Eh, it’s not totally baseless. Hell, there’s even a non-zero chance it’s true. It’s way too early to claim it as true though, since studies on the topic are few, have mixed conclusions and correlation is not causation. I refuse to give it any more credence than “not totally baseless” though.
There has been a lot of research into the subject but there’s also been unreliable data that is being used to intentionally misrepresent what has been found (hence the correlative vs causal relationships).
So the current well agreed on science is:
All current fever reducing medications (and most other medications) are correlated with detectably increasing the chances of a child being born with autism, including Tylenol
Having a fever while pregnant is correlated with increasing the chances of a child being born with autism well beyond the level that Tylenol would pose
So, strategically using Tylenol would be the best way to mitigate all risks. Which is also what was the general recommendation was prior to this DoH announcement.
Adjustment on bullet one. We shouldn’t say they “raise” the chance, they are correlated with the increase. There has been no causal path suggested that I’m aware of. It’s a hard distinction if your not used to the concept, but it’s important.
It’s totally baseless… literally people have been described as autistic (not using that word) for hundreds of years… Tylenol hasn’t been around even for 100 years.
Doesn’t need to be a sole cause to be a cause. See cancer, where smoking causes lung cancer, but not all lung cancer is caused by smoking. But again, needs more study.
Same with the flouride thing, they are leveraging very flimsy correlations to make themselves seem like they’re doing some broad, sweeping action that can help the public rather than reporting “boring” news that they’re going to do more 10-year studies and actual science.
Meanwhile, if you can make people argue and debate about if their “evidence” is credible or not, you create a lot of contention and drama and intrigue around a narrative. Especially if you can draw in the emotionally-driven conspiracy nuts who don’t believe in science and are convinced that the flouride in their water or the tylenol their mom took is somehow responsible for them being too ignorant to get a job.
it then becomes about the two camps of people arguing with each other instead of if the administration is actually doing anything at all. It’s a pretty smart way to rob a dumb population.
Binary thinking will kill us all. (Glares at much of Lemmy, who are just as bad about some issues.)
Eh, it’s not totally baseless. Hell, there’s even a non-zero chance it’s true. It’s way too early to claim it as true though, since studies on the topic are few, have mixed conclusions and correlation is not causation. I refuse to give it any more credence than “not totally baseless” though.
Here’s everything I know about this whole thing:
There has been a lot of research into the subject but there’s also been unreliable data that is being used to intentionally misrepresent what has been found (hence the correlative vs causal relationships).
So the current well agreed on science is:
Adjustment on bullet one. We shouldn’t say they “raise” the chance, they are correlated with the increase. There has been no causal path suggested that I’m aware of. It’s a hard distinction if your not used to the concept, but it’s important.
Good point. I’ll update my comment.
Anti febriles in general are a bad idea. They poison the immune response for the sake of comfort. I never gave them to my kids.
It’s totally baseless… literally people have been described as autistic (not using that word) for hundreds of years… Tylenol hasn’t been around even for 100 years.
There are many countries with more progressive medicine that avoid this drug and similar ones because of acute liver toxicity.
Doesn’t need to be a sole cause to be a cause. See cancer, where smoking causes lung cancer, but not all lung cancer is caused by smoking. But again, needs more study.
Same with the flouride thing, they are leveraging very flimsy correlations to make themselves seem like they’re doing some broad, sweeping action that can help the public rather than reporting “boring” news that they’re going to do more 10-year studies and actual science.
Meanwhile, if you can make people argue and debate about if their “evidence” is credible or not, you create a lot of contention and drama and intrigue around a narrative. Especially if you can draw in the emotionally-driven conspiracy nuts who don’t believe in science and are convinced that the flouride in their water or the tylenol their mom took is somehow responsible for them being too ignorant to get a job.
it then becomes about the two camps of people arguing with each other instead of if the administration is actually doing anything at all. It’s a pretty smart way to rob a dumb population.
Binary thinking will kill us all. (Glares at much of Lemmy, who are just as bad about some issues.)