Posted by randycupertino 9/5/2025
And one of the reasons you don't let morons take over your party is that if they ever are right, they won't be believed. If these are actual risks with Tylenol then oops, that take is being lumped in with the antivax hysteria.
Oops for sure. Like if someone says school closures won't have an effect on infection rates, not only will you not be believed, you'll be "anti-science", whatever that means.
1: https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/the-genetic-fallacy/#:~:te...
And are you really claiming you can't determine that factor by looking?
It puts aside all the big is beautiful and similar takes and points to the fact that many American kids, especially those in certain parts of the country are now afflicted with metabolic syndrome (which is closely associated with mitochondrial disfunction). It is well-known that overloading mitochondria with sugar is quite bad for them and a key contributor to type 2 diabetes.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10036395/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428560/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4408906/
You can in fact determine a huge percentage of americans including children are incredibly unhealthy just by looking. Increased focus on exercise and negative incentives on soft drinks and sugary beverages does seem like a major step in the right direction.
If medical facts can reliably be inferred from RFK's statements, by whatever algorithm (i.e. "believe the opposite of whatever he says"), then it follows that he understands what he is talking about. Which would contradict all the evidence I've seen.
This is the guy who caught a worm in his brain from eating roadkill?
From a recent meta analysis, a total of 6 studies meeting the inclusion criteria addressed the association between acetaminophen exposure in utero and ASD. The odds ratio for the aggregated data was 1.19 which puts the 0.2-0.4% relative risk increase depending on what baseline incidence you assume (along the lines of your estimate.)
If you take the baseline incidence to be 1% then I calculate the NNH - number needed to harm, at 533, meaning you have to expose 533 pregnant women to acetaminophen to observe one additional case of ASD.
Given that the current public health administration of this era in the U.S. operates by seat-of-the-pants guidance rather than statistical evidence, the statistics are irrelevant to them. My advice would be that health care providers caring for pregnant women have an informed discussion about the risk and call it a day.
I've seen this kind of thing mentioned before. As a non USA person, I don't know what the deal is with RFK and autism. Wasn't it vaccines last month?
Until you have a controlled study on pregnant women who use and don't use the drug, you won't really know for sure.
https://news.ki.se/no-link-between-paracetamol-use-during-pr... concludes that there is no link between acetaminophen and autism based on existing research. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-... concludes the opposite. I'm not qualified to determine which of these studies is more reliable, but the evidence is far from clear if multiple literature studies state the opposite conclusion.
News articles seem to state that the conclusions are clear as day but the same websites were equally sure of the opposite last year.
I'll wait or reliable sources of medical information, which the US government no longer is, to comment on these papers rather than assume whatever paper made the HN frontpage last is the final result of the scientific debate.
Obviously what goes into your body should be suspected first, whether it's food, pollutants, or medical interventions.
We don't know the cause of autism. We do know that autism has a heritable component, with significant rates of both siblings having it (which could be explained by environmental factors) and both parent and child having it (which cannot be explained by environmental factors). Surely it would make a lot more sense to suspect a genetic component first?
I wouldn’t look for a prospective randomized controlled trial of this anytime soon. Hard to imagine an IRB approving such a study.
Observational studies do suggest a small but statistically significant association between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and ASD, but the relative risk increase is small, because both the effect size and baseline risk are small.
News outlets: no credible scientific evidence.
Uh oh spaghettios. The more the leftwing "resists" the more their "science" self-image will disconnect with reality. Like most things with this administration, I think that's the real goal.
[1] 14 August 2025 in BMC Environmental Health. 27 of 46 studies reported a positive association between prenatal acetaminophen and neurodevelopmental disorders like autism and ADHD.
Tylenol was introduced in 1955. Autism was first scientifically documented in 1926. If Tylenol causes autism, how did those parents in the 1920s get their hands on it?
Also, wouldn't there been a clear link between Tylenol sales and the occurrence of autism? Where is the data showing that the adoption of Tylenol in the 1960s resulted in a rise in autism, and that the "rise" of autism in the 1990s is linked to an increase in Tylenol use?
The claim is that Tylenol is a factor that increases the risk of autism. It is not the cause of 100% of all cases.
That said, the first synthesis of Paracetamol in the USA was Johns Hopkins in 1877, so maybe the answer is they went to Baltimore.
You may not owe people who you feel are disgusting quacks better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.