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

[Anonymous]

What’s the end game? Trump and his pals don’t do anything without gaining something from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

3. If liberalization of diagnostic criteria accounted for the increase in autism rates, we’d expect the fastest growing group to be the middle aged or seniors. In reality, it’s children whose ASD rate is rising fastest.

It's almost like there is an entire infrastructure to repetitively test children and keep them in a setting where they are forced to interact with each other, and where if the child falling behind -- unlike for adults, when you are on your own -- there is another entire infrastructure with legal requirements for supports to be given and then reassessed.

Oh yeah. It's called school.

I am an autism parent. You are trying to playfully dunk on a deeply painful subject that you know nothing about. You do not get diagnosed via school. It is of course possible—even common—for symptoms to be noticed in school, but if those symptoms are that obvious, the autism was never subtle enough to stand or fall with the particulars of the DSM edition being employed (to say nothing of the fact that the diagnostic criteria were tightened, not loosened).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s correct. You are simply assuming the Swedish study is higher quality than the others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s correct. You are simply assuming the Swedish study is higher quality than the others.

Do you think scientists make assumptions when comparing studies? Do you think there are no real standards?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The JAMA study only looked at risk during pregnancy. There is more than one study that found an increased risk with Tylenol given after delivery to infants and children.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5536672/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5044872/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10915458/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7017213/

Anecdotally, sample size of 1- I know someone who gave their baby Tylenol probably twice a day for nearly a year for "teething"... the child turned out severely autistic. Who knows if that was the cause, but I can't help but wonder whenever I see the child.

The first one you list isn't even a study, as it was called by you. It's a review article of theories.

Did you read these studies, or are you just googling things and listing them without bothering to analyze them?

Autism has a very strong genetic (60-80%) component. It’s become more common largely because the diagnostic criteria are more expansive than before. The diagnostic criteria for autism previously only included around the top 1% of the human with the most severe behavioral symptoms, but now the current diagnostic threshold covers around the top 3% with the most severe behavioral symptoms. This is basically how almost all diseases work, there is a liability threshold where it becomes a condition, whether it is heart disease, osteoporosis or autism, things are not black and white. There is no discrete point where people have (most) diseases. There is just a liability threshold where the medical community has come to a scientific consensus that that treatment/diagnosis is clinically beneficial for people.

1. To say that it has a genetic component is not to say that its presence or absence turns solely or even primarily on genes. The discipline of “epigenetics” tells us that genes can sometimes be altered by their environment.

2. The switch from the DSM-IV to DSM-V made it harder to get an autism diagnosis, not easier.

3. If liberalization of diagnostic criteria accounted for the increase in autism rates, we’d expect the fastest growing group to be the middle aged or seniors. In reality, it’s children whose ASD rate is rising fastest.

4. There is emerging research to suggest that non-genetic biomarkers may be found in, e.g., the hair and the gastrointestinal system.

5. If it were all genes, you’d expect identical twins to be either both NT or both autistic. That’s not what we see. One study of autistic monozygotic twins found a concordance rate of ~40%.

6. There are animal models of autism. To conduct those experiments, they need a way to get mice that show stereotypic behavior and restricted social abilities. Take a look at how they make them. (Hint: it’s not just “get the ones with the autism genes.”)

7. You can have a misleading correlation between genes and outcome. If you have two X chromosomes, it reduces your odds of being the president. That’s not because there’s a presidency gene; it’s because of sexism.

DP. You’re kind of contradicting yourself with 1 and 5. Epigenetic changes could affect monozygotic twins differently. With regard to 6, animal models of autism have serious limitations. We can only really model specific symptom domains and cannot recapitulate the whole disorder in an animal. We also can’t ask the mice whether their lack of social interaction is due to lack of interest or lack of understanding how to interact. It’s a huge leap to go from showing that a particular environmental factor increases repetitive behavior and decreases social and interaction to “this environmental factor causes autism”. Never mind that a lot of researchers doing the mouse model studies don’t do social behavior assays properly and overinterpret their results.

Maybe you’re not understanding, but the bolded does not refute my point; in fact, it is my point. Two monozygotic twins could share a gene that puts them at risk of a particular health issue when exposed to an environmental trigger. If one twin is exposed to that trigger and the other is not (or if the degrees of exposure differ), it is reasonable to see the health issue emerge in one twin but not the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on guys. I think we can all look back at our childhood and realize that we knew several people who would probably be diagnosed with Autism, based on today’s standards. That’s one reason for an increase in diagnosis. My dad had two very specific interests his entire life and had incredible knowledge of those things. His sister was very rigid with her routines and brands of products she used. I am not diagnosing based on just that, but it is an example of something that would be considered a sign by today’s standards.

An interesting theory I heard as another cause for the increase - the growing STEM field and more women entering STEM careers. More people with mild Autism are meeting through work and college and are getting married. Their kids are more likely to have it and possibly more severe. I don’t have a lick of evidence for that. Just something I heard and thought was interesting. I am not saying that’s a bad thing at all.

Also, if you look at the long list of Autistic people who contributed greatly to this world - I don’t know that it is something that needs to be cured…Einstein, Isaac Newton, Michelangelo, etc. Like what we have done with “gifted” people, we need to focus on giving them what they need to thrive. Obviously, this is different for Level 3 Autism. They need more care and support, and we need to continue learning how to lessen their symptoms. But I don’t think “taking away Autism” is what we need.

