General Trump administration to launch war on Tylenol in unfounded link to autism

Herdfan said:
Yes. You would have to find women who didn’t take Tylenol on their own vs selecting some to not take it. So yes, there are challenges.

As for what Trump did or didn’t do, I can’t go there at risk of being further banned.
Click to expand...
well this is fun. looks like trump did not find it that important to do the research right?

www.propublica.org

RFK Jr. Vowed to Find the Environmental Causes of Autism. Then He Shut Down Research Trying to Do Just That.

While touting a $50 million initiative to identify the causes of autism, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is helping lead an administration that is rolling back protections against pollution and toxic chemicals, including some linked to the condition.
www.propublica.org www.propublica.org
 
This is news to me but it tracks. Apparently Jrs crackpot supporters are pissed because they wanted his junk science to connect autism to vaccines, not Tylenol. 🤣

Bro, they did their own research. Just parrot it back and collect the paycheck. They don’t want real or alternative answers.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
This is news to me but it tracks. Apparently Jrs crackpot supporters are pissed because they wanted his junk science to connect autism to vaccines, not Tylenol. 🤣

Bro, they did their own research. Just parrot it back and collect the paycheck. They don’t want real or alternative answers.
Click to expand...
Did you hear Trump's news conference on it? Anyone who accused Biden of having mental decline issues while defending this is total partisan hack. He sounded like he was on something and didn't utter a single coherent sentence throughout the entire thing. I guess I haven't been listening much lately but wow.
 
Herdfan said:
I agree on the difference between association, correlation and causation.

But it does seem there is enough for a major study with proper controls to see if there actually is causation or not.
Click to expand...
Okay, I agree, let's have a major study with proper controls. That doesn't mean we should have the Secretary of HHS and the President get in front of the cameras and make statements that Tylenol usage during pregnancy causes Autism. Also, statements made in the past by the Secretary of HHS that people with Autism are never going to date, never hold a job, never be a productive member of society.
 
I can't say I'm not surprised, figured this guy was on his knees for trump, but this sort of internal conflict you gotta love ...

www.independent.co.uk

Dr. Oz publicly breaks from Trump on Tylenol

‘Tylenol ... probably your best option’, declares Oz after Trump’s wild press conference
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk


The former TV doc told TMZ’s hosts what many independent medical experts urged in the wake of the administration’s pronouncement on Monday: that pregnant women fighting illnesses that cause fevers may still be prescribed the drug by their doctors, and should follow those recommendations from their primary-care providers.

“If you have a high fever….the doctor’s almost certainly going to prescribe you something,” said Oz, who’d stood beside Trump as the president urged mothers not to take the drug a day earlier. “Tylenol might be one of the things they give [you].

“Take it when it’s appropriate,” Oz then said, before adding that Tylenol was “probably your best option” for fighting lower-grade fevers that don’t require hospitalization.
Click to expand...
 
DT said:
I can't say I'm not surprised, figured this guy was on his knees for trump, but this sort of internal conflict you gotta love ...

www.independent.co.uk

Dr. Oz publicly breaks from Trump on Tylenol

‘Tylenol ... probably your best option’, declares Oz after Trump’s wild press conference
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
More ideology getting in the way of actual medical science. They took a report that the medical community was already fully aware of and knew the minimal risks and spun it, nobody in the medical community, not even their own professionals, would sign off on it.

To reiterate, take your medical advice from actual medical professionals, not politicians.
 
DT said:
I can't say I'm not surprised, figured this guy was on his knees for trump, but this sort of internal conflict you gotta love ...

www.independent.co.uk

Dr. Oz publicly breaks from Trump on Tylenol

‘Tylenol ... probably your best option’, declares Oz after Trump’s wild press conference
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
Well he is going to be making serious money, so why not? Plus, his medical opinion is worth as much as RFKs.
 
Of course. As soon as I heard this circulating, I knew it was bunk, I've had a number of discussion about Acetaminophen with my doc buddy (general discussions regarding pain management).

And having seen the poor methodology used by the single study that made some spurious connection with autism and women taking it during pregnancy, I knew there was zero scientific foundation.

My point, was the: fire, walk back, confuse, even the people who are supposed to be on the same page of bogus medicine can't sync up.

Good.

