is RKFJr's "Tylenol(TM) causes autism" just a shakedown for extortion money from the company?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

How about maternal age having babies in your late 30's and 40's, eggs are way pass use by date.

How about paternal age, which has also been shown to be a high risk factor for autism?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7396152/

Men need to stop having babies after age 35. Their sperm is past its sell by date.

Oh no, blaming men is not allowed. Only the women.

Oh right! I forgot that sperm is so powerful it alters the mother’s DNA forever, but if anything goes wrong with the baby it’s the woman’s fault.

We really need better sex ed in this country.

You are the only person saying that.

You must be new to the internet.

You must think that internet comments are some sort of representative sample of public sentiment.

A large number of people use the internet. A large number of people comment on the internet, even accounting for bots. So yes, it is a representative sample. Most of us aren’t going door to door polling for opinions.

That is some truly ignorant crap right there. No, some random corner of the internet is not a representative sample of the population. WTF. The stupidity of that comment is staggering.

Nobody said anything about “some random corner of the internet”. Calm down.

Please tell me you can’t really be this stupid. Did you graduate high school?

I’m not the one having a massive tantrum and repeating “ur stupid” over and over as if it’s a magic incantation that substitutes for debate.

But, since you think internet comments don’t represent real people’s beliefs, your opinion can be safely dismissed. I’m going to assume you’re a bot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

How about maternal age having babies in your late 30's and 40's, eggs are way pass use by date.

How about paternal age, which has also been shown to be a high risk factor for autism?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7396152/

Men need to stop having babies after age 35. Their sperm is past its sell by date.

Oh no, blaming men is not allowed. Only the women.

Oh right! I forgot that sperm is so powerful it alters the mother’s DNA forever, but if anything goes wrong with the baby it’s the woman’s fault.

We really need better sex ed in this country.

You are the only person saying that.

You must be new to the internet.

You must think that internet comments are some sort of representative sample of public sentiment.

A large number of people use the internet. A large number of people comment on the internet, even accounting for bots. So yes, it is a representative sample. Most of us aren’t going door to door polling for opinions.

That is some truly ignorant crap right there. No, some random corner of the internet is not a representative sample of the population. WTF. The stupidity of that comment is staggering.

Nobody said anything about “some random corner of the internet”. Calm down.

Please tell me you can’t really be this stupid. Did you graduate high school?

I’m not the one having a massive tantrum and repeating “ur stupid” over and over as if it’s a magic incantation that substitutes for debate.

But, since you think internet comments don’t represent real people’s beliefs, your opinion can be safely dismissed. I’m going to assume you’re a bot.

Not that poster, but yes, internet experience gives you anecdotes about real people's belief, but your personal experience reading comments does not constitute a statistical sample of what the majority of people believe. I do suggest a basic course in statistics and this will make more sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

How about maternal age having babies in your late 30's and 40's, eggs are way pass use by date.

How about paternal age, which has also been shown to be a high risk factor for autism?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7396152/

Men need to stop having babies after age 35. Their sperm is past its sell by date.

Oh no, blaming men is not allowed. Only the women.

Oh right! I forgot that sperm is so powerful it alters the mother’s DNA forever, but if anything goes wrong with the baby it’s the woman’s fault.

We really need better sex ed in this country.

You are the only person saying that.

You must be new to the internet.

You must think that internet comments are some sort of representative sample of public sentiment.

A large number of people use the internet. A large number of people comment on the internet, even accounting for bots. So yes, it is a representative sample. Most of us aren’t going door to door polling for opinions.

That is some truly ignorant crap right there. No, some random corner of the internet is not a representative sample of the population. WTF. The stupidity of that comment is staggering.

Nobody said anything about “some random corner of the internet”. Calm down.

Please tell me you can’t really be this stupid. Did you graduate high school?

I’m not the one having a massive tantrum and repeating “ur stupid” over and over as if it’s a magic incantation that substitutes for debate.

But, since you think internet comments don’t represent real people’s beliefs, your opinion can be safely dismissed. I’m going to assume you’re a bot.

