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

[Anonymous]

RFK Jr. Is the pinancle of American stupidity. It is remarkable how low the IQ has dropped in the US. RFK claims everything is a conspiracy and everything is corrupt so it can give him blanket excuse to push absolutely whacko junk science. Every single time leather face opens his mouth and I hear it I get dumber. It is honestly insane how many Americans believe the diarrhea that comes out of his mouth, and how many Americans believe in trash like homeopathic "medicine". USA is doomed because the stupid are clearly outbreeding people who've gotten an education and who have a shred of IQ.

[Anonymous]

Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?

Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?

Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?

So then people who are diagnosed under new guidelines who would not have been diagnosed as autistic 40 years ago. "On the spectrum" was not common terminology years ago as the definition was more rigid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?

Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?

So then people who are diagnosed under new guidelines who would not have been diagnosed as autistic 40 years ago. "On the spectrum" was not common terminology years ago as the definition was more rigid.

\

Yes. This was news to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?

Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?

Disabled. Because people experiencing life differently should not be included in the autism diagnosis. It takes services away from the children who will never have a conversation with anyone, will never live alone, will never get married, have children, who will be stunted at the age of a child. That’s what autism is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?

Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?

Disabled. Because people experiencing life differently should not be included in the autism diagnosis. It takes services away from the children who will never have a conversation with anyone, will never live alone, will never get married, have children, who will be stunted at the age of a child. That’s what autism is.

Why do you get to decide the definition of a medical term?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?

Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?

So then people who are diagnosed under new guidelines who would not have been diagnosed as autistic 40 years ago. "On the spectrum" was not common terminology years ago as the definition was more rigid.

A recent analysis of medical records of 5,000 kids diagnosed as autistic argued for grouping according to delays/no delays; I think there were 4 groups in total. One group described by the study authors would be the kids who would've been diagnosed autistic under the 1980 criteria. Comparison of that group, as a percentage of population affected, with those diagnosed under early criteria could help determine if the rate is actually increasing for similarly situated children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want to have a positive impact on autism, then the CDC needs to support of label use of Leucovorin.

1. No physician needs permission to use any drug "off label." It happens all the time.

2. Oh, right, that's you guys' new Ivermectin, isn't it? Based on the case study of one three year old who supposedly began talking for the first time a few days after taking it? Please study sample size.

Reading comprehension. Did not say permit, off label use needs to be promoted so that more physicians will prescribe.

Sorry, that you have no desire to explore alternatives that may help with no real chance of harm.

If it works and the benefits outweigh the risks, physicians will prescribe it.

No real chance of harm? I don't think you know what you are talking about. Leucovorin has interactions with many medications (pincluding anti-seizure medications and a very common antibiotic, among others), can increase the risk of seizures in children, can worsen certain types of anemia, and is recommended to have screening lab work before even starting it.

This blind adoption of anything that gives you good vibes feelings is doing nobody any service.

I'll second that physicians will prescribe off label. I've been taking a prescription that's off label for my autoimmune disease for over 20 years, across 3 different specialists (as I've moved a few times)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?

Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?

So then people who are diagnosed under new guidelines who would not have been diagnosed as autistic 40 years ago. "On the spectrum" was not common terminology years ago as the definition was more rigid.

40 years ago people like Bill Gates, with Aspergers, would not have been diagnosed.

[Anonymous]

How about we just evaluate the science presented?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want to have a positive impact on autism, then the CDC needs to support of label use of Leucovorin.

1. No physician needs permission to use any drug "off label." It happens all the time.

2. Oh, right, that's you guys' new Ivermectin, isn't it? Based on the case study of one three year old who supposedly began talking for the first time a few days after taking it? Please study sample size.

Reading comprehension. Did not say permit, off label use needs to be promoted so that more physicians will prescribe.

Sorry, that you have no desire to explore alternatives that may help with no real chance of harm.

If it works and the benefits outweigh the risks, physicians will prescribe it.

No real chance of harm? I don't think you know what you are talking about. Leucovorin has interactions with many medications (pincluding anti-seizure medications and a very common antibiotic, among others), can increase the risk of seizures in children, can worsen certain types of anemia, and is recommended to have screening lab work before even starting it.

This blind adoption of anything that gives you good vibes feelings is doing nobody any service.

I'll second that physicians will prescribe off label. I've been taking a prescription that's off label for my autoimmune disease for over 20 years, across 3 different specialists (as I've moved a few times)

I will argue there are so many medicines doctors barely know what they’re prescribing and contraindications.

[Anonymous]

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.

More firstborns have autism.

[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.

And this is entirely and exclusively the fault of Tylenol?

+1 If anything acetaminophen use has lessened due to ibuprofen.

Ibuprofen is actually not safe during pregnancy. My first thought is that this report might increase ibuprofen use and endanger babies that way.

[Anonymous]

[list]

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.

Two generations of Western women delaying having children into their mid 30s, then wonder why autism rates skyrocketed.

I had a child in my 30’s who has Level 1 ASD. But there are several relatives in both DH’s extended family and my extended family who would surely have received a similar diagnosis if they were growing up now, and the vast majority of them were born to parents who were in their 20’s. It’s genetic folks.