Rage posting the poor studies when we have sibling matched controls that show no effect. It's just High School statistics.
Just because you want the correlation to be true doesn't mean it is.
Just because the poor evidence standards was laid out by a pseduonyomous Twitter poster and not a Harvard Prof/Industry shill doesn't mean the argument is wrong.
Hint: if you argue the evidence and don't just appeal to authority... you might get somewhere.
Rage posting the poor studies when we have sibling matched controls that show no effect. It's just High School statistics.
Just because you want the correlation to be true doesn't mean it is.
Just because the poor evidence standards was laid out by a pseduonyomous Twitter poster and not a Harvard Prof/Industry shill doesn't mean the argument is wrong.
Hint: if you argue the evidence and don't just appeal to authority... you might get somewhere.
It’s a well written article that’s quite comprehensive. For the other poster to dismiss it offhand without reading suggests they’re too caught up in the politics and dogma to argue the facts.
I could say the same for...whatever you think that is. Its neither published or cited anywhere other than by themselves. Convenient. 7 whole references? That is a joke. Ok, I read it, it is a joke. Its worse than everything it accuses the Consensus study of being.
What are your conflicts of interest "Obgyn"? Do you work for the political organization ACOG by chance? Are you practicing DEI medicine? Wait, let me guess, you made a Tik Tok downing some Tylenol to stick it to ole tRump, right? lol
I could say the same for...whatever you think that is. Its neither published or cited anywhere other than by themselves. Convenient. 7 whole references? That is a joke. Ok, I read it, it is a joke. Its worse than everything it accuses the Consensus study of being.
What are your conflicts of interest "Obgyn"? Do you work for the political organization ACOG by chance? Are you practicing DEI medicine? Wait, let me guess, you made a Tik Tok downing some Tylenol to stick it to ole tRump, right? lol
The statement highlights severe weaknesses in the review you posted. As well as the bad faith misrepresentation of “consensus.” Do you have any specific counters to the claims made?
You appear to be overly credulous of statements that support your opinion and exceedingly incredulous of those that don’t.
It’s a well written article that’s quite comprehensive. For the other poster to dismiss it offhand without reading suggests they’re too caught up in the politics and dogma to argue the facts.
Pregnant women are literally invoking Trump as they guzzle Tylenol but we are the ones caught up in politics and dogma. Your TDS has been confirmed.
It’s a well written article that’s quite comprehensive. For the other poster to dismiss it offhand without reading suggests they’re too caught up in the politics and dogma to argue the facts.
Pregnant women are literally invoking Trump as they guzzle Tylenol but we are the ones caught up in politics and dogma. Your TDS has been confirmed.
I saw the article you posted. There was no guzzling going on. Other posters rightfully called out your exaggeration.
Now are you going to engage with the criticisms of your evidence or not?
Rage posting the poor studies when we have sibling matched controls that show no effect. It's just High School statistics.
Just because you want the correlation to be true doesn't mean it is.
Just because the poor evidence standards was laid out by a pseduonyomous Twitter poster and not a Harvard Prof/Industry shill doesn't mean the argument is wrong.
Hint: if you argue the evidence and don't just appeal to authority... you might get somewhere.
Cherry picking 1 flawed sibling study showing no effect is no silver bullet.
Just because you deny decades of scientific confirmation of an association doesn't make it disappear.
Just because you lie about 1 person doesn't make the hundreds of other scientists and experts wrong.
The evidence was presented. You lie about it and deny it because that's what a deranged person does. You have an intellectual black hole in your head.
I saw the article you posted. There was no guzzling going on. Other posters rightfully called out your exaggeration.
Now are you going to engage with the criticisms of your evidence or not?
Take up your denial problem with Newsweek. They provided several examples. Are you actually saying they fabricated them? You seem to think if one isn't provided its reasonable to dismiss all of them. Now that tactic seems familiar! Liarambe, 2600 bro et al
That's the one of the woman guzzling the liquid form of it. Not loading for you? I don't do Tik Tok but maybe you do. If not, try the wayback machine. Search around a few of the conservative YouTube channels which captured it before she takes it down if she hasn't already. It seems some are doing that out of embarrassment. Oh FFS, why miss an opportunity to make a TDSer's brain hurt? Here, I even queued it up for you so you don't have to watch him lampooning your fellow Syndrome sufferers.
According to TDS et al, conflicts of interest are reason for dismissal of research. Well, here's the stated conflicts of interest for their "gold standard" Ahlqvist et al, which they think is a silver bullet:
Ahlqvist et al wrote:
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Johansson reported being a founder of Neobiomics AB, a startup company located at the Karolinska Campus that works with niche food supplement solutions for infants. Dr Gardner reported receiving grants from Swedish Research Council during the conduct of the study. Dr Lee reported receiving personal fees from Beasley Allen Law Firm, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, and AlphaSights and grants from NIH (1R01NS107607) during the conduct of the study and grants from NIH (1P50HD11142-01, 3 P50HD111142-02S1, 1 R01 NS131433-01), Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, US Department of Defense, and Pennsylvania Department of Health CURE SAP (# 410008574)7 outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Two law firms?? Yep, shill. Research attempting to establish other causes for ADHD and autism? Dismissed. Dept of Defense??? Why would a startup that makes niche food supplement for infants be a conflict? That's strange. Ooooh, I see. Several of their partners are "pharma" companies that make drugs for pain. Shill. Can't be trusted.
Just start clicking on all the authors and you'll find they ALL have a conflict of interest because virtually every single one of them have participated in a study blaming some other cause for autism, ADHD etc. Strange they don't disclose that because its an obvious conflict of interest. Pretty dirty.
Wow, this is sad. Your "better" study has a giant rap sheet of conflicts of interest. Nobody has to consider any of it because that's your standard. 🤷