There is no debate. We are explaining to you that you are factually wrong and you can’t seem to grasp it. That makes you a fool. It’s like talking to someone who thinks they are “debating” that the sky is blue while we are all standing outside on a sunny day. It’s insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

How about maternal age having babies in your late 30's and 40's, eggs are way pass use by date.

How about paternal age, which has also been shown to be a high risk factor for autism?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7396152/

Men need to stop having babies after age 35. Their sperm is past its sell by date.

Oh no, blaming men is not allowed. Only the women.

Oh right! I forgot that sperm is so powerful it alters the mother’s DNA forever, but if anything goes wrong with the baby it’s the woman’s fault.

We really need better sex ed in this country.

You are the only person saying that.

You must be new to the internet.

You must think that internet comments are some sort of representative sample of public sentiment.

A large number of people use the internet. A large number of people comment on the internet, even accounting for bots. So yes, it is a representative sample. Most of us aren’t going door to door polling for opinions.

That is some truly ignorant crap right there. No, some random corner of the internet is not a representative sample of the population. WTF. The stupidity of that comment is staggering.

Nobody said anything about “some random corner of the internet”. Calm down.

Please tell me you can’t really be this stupid. Did you graduate high school?

I’m not the one having a massive tantrum and repeating “ur stupid” over and over as if it’s a magic incantation that substitutes for debate.

But, since you think internet comments don’t represent real people’s beliefs, your opinion can be safely dismissed. I’m going to assume you’re a bot.

Not that poster, but yes, internet experience gives you anecdotes about real people's belief, but your personal experience reading comments does not constitute a statistical sample of what the majority of people believe. I do suggest a basic course in statistics and this will make more sense.

You can find any opinion expressed somewhere on the internet, running the gamut from extreme to moderate. In that sense, the internet AS A WHOLE is representative of public opinion AS A WHOLE. I did not say that any one particular comment out of billions represents public opinion.

For people who supposedly understand statistics, this shouldn’t have to be explained to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

How about maternal age having babies in your late 30's and 40's, eggs are way pass use by date.

How about paternal age, which has also been shown to be a high risk factor for autism?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7396152/

Men need to stop having babies after age 35. Their sperm is past its sell by date.

Oh no, blaming men is not allowed. Only the women.

Oh right! I forgot that sperm is so powerful it alters the mother’s DNA forever, but if anything goes wrong with the baby it’s the woman’s fault.

We really need better sex ed in this country.

You are the only person saying that.

You must be new to the internet.

You must think that internet comments are some sort of representative sample of public sentiment.

A large number of people use the internet. A large number of people comment on the internet, even accounting for bots. So yes, it is a representative sample. Most of us aren’t going door to door polling for opinions.

That is some truly ignorant crap right there. No, some random corner of the internet is not a representative sample of the population. WTF. The stupidity of that comment is staggering.

Nobody said anything about “some random corner of the internet”. Calm down.

Please tell me you can’t really be this stupid. Did you graduate high school?

I’m not the one having a massive tantrum and repeating “ur stupid” over and over as if it’s a magic incantation that substitutes for debate.

But, since you think internet comments don’t represent real people’s beliefs, your opinion can be safely dismissed. I’m going to assume you’re a bot.

Not that poster, but yes, internet experience gives you anecdotes about real people's belief, but your personal experience reading comments does not constitute a statistical sample of what the majority of people believe. I do suggest a basic course in statistics and this will make more sense.

You can find any opinion expressed somewhere on the internet, running the gamut from extreme to moderate. In that sense, the internet AS A WHOLE is representative of public opinion AS A WHOLE. I did not say that any one particular comment out of billions represents public opinion.

For people who supposedly understand statistics, this shouldn’t have to be explained to you.

Eh not exactly. One person's online experience with loys of comments is still an anecdote regardless of how many comments encountered. True for your online experience and true for mine.

f you want to get into scientific literature, online polling has its own flaws in assessing true public opinion. Google scholar is your friend. Read some research about polling methodology rather than yelling at people here. Have at it. Knowledge is power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

How about maternal age having babies in your late 30's and 40's, eggs are way pass use by date.

