The "experts" have been studying this for decades and claim to have no clue what causes autism, when they are not trying to pretend it really hasn't increased.
They don't know what causes it ... but they do know it's not vaccines!
Gives me great confidence in them,
Yes. I prefer to have confidence in someone who tells me that they will have the answer in a few months 🙄
We have no clue, after decades of study, what causes autism we are told. But we do know it's not vaccines. You believe that?
, which scientists do we believe and which idiots are the correct idiots?
Personally, I'm inclined to trust the ones who aren't being promoted by a completely unqualified, perverted crank who routinely makes absurd, pseudoscientific claims and has a voice/appearance that resembles a lobster with emphysema.
lotta trolls here, but obviously it's multifactorial
I'm sure tylenol, in rare circumstances, may lead to issues, but the main culprit is probably vaccines
look at the current childhood schedule compared to just a few decades prior, and look at the rates of all sorts of neurobehavioral conditions compared to back then - it's ridiculous.
there's no reason little ones need that many injections, especially for things that are basically nonexistent or pose almost no threat
adhd/autism/diabetes/etc. all likely linked to excessive injections. the adjuvants are a disaster and we still don't have any true placebo-controlled trials - why?
the fact that they're hitting 6-month olds with the covid jab is an abomination in and of itself, but when you factor in all the other stuff...
I mean, you've got HepB, DTaP, Tdap, Hib, IPV, PCV13, Rotavirus, MMR, Varicella, HepA, HPV, Meningococcal ACWY, Meningococcal B, on and on... basically 13 different vaccines recommended between birth and 18, anywhere from 34 to 46 total doses.
it's just idiotic
Here is evidence that neo-nates, who’ve not yet received vaccines, have altered neural circuitry that is measurable if they have a family history of autism. This is a highly reproducible phenomenon.
Meanwhile, there is no legitimate study showing vaccines cause autism. So you have no data to support your idea but you’re more willing to believe it than you are to believe thousands of independent experiments which completely contradict it?
Sweden doesn't just have the world's best Pole Vaulter it also has the best Scientific proof that Tylenol doesn't cause Autism.
tRump is going to bring out his clowns 🤡🤡 today to tell you different.
Actually the scientific method would lead us to conclude that we don't have evidence that tylenol causes autism, at least not any that stands up to rigorous scrutiny. That's a subtle but crucial difference, and some people's failure to respect that difference leads to assailable messaging.
There is no causation between tylenol use and autism. Within-family studies show no difference. This is just hilarious - all that hype for this? At least lie about something believable.
Trump: I can say that there are certain groups of people that don't take vaccines and don't take any pills that have no autism. Is that a correct statement, by the way?
Tylenol doesn’t do anything to cause autism - almost certainly.
If it does, the effect is very small and cannot possibly explain the 100x increase that RFK alleges (the increase is fake, it’s all diagnostic changes).
Within family comparisons do not show any evidence of Tylenol exposure causing autism. That’s about as close to gold standard evidence as you’re gonna get.
The HHS may be announcing that Tylenol use during pregnancy causes autism tomorrow.
The only problem with doing that is that we have strong causal evidence that Tylenol does not cause autism.
If the Democrats would quit running ignorant ass leftist socialist we wouldn’t end up with politicians wasting our time talking about Tylenol and Autism.
When children are exposed to acetaminophen—also known by the brand name Tylenol or as paracetamol—during pregnancy, they may be more likely to develop neurodevelopmental disorders including autism and ADHD, according to a new...
It seems like many posters here are torn between fidelity to a scientific model that doesn't correspond to the scientific method and their hatred of our current President. This isn't a political issue. It's a matter of public health. And one of personal choice. If you think it's safe and you are a pregnant woman, you're still free to take it, right?
From the study Acetaminophen use during pregnancy was not associated with children’s risk of autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability in sibling control analyses. This suggests that associations observed in other models may have been attributable to confounding.
I don't know about Tylenol and Autism but I had a wicked case of Covid and that bleach I drank cleared it right up. Of course I cant speak anymore but no Covid. I am a believer.
“After trump got his MD from Cornell, he joined the NIH where he was at the forefront of efforts to contend with diseases like HIV/AIDS, SARS, the Swine flu, MERS, Ebola, & COVID-19. In medical journals, he’s the 13th most-cited scientist in the world…oh wait, that was Dr. Fauci.”
From the study Acetaminophen use during pregnancy was not associated with children’s risk of autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability in sibling control analyses. This suggests that associations observed in other models may have been attributable to confounding.
Thank you for linking the study. You are citing the conclusion which states exactly what you wrote, but it does also say earlier:
The Swedish Chef wrote:
In this population-based study, models without sibling controls identified marginally increased risks of autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) associated with acetaminophen use during pregnancy. However, analyses of matched full sibling pairs found no evidence of increased risk of autism (hazard ratio, 0.98), ADHD (hazard ratio, 0.98), or intellectual disability (hazard ratio, 1.01) associated with acetaminophen use.
The issue here doesn't seem to be sample size as much as methodology. Is there a statistician or epidemiologist in the house? Wikipedia's entry on "confounding" has me con-fuse-d:
In causal inference, a confounder is a variable that influences both the dependent variable and independent variable, causing a spurious association. Confounding is a causal concept, and as such, cannot be described in terms...
Does this boil down to "correlation does not equal causation?" And, isn't it generally accepted that it is logically impossible to prove a negative, while we are it?
I am not understanding why siblings pairs draw the hypothesis into question and their relationship to non-sibling paired studies. I'm also skeptical. Science is political nowadays. Can someone explain what they study says in plain English?
Yes. I prefer to have confidence in someone who tells me that they will have the answer in a few months 🙄
We have no clue, after decades of study, what causes autism we are told. But we do know it's not vaccines. You believe that?
There's a good article at the following link explaining why it is believed that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism and why autism is believed to have a significant genetic component.
I post this with the understanding that you are not interested in good faith discussion of this topic or anything else, but for the benefit of anyone else who might actually be interested in the state of understanding of autism.