Vance saying, follow your doctor's recommendations:


Thune too:


I'm not even convinced that trump was on script, his rant was insane, it's getting to the point where he's so incoherent, they just let him blather, and then contradict him. Basically Vance is sitting around waiting for him to keel over anyway.
 
Cmaier said:
Now come on. That’s not true. We learn more, and sometimes we learn that we were mistaken about things. But lot’s of stuff is settled science, testable, provable and proven.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We learned that what we thought we knew was wrong. I mean we used to put Mercurochrome on cuts until they decided Mercury wasn't the safest of things to be putting in our bodies. But it was considered "safe" by science up to that point. How many other drugs that we "knew" were safe until we learned they weren't.

Science changes all the time as we learn new things. So it will never be 100% settled because we will never know everything.

Cmaier said:
If there was no such thing as settled science we couldn’t make microprocessors that function, baseballs would start flying off the bat into outer space, and Ohm’s Law would be Ohm’s Suggestion.
Click to expand...

Probably not the best example. Ohm's Law fails in any number of situations. Like in microprocessors.


Cmaier said:
People who point out that scientists change their minds always seem to do so in order to undermine scientific principles they don’t like.
Click to expand...

And this works both ways. People that do like it will defend it to the end regardless of new data. This isn't a left or right thing.
 
Herdfan said:
People that do like it will defend it to the end regardless of new data.
Click to expand...
No, that is contrary to the scientific method.
New data have to be evaluated, but they have to be of better quality than the existing data to invalidate or replace the current scientific consensus. That is a taller order the more good pre-existing data/information are available.
And note an additional issue to consider: data are just the beginning - their analysis and the quality of the methodology are just as important. With the wrong approach, you can easily mess up the best data.

A good maxim: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

"Science changes all the time as we learn new things. So it will never be 100% settled because we will never know everything."

I don't disagree, but that does not change the fact that at some point, there is enough good information that it makes sense to act on it or accept it as true until better information supersedes it.
It comes down to a cost / benefit analysis using the best currently available information.

What the idiots in this administration are doing is something else entirely.
 
Last edited:
I read the study in BMC Environmental Health, which was a meta-analysis of 46 studies that looked at the possible association between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and ADHD and autism spectrum disorder. Some studies showed an association, some showed none, and a few demonstrated a protective effect. As others here have noted, the association doesn't prove that acetaminophen causes these conditions. The most I would conclude is that further work is warranted, though the ability of scientists to do this in the U.S. will be limited by the administration's dismantling of academic medical research.

Trump's announcement – he even struggled to pronounce acetaminophen – was incredibly dangerous. It is the preferred treatment for pain and fever during pregnancy; NSAIDS are only recommended between 20 and 30 weeks because of adverse outcomes. In fact, the authors of the above study concluded "(we) recommend judicious acetaminophen use—lowest effective dose, shortest duration—under medical guidance, tailored to individual risk–benefit assessments, rather than a broad limitation." And even that goes further than what many reputable professional groups with unassailable credentials are advocating. Not treating pain and especially fever is more than just inconvenient, as the latter may also cause birth defects.

The question people need to ask themselves is whether to take advice from a president who has demonstrated time and again his inability to comprehend complex subjects, especially regarding medicine, or his HHS secretary, whose falsehoods about medical care are too numerous to mention.

I agree with Herdfan that this shouldn't be a left or right issue – it's reasoned scientific understanding and expertise vs. ignorance.
 
Roller said:
I agree with Herdfan that this shouldn't be a left or right issue – it's reasoned scientific understanding and expertise vs. ignorance.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, we live in a time where ignorance has become fashionable. People with opinions like Herdfan are given the same amount of weight as a medical professional who spent decades studying medicine. It's a sad fucking state of the nation if you ask me.
 
When you are parsing the scientifically unsound BS coming from RFK, keep in mind he has NO medical training and no scientific background or understanding - which in more normal times, would disqualify him from the position he is sadly in.
He is a lawyer and litigator foremost, so his arguments have nothing to do with any understanding of the subject matter, but are only geared towards selective presentation of information, sowing reasonable doubt, discrediting opposing views, and only having to convince one person in the jury box.
 
Last edited:
cbum said:
He is a lawyer and litigator foremost, so his arguments have nothing to do with any understanding of the subject matter, but are only geared towards selective presentation of information, sowing reasonable doubt, discrediting opposing views, and only having to convince one person in the jury box.
Click to expand...

Hey now!
 
Back
Top