How about paternal age, which has also been shown to be a high risk factor for autism?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7396152/

Men need to stop having babies after age 35. Their sperm is past its sell by date.

Oh no, blaming men is not allowed. Only the women.

Oh right! I forgot that sperm is so powerful it alters the mother’s DNA forever, but if anything goes wrong with the baby it’s the woman’s fault.

We really need better sex ed in this country.

You are the only person saying that.

You must be new to the internet.

You must think that internet comments are some sort of representative sample of public sentiment.

A large number of people use the internet. A large number of people comment on the internet, even accounting for bots. So yes, it is a representative sample. Most of us aren’t going door to door polling for opinions.

That is some truly ignorant crap right there. No, some random corner of the internet is not a representative sample of the population. WTF. The stupidity of that comment is staggering.

Nobody said anything about “some random corner of the internet”. Calm down.

Please tell me you can’t really be this stupid. Did you graduate high school?

I’m not the one having a massive tantrum and repeating “ur stupid” over and over as if it’s a magic incantation that substitutes for debate.

But, since you think internet comments don’t represent real people’s beliefs, your opinion can be safely dismissed. I’m going to assume you’re a bot.

There is no debate. We are explaining to you that you are factually wrong and you can’t seem to grasp it. That makes you a fool. It’s like talking to someone who thinks they are “debating” that the sky is blue while we are all standing outside on a sunny day. It’s insane.

Who’s “we”? Is this the royal “we”?

You’re not explaining anything. You’re willfully misunderstanding and repeating “you’re stupid” over and over again, because playing pigeon chess and hijacking the thread is more important to you than having an adult discussion.

This entire thread is an example of my point that misinformation exists out there and gets propagated by malicious actors. People see it repeated over and over on Reddit or Tik Tok and assume it’s true. Unfortunately, a lot of younger people get information from these places, which is why we dismiss it at our peril.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:is RKFJr's "Tylenol(TM) causes autism" just a shakedown for extortion money from the company?

Is that why he's blaming the brand name and not the common name of acetaminophen?

I think he has to say Tylenol because he can't pronounce Acetaminophen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

How about maternal age having babies in your late 30's and 40's, eggs are way pass use by date.

How about paternal age, which has also been shown to be a high risk factor for autism?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7396152/

Men need to stop having babies after age 35. Their sperm is past its sell by date.

Oh no, blaming men is not allowed. Only the women.

Oh right! I forgot that sperm is so powerful it alters the mother’s DNA forever, but if anything goes wrong with the baby it’s the woman’s fault.

We really need better sex ed in this country.

You are the only person saying that.

You must be new to the internet.

You must think that internet comments are some sort of representative sample of public sentiment.

A large number of people use the internet. A large number of people comment on the internet, even accounting for bots. So yes, it is a representative sample. Most of us aren’t going door to door polling for opinions.

That is some truly ignorant crap right there. No, some random corner of the internet is not a representative sample of the population. WTF. The stupidity of that comment is staggering.

Nobody said anything about “some random corner of the internet”. Calm down.

Please tell me you can’t really be this stupid. Did you graduate high school?

I’m not the one having a massive tantrum and repeating “ur stupid” over and over as if it’s a magic incantation that substitutes for debate.

But, since you think internet comments don’t represent real people’s beliefs, your opinion can be safely dismissed. I’m going to assume you’re a bot.

Not that poster, but yes, internet experience gives you anecdotes about real people's belief, but your personal experience reading comments does not constitute a statistical sample of what the majority of people believe. I do suggest a basic course in statistics and this will make more sense.

You can find any opinion expressed somewhere on the internet, running the gamut from extreme to moderate. In that sense, the internet AS A WHOLE is representative of public opinion AS A WHOLE. I did not say that any one particular comment out of billions represents public opinion.

For people who supposedly understand statistics, this shouldn’t have to be explained to you.

Eh not exactly. One person's online experience with loys of comments is still an anecdote regardless of how many comments encountered. True for your online experience and true for mine.

f you want to get into scientific literature, online polling has its own flaws in assessing true public opinion. Google scholar is your friend. Read some research about polling methodology rather than yelling at people here. Have at it. Knowledge is power.

