by the catastrophization of issues and misinformation surrounding the use of opioids and the opiophobia it has generated."

Bumpus asserts that anti-opioid zealots have gone too far. 

“Although opioid-free protocols and policies may have their benefits and role, for some physicians, researchers, administrators, and politicians, the elimination of opioids appears to have become a goal in and of itself,” he warns. 

Bumpus says there's an underlying assumption "that physicians and surgeons are currently overprescribing opioids." He then adds, "Nationally, this does not appear to be the case."

While the number of opioid prescriptions decreased by about 50% from 2010 to 2022, Bumpus says deaths involving prescription opioids have remained constant. Meanwhile, fatal overdoses from illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids have skyrocketed.

“It does not appear that prescription opioids are the major problem here,” Bumpus concludes

He says those advocating for severe opioid limitation often ignore the adverse effects of alternatives like acetaminophen.

"For example, annually in the U.S., acetaminophen overdose is responsible for over 56,000 emergency department visits, 2600 hospitalizations and 500 deaths,” he writes. “Acetaminophen overdose is also the most common cause of acute liver failure and the most common reason for liver transplants in the U.S."

He says that "the narrative that the opioid crisis is caused by the prescribing habits of ethical, conscientious, and caring physicians is patently untrue."

Rather, what is true is that the “undertreatment of postoperative pain is a serious ongoing concern.”

Misleading Data Used to Justify Opioid Restrictions

While opioid-restricting polices may be well-intentioned, Bumpus says there is little evidence that physicians prescribing opioids for short-term pain leads to substantial levels of misuse.

For example, some of the claims used to justify opioid restrictions rely on a study that found 30% of Medicaid patients prescribed an opioid for the first time developed opioid dependency.

That is claim is misleading. The researcher was simply citing the fact that 30% of patients who filled a single opioid prescription needed a refill 3 to 9 months later. Getting a refill alone hardly meets the criteria for opioid dependency, much less addiction.

Bumpus says opioid restrictive policies have had the unintended effect of encouraging patients to store leftover opioids at home, which only makes them more likely to be misused by someone else. 

"Ironically, programs aimed at reducing access to opioids and their long-term storage may actually incentivize the hoarding of these medications," he says. 

People storing leftover opioids is understandable though, when patients fear their future pain will be untreated or they won’t be able to see a doctor.

"Long-term storage of opioid medications and self-medication may not be behaviors endorsed by the medical profession,” Bumpus says. “However, such behaviors are understandable human reactions, and they undoubtedly occur." 

Bumpus argues that while it’s illegal and medically unsupervised, using leftover prescription opioids is safer than turning to street drugs:

“These drugs serve as a relatively safe supply of opioids for people who use them,” he writes.

Ultimately, Bumpus says the public “should have access to information that accurately portrays the benefits as well as the risks associated with the medicinal use of opioids.” 

His paper is heavily researched and includes over 200 footnotes, including several PNN articles that debunk the narrative about opioid misuse being common. 

Bumpus says his paper is important for administrators, policymakers, and lawmakers to read, “so that mistakes of the past are not repeated, making sure that ill-conceived laws and policies are not put in place that do more harm than good.”

Bumpus is correct, of course, and his message is urgent. Now the medical community and policymakers just need to actually listen to him.