You sure you want to follow the money when it comes to Big Pharma?
This has nothing to do with Big Pharma. Could you be any more low information
One the bright side, at least now they’ve moved on from “vaccines caused autism” to “IT WAS TYLENOL ALL ALONG! THE MOST VACCINATED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (Cuba) HAS NO AUTISM BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE TYLENOL!”
This has nothing to do with Big Pharma. Could you be any more low information
One the bright side, at least now they’ve moved on from “vaccines caused autism” to “IT WAS TYLENOL ALL ALONG! THE MOST VACCINATED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (Cuba) HAS NO AUTISM BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE TYLENOL!”
1. Cuba is not the most vaccinated nation in the world. In fact, they give their kids about 1/2 the doses that Americ does.
2. Cuba is far from autism free. Rate is @ 1 in 120. A pretty high rate (although far less than USA)
The Sweden study showed a 0.2% increase. "those not exposed vs those exposed to acetaminophen were 1.33% vs 1.53% for autism". With the raw data, "acetaminophen during pregnancy was associated with marginally increased risk of autism".
"prenatal acetaminophen exposure (PAcE)". "PAcE-induced multi-organ developmental toxicity was more considerable under high-dose, second-trimester, and multi-course exposure and in male fetuses."
I’ll add, I’m laughing that you disappeared for several days and came back to regurgitate the exact same old, weaker studies except this time you garbled it through an AI tool that did an even worse job than you had previously.
The newest, strongest studies refute this argument, as they have for the last week. You need new material or you need to explain why we should believe weaker, older studies with smaller samples sizes and less sophisticated designs.
I laugh because you have no life and I do. You're also mad because everything you say has been proven to be either a lie or utter garbage. First, as noted, what was returned via AI is from 2018 and newer so they're not "old". Second, the question presented to AI is very clear, specific and to the point - the exact opposite of everything you whine about without basis.
Third, you don't have the faintest clue WTF you're talking about as it regards this topic so, as usual, you fabricate an imaginary world to compensate. I'm actually reading the research, you're not. For one, I've already exposed some of the weaknesses to Ahlqvist et al which a TDS science denialist like you obviously must reject but regardless I'm happy to go into further detail. Not for you, because we all already know you wouldn't accept proof of the nose on your face let alone rational/logical discourse explaining Ahlqvist's massive failings - which you almost exclusively rely upon. But rather for those on the fence with regard to this science. We already know you're going to find a weak, pathetic excuse to reject what you ask for so your approval is irrelevant and not required.
You’re objectively not reading the research because you’re asking Grok to count on its fingers and declaring “science finished.”
You have no answer for the fact that the two best studies Gustavson and Ahlqvist showed a null effect. Your only rebuttal that isn’t just sputtering is to claim and older study with the same cohort as Gustavson but a smaller N and weaker diagnostic rigor somehow supersedes it.
Keep citing weak studies all you want. Screaming about them from the rooftops. Doesn’t make them better.
The Sweden study showed a 0.2% increase. "those not exposed vs those exposed to acetaminophen were 1.33% vs 1.53% for autism". With the raw data, "acetaminophen during pregnancy was associated with marginally increased risk of autism".
"prenatal acetaminophen exposure (PAcE)". "PAcE-induced multi-organ developmental toxicity was more considerable under high-dose, second-trimester, and multi-course exposure and in male fetuses."
The 2024 Ahlqvist interpretation from the authors is:
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.
Sibling controls matter. They’re why that study was so good. Looking at the raw data is effectively ignoring the strongest parts of the study.
All Harambe can come up with are tweets and substacks. SMH
Ahlqvist and Gustavson are the gold standard studies and they find a null result. Continue to gnash your teeth and yell at Grok, but please bring a substantive critique
One the bright side, at least now they’ve moved on from “vaccines caused autism” to “IT WAS TYLENOL ALL ALONG! THE MOST VACCINATED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (Cuba) HAS NO AUTISM BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE TYLENOL!”
1. Cuba is not the most vaccinated nation in the world. In fact, they give their kids about 1/2 the doses that Americ does.
2. Cuba is far from autism free. Rate is @ 1 in 120. A pretty high rate (although far less than USA)
One the bright side, at least now they’ve moved on from “vaccines caused autism” to “IT WAS TYLENOL ALL ALONG! THE MOST VACCINATED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD (Cuba) HAS NO AUTISM BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE TYLENOL!”
1. Cuba is not the most vaccinated nation in the world. In fact, they give their kids about 1/2 the doses that Americ does.