I’m not yelling. I’m trying to make a point and getting dogpiled by people (or one person and their sockpuppets) who are purposely missing the point because they want to show off their own knowledge. This has nothing to do with statistics. You’re conflating the statistical/mathematical meaning of “representative” with the colloquial meaning of “standing in or acting for another”.

[Anonymous]

Is Tylenol in the Epstein files?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

How about maternal age having babies in your late 30's and 40's, eggs are way pass use by date.

How about paternal age, which has also been shown to be a high risk factor for autism?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7396152/

Men need to stop having babies after age 35. Their sperm is past its sell by date.

Oh no, blaming men is not allowed. Only the women.

Oh right! I forgot that sperm is so powerful it alters the mother’s DNA forever, but if anything goes wrong with the baby it’s the woman’s fault.

We really need better sex ed in this country.

You are the only person saying that.

You must be new to the internet.

You must think that internet comments are some sort of representative sample of public sentiment.

A large number of people use the internet. A large number of people comment on the internet, even accounting for bots. So yes, it is a representative sample. Most of us aren’t going door to door polling for opinions.

That is some truly ignorant crap right there. No, some random corner of the internet is not a representative sample of the population. WTF. The stupidity of that comment is staggering.

Nobody said anything about “some random corner of the internet”. Calm down.

Please tell me you can’t really be this stupid. Did you graduate high school?

I’m not the one having a massive tantrum and repeating “ur stupid” over and over as if it’s a magic incantation that substitutes for debate.

But, since you think internet comments don’t represent real people’s beliefs, your opinion can be safely dismissed. I’m going to assume you’re a bot.

Not that poster, but yes, internet experience gives you anecdotes about real people's belief, but your personal experience reading comments does not constitute a statistical sample of what the majority of people believe. I do suggest a basic course in statistics and this will make more sense.

You can find any opinion expressed somewhere on the internet, running the gamut from extreme to moderate. In that sense, the internet AS A WHOLE is representative of public opinion AS A WHOLE. I did not say that any one particular comment out of billions represents public opinion.

For people who supposedly understand statistics, this shouldn’t have to be explained to you.

Eh not exactly. One person's online experience with loys of comments is still an anecdote regardless of how many comments encountered. True for your online experience and true for mine.

f you want to get into scientific literature, online polling has its own flaws in assessing true public opinion. Google scholar is your friend. Read some research about polling methodology rather than yelling at people here. Have at it. Knowledge is power.

I’m not yelling. I’m trying to make a point and getting dogpiled by people (or one person and their sockpuppets) who are purposely missing the point because they want to show off their own knowledge. This has nothing to do with statistics. You’re conflating the statistical/mathematical meaning of “representative” with the colloquial meaning of “standing in or acting for another”.

Assessing public opinion requires statistics. Are you implying that your personal experience reading lots of misc. comments across the internet gives you an accurate assessment of public opinion?

[Anonymous]

Y'all can stop arguing. It's market manipulation. He said those things, the stock tanked, it rose again in after hours trading, it's up 3% on the day and is nearly back where it was 2 days ago.

This has nothing to do with Tylanol. It's just the next market manipulation. Who made the money?

It ain't me. It ain't me. I ain't no billionaire's son. Naw.

full song below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWijx_AgPiA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

How about maternal age having babies in your late 30's and 40's, eggs are way pass use by date.

How about paternal age, which has also been shown to be a high risk factor for autism?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7396152/

Men need to stop having babies after age 35. Their sperm is past its sell by date.

Oh no, blaming men is not allowed. Only the women.

Oh right! I forgot that sperm is so powerful it alters the mother’s DNA forever, but if anything goes wrong with the baby it’s the woman’s fault.

We really need better sex ed in this country.

You are the only person saying that.

You must be new to the internet.

You must think that internet comments are some sort of representative sample of public sentiment.

A large number of people use the internet. A large number of people comment on the internet, even accounting for bots. So yes, it is a representative sample. Most of us aren’t going door to door polling for opinions.

That is some truly ignorant crap right there. No, some random corner of the internet is not a representative sample of the population. WTF. The stupidity of that comment is staggering.