No serious person thinks this accounts for the increase. Moreover, media presentations of benign manifestations of the condition obscure that the condition is profoundly disabling for a huge share of the kids who have it. A substantial minority of those kids who have it cannot speak. To act like it is just pathologizing the quirky is simply wrong on the facts and lacks compassion to those who have been profoundly disabled by a condition that many elites are curiously hostile to studying with any scientific rigor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s correct. You are simply assuming the Swedish study is higher quality than the others.

Physician here-I’m going to go with the Swedish study over nepo-brainworm’s fever dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Where’s Tylenol with their “stop saying our name just because you can’t pronounce acetaminophen “ letter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"Hey, are our vaccinated children passing Hepatitis B around like the unvaccinated children around the world? No? Well, we should stop vaccinating them. Obviously they don't need it."

Absolute ninny logic.

The schedule calls for vaccinating the newborn against Hep B on the day of birth. Now that's ninny logic.

[Anonymous]

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 read the points made above in rebuttal to this and then stop saying stupid things, misogynist.

It’s not misogynist but it’s not true that it’s just the mother. . Having an older father increases the risk of Autism. How do people get so pissy when science shows that advanced maternal age puts the baby at a higher risk of certain genetic mutations?

“ Advanced parental age is one of the most consistently identified perinatal risk factors for autism spectrum disorder (ASD)”

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Hey, are our vaccinated children passing Hepatitis B around like the unvaccinated children around the world? No? Well, we should stop vaccinating them. Obviously they don't need it."

Absolute ninny logic.

The schedule calls for vaccinating the newborn against Hep B on the day of birth. Now that's ninny logic.

Why is it “ninny logic” when the mother can pass Hepatitis B to her newborn during the birth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That’s correct. You are simply assuming the Swedish study is higher quality than the others.

Physician here-I’m going to go with the Swedish study over nepo-brainworm’s fever dream.

How often do you read studies? In my experience, doctors don’t often read studies and aren’t especially good at making sense of them. If they were, this country wouldn’t need an army of (attractive!) pharma reps going around the country to explain drugs to doctors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on guys. I think we can all look back at our childhood and realize that we knew several people who would probably be diagnosed with Autism, based on today’s standards. That’s one reason for an increase in diagnosis. My dad had two very specific interests his entire life and had incredible knowledge of those things. His sister was very rigid with her routines and brands of products she used. I am not diagnosing based on just that, but it is an example of something that would be considered a sign by today’s standards.

An interesting theory I heard as another cause for the increase - the growing STEM field and more women entering STEM careers. More people with mild Autism are meeting through work and college and are getting married. Their kids are more likely to have it and possibly more severe. I don’t have a lick of evidence for that. Just something I heard and thought was interesting. I am not saying that’s a bad thing at all.

Also, if you look at the long list of Autistic people who contributed greatly to this world - I don’t know that it is something that needs to be cured…Einstein, Isaac Newton, Michelangelo, etc. Like what we have done with “gifted” people, we need to focus on giving them what they need to thrive. Obviously, this is different for Level 3 Autism. They need more care and support, and we need to continue learning how to lessen their symptoms. But I don’t think “taking away Autism” is what we need.

No serious person thinks this accounts for the increase. Moreover, media presentations of benign manifestations of the condition obscure that the condition is profoundly disabling for a huge share of the kids who have it. A substantial minority of those kids who have it cannot speak. To act like it is just pathologizing the quirky is simply wrong on the facts and lacks compassion to those who have been profoundly disabled by a condition that many elites are curiously hostile to studying with any scientific rigor.

DP. Many people think this is contributing factor.

“One indication that the method is imperfect is the fact that autism rates vary dramatically between states. The prevalence in Colorado, for instance, is 1 in 93 children, whereas in New Jersey it is 1 in 41. It is unlikely that the rates naturally vary that much between states, Fombonne says. Instead, the difference probably reflects varying levels of autism awareness and of services offered in those states.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-real-reasons-autism-rates-are-up-in-the-u-s/#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20the%20trend%20has,services%20offered%20in%20those%20states.

[Anonymous]

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.

Was Tylenol invented between 1980 and 2024? Did anything about how its use in pregnancy is recommended change in that interval? Provide citations.

Tylenol is not at issue.

Lying snake oil salesmen like Oz and RFK Jr are.

Understand that the Trump administration voiced it so you have to take the exact opoosite side. Whatever.



Maternal Acetaminophen Use and Offspring's Neurodevelopmental Outcome: A Nationwide Birth Cohort Study

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40898607/


Acetaminophen Use During Pregnancy and Children’s Risk of Autism, ADHD, and Intellectual Disability

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2817406


Association of Cord Plasma Biomarkers of In Utero Acetaminophen Exposure With Risk of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder in Childhood

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2753512


Evaluation of the evidence on acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders using the Navigation Guide methodology

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01208-0

[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: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.

That’s correct. You are simply assuming the Swedish study is higher quality than the others.

Physician here-I’m going to go with the Swedish study over nepo-brainworm’s fever dream.

How often do you read studies? In my experience, doctors don’t often read studies and aren’t especially good at making sense of them. If they were, this country wouldn’t need an army of (attractive!) pharma reps going around the country to explain drugs to doctors.

lol real college sophomore energy there, my dude.