2. Cuba is far from autism free. Rate is @ 1 in 120. A pretty high rate (although far less than USA)
1. Cuba's childhood vaccination rate is >99% (communists don't give "religious exemptions", the less than 1% exemption rate is for allergies). They give BCG vaccine (against tuberculosis) at birth, but don't have a Chickenpox vaccine as far as I can tell. Otherwise, same vaccines that are administered here. MMR, oral polio, Hemophilus, DPT, Hepatitis B at birth, meningococcal...etc.
All Harambe can come up with are tweets and substacks. SMH
Ahlqvist and Gustavson are the gold standard studies and they find a null result. Continue to gnash your teeth and yell at Grok, but please bring a substantive critique
Tweets and substacks because you don’t have the capacity to understand the papers.
You’re in way over your head. But as long as you’re okay with sticking it to Trump” by spreading misinformation that is harming women and children it’s fine, right?
1. Cuba is not the most vaccinated nation in the world. In fact, they give their kids about 1/2 the doses that Americ does.
2. Cuba is far from autism free. Rate is @ 1 in 120. A pretty high rate (although far less than USA)
1. Cuba's childhood vaccination rate is >99% (communists don't give "religious exemptions", the less than 1% exemption rate is for allergies). They give BCG vaccine (against tuberculosis) at birth, but don't have a Chickenpox vaccine as far as I can tell. Otherwise, same vaccines that are administered here. MMR, oral polio, Hemophilus, DPT, Hepatitis B at birth, meningococcal...etc.
1. Cuba is not the most vaccinated nation in the world. In fact, they give their kids about 1/2 the doses that America does. 2. Cuba is far from autism free. Rate is @ 1 in 120. A pretty high rate (although far less than USA)
Pregnant Women, DON’T USE TYLENOL UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, DON’T GIVE TYLENOL TO YOUR YOUNG CHILD FOR VIRTUALLY ANY REASON, BREAK UP THE MMR SHOT INTO THREE TOTALLY SEPARATE SHOTS (NOT MIXED!), TAKE CHICKEN P SHOT SEPARATELY, TAKE HEPATITAS B SHOT AT 12 YEARS OLD, OR OLDER, AND, IMPORTANTLY, TAKE VACCINE IN 5 SEPARATE MEDICAL VISITS!
Pregnant Women, DON’T USE TYLENOL UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, DON’T GIVE TYLENOL TO YOUR YOUNG CHILD FOR VIRTUALLY ANY REASON, BREAK UP THE MMR SHOT INTO THREE TOTALLY SEPARATE SHOTS (NOT MIXED!), TAKE CHICKEN P SHOT SEPARATELY, TAKE HEPATITAS B SHOT AT 12 YEARS OLD, OR OLDER, AND, IMPORTANTLY, TAKE VACCINE IN 5 SEPARATE MEDICAL VISITS!
Advocating for additional vaccines in all caps. An interesting tactic. It’s quite nice that babies can get their vaccines condensed into 1 or 2 shots now. No more pincushion.
Ahlqvist and Gustavson are the gold standard studies and they find a null result. Continue to gnash your teeth and yell at Grok, but please bring a substantive critique
Tweets and substacks because you don’t have the capacity to understand the papers.
You’re in way over your head. But as long as you’re okay with sticking it to Trump” by spreading misinformation that is harming women and children it’s fine, right?
Still no substantive critique. Feel free to show me where I’m wrong.
Tweets and substacks because you don’t have the capacity to understand the papers.
You’re in way over your head. But as long as you’re okay with sticking it to Trump” by spreading misinformation that is harming women and children it’s fine, right?
Still no substantive critique. Feel free to show me where I’m wrong.
The critiques are all throughout this thread. Or can you not understand them because they’re not tweets or substacks.
Still no substantive critique. Feel free to show me where I’m wrong.
The critiques are all throughout this thread. Or can you not understand them because they’re not tweets or substacks.
Don’t blame me for your failure to understand.
Kindly point to one. I’ve not seen a single critique of Gustavson and all the critiques of Ahlqvist are basically “it’s not perfect.” But every prior study is even less perfect
It appears like you can’t even make an argument here. Just deflection. Telling.
This post was edited 33 seconds after it was posted.
The critiques are all throughout this thread. Or can you not understand them because they’re not tweets or substacks.
Don’t blame me for your failure to understand.
Kindly point to one. I’ve not seen a single critique of Gustavson and all the critiques of Ahlqvist are basically “it’s not perfect.” But every prior study is even less perfect
It appears like you can’t even make an argument here. Just deflection. Telling.
There’s 20+ pages of nearly every poster in this thread showing where you are wrong.
No one can help you if you can’t understand it, brother.