Nobody said anything about “some random corner of the internet”. Calm down.

Please tell me you can’t really be this stupid. Did you graduate high school?

I’m not the one having a massive tantrum and repeating “ur stupid” over and over as if it’s a magic incantation that substitutes for debate.

But, since you think internet comments don’t represent real people’s beliefs, your opinion can be safely dismissed. I’m going to assume you’re a bot.

Not that poster, but yes, internet experience gives you anecdotes about real people's belief, but your personal experience reading comments does not constitute a statistical sample of what the majority of people believe. I do suggest a basic course in statistics and this will make more sense.

You can find any opinion expressed somewhere on the internet, running the gamut from extreme to moderate. In that sense, the internet AS A WHOLE is representative of public opinion AS A WHOLE. I did not say that any one particular comment out of billions represents public opinion.

For people who supposedly understand statistics, this shouldn’t have to be explained to you.

Eh not exactly. One person's online experience with loys of comments is still an anecdote regardless of how many comments encountered. True for your online experience and true for mine.

f you want to get into scientific literature, online polling has its own flaws in assessing true public opinion. Google scholar is your friend. Read some research about polling methodology rather than yelling at people here. Have at it. Knowledge is power.

I’m not yelling. I’m trying to make a point and getting dogpiled by people (or one person and their sockpuppets) who are purposely missing the point because they want to show off their own knowledge. This has nothing to do with statistics. You’re conflating the statistical/mathematical meaning of “representative” with the colloquial meaning of “standing in or acting for another”.

Assessing public opinion requires statistics. Are you implying that your personal experience reading lots of misc. comments across the internet gives you an accurate assessment of public opinion?

No. I’m saying that internet comments represent the opinions of their authors (excluding trolls and sh!tposters). That’s not controversial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in a few years, insurance companies will deny all autism coverage by saying they shouldn’t have to pay for treatments because mom intentionally gave her kid autism by taking Tylenol. Mothers of autistic kids will be pariahs.

What will they do with me? I have fraternal twins. One has autism and the other is neurotypical. Did all of the Tylenol only go to one baby?

I’m also an autism parent. I hope your family is doing well and that you all are hanging in there. I say this with respect and compassion, but it’s odd to me that your experience leads you to parody people positing an environmental component. Plenty of people will say that autism “is genetic,” insinuating (or even outright saying) that whether a child has autism follows ineluctably from that child’s genes, when, in fact, the experience of twins (including monozygotic twins) shows that it surely is much more complicated than that.

You’re making my point. We haven’t pinpointed the exact cause(s) of autism. It’s so much more complicated than whether mom took Tylenol during pregnancy. They have no peer reviewed research that backs up their premise. This press conference was a bunch of misleading malarkey.

There are women who are pregnant right now, who took Tylenol yesterday or last week or last month and these nincompoops are frightening those women unnecessarily. What the Trump administration is doing is so wrong.

You don’t need to pinpoint causes to discuss them. There are surely multiple causes. They should all be identified. I’m sure this is frightening to some parents, but if it is scientifically valid, it should come out.

To call something a “cause” of autism, you have to have established that scientifically. Otherwise, you’re not talking about causes; you’re talking about potential causes. No link has been established between acetaminophen during pregnancy and children born of that pregnancy having autism. We can’t call Tylenol use a cause.

You must be one of the lawyers who haunt this message board . This isn’t some semantic sport about the meaning of the world “cause,” but if you listened to the press conference, you would have heard that the number and strength of studies pointing to an association is substantial enough that at least some Harvard academics have concluded that there is a causal connection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in a few years, insurance companies will deny all autism coverage by saying they shouldn’t have to pay for treatments because mom intentionally gave her kid autism by taking Tylenol. Mothers of autistic kids will be pariahs.

What will they do with me? I have fraternal twins. One has autism and the other is neurotypical. Did all of the Tylenol only go to one baby?

I’m also an autism parent. I hope your family is doing well and that you all are hanging in there. I say this with respect and compassion, but it’s odd to me that your experience leads you to parody people positing an environmental component. Plenty of people will say that autism “is genetic,” insinuating (or even outright saying) that whether a child has autism follows ineluctably from that child’s genes, when, in fact, the experience of twins (including monozygotic twins) shows that it surely is much more complicated than that.

You’re making my point. We haven’t pinpointed the exact cause(s) of autism. It’s so much more complicated than whether mom took Tylenol during pregnancy. They have no peer reviewed research that backs up their premise. This press conference was a bunch of misleading malarkey.

There are women who are pregnant right now, who took Tylenol yesterday or last week or last month and these nincompoops are frightening those women unnecessarily. What the Trump administration is doing is so wrong.

You don’t need to pinpoint causes to discuss them. There are surely multiple causes. They should all be identified. I’m sure this is frightening to some parents, but if it is scientifically valid, it should come out.

The way to do that is through the long conversation of research and publication, not by a financially-invested politician declaring "truths" by fiat which have no real support in the actual research. And not by declaration of a POTUS who knows so little about what he's discussing that he can't even get the basic words right.

Like how about a study of 2.5 million children over a 24 year period?!!!! The Swedish study that debunks what all was said today.


“Swedish researchers analysed data from nearly 2.5 million children born over a 24-year period to compare how siblings fared when their mothers used paracetamol (what Tylenol called in rest of world-only US and Japan say acetaminophen).

They found that paracetamol use during pregnancy was not linked to children’s risk of autism, intellectual disabilities, or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

“This suggests that other factors, such as genetic or underlying maternal health conditions, may better explain the findings,” said Dr Hannah Kirk, a senior lecturer in the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health at Monash University in Australia.”

You’re right that there is at least one study pointing to no association. There are many others that point to an association. That is par for the course. A person who accepts one study and ignores those that go the other way is not a scientist; he is a partisan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in a few years, insurance companies will deny all autism coverage by saying they shouldn’t have to pay for treatments because mom intentionally gave her kid autism by taking Tylenol. Mothers of autistic kids will be pariahs.

What will they do with me? I have fraternal twins. One has autism and the other is neurotypical. Did all of the Tylenol only go to one baby?

I’m also an autism parent. I hope your family is doing well and that you all are hanging in there. I say this with respect and compassion, but it’s odd to me that your experience leads you to parody people positing an environmental component. Plenty of people will say that autism “is genetic,” insinuating (or even outright saying) that whether a child has autism follows ineluctably from that child’s genes, when, in fact, the experience of twins (including monozygotic twins) shows that it surely is much more complicated than that.

You’re making my point. We haven’t pinpointed the exact cause(s) of autism. It’s so much more complicated than whether mom took Tylenol during pregnancy. They have no peer reviewed research that backs up their premise. This press conference was a bunch of misleading malarkey.

There are women who are pregnant right now, who took Tylenol yesterday or last week or last month and these nincompoops are frightening those women unnecessarily. What the Trump administration is doing is so wrong.

You don’t need to pinpoint causes to discuss them. There are surely multiple causes. They should all be identified. I’m sure this is frightening to some parents, but if it is scientifically valid, it should come out.

The way to do that is through the long conversation of research and publication, not by a financially-invested politician declaring "truths" by fiat which have no real support in the actual research. And not by declaration of a POTUS who knows so little about what he's discussing that he can't even get the basic words right.

Like how about a study of 2.5 million children over a 24 year period?!!!! The Swedish study that debunks what all was said today.


“Swedish researchers analysed data from nearly 2.5 million children born over a 24-year period to compare how siblings fared when their mothers used paracetamol (what Tylenol called in rest of world-only US and Japan say acetaminophen).

They found that paracetamol use during pregnancy was not linked to children’s risk of autism, intellectual disabilities, or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

“This suggests that other factors, such as genetic or underlying maternal health conditions, may better explain the findings,” said Dr Hannah Kirk, a senior lecturer in the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health at Monash University in Australia.”

You’re right that there is at least one study pointing to no association. There are many others that point to an association. That is par for the course. A person who accepts one study and ignores those that go the other way is not a scientist; he is a partisan.

A person who doesn’t look at the quality of the various studies is partisan.