Tylenol Doesn't Cause Autism

JustMe22 wrote:

obturator wrote:

100,000 total participants looked at in the Harvard study vs over 2.4 million in the Swedish/U.S study that found no link.

Link:jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarti...

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:

Link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

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?

zeep wrote:

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

2600 bro wrote:

JustMe22 wrote:

[Redacted]

Basically if the correlation between acetominophen and autism goes away when you compare siblings but exists when you compare all kids - you can conclude there is something inherent to families that both causes changes in acetominophen use and as well changes in chance of autism diagnosis. Sibling pairs are used a way to remove a large portion of the millions of effects that being raised in different families brings.

Basically its saying something(s) else is causing women to take more tylenol and causing an increased likelihood of their kid to be diagnosed with autism.

Consider a dumb, fake example:

Poor women take more tylenol, poor women also are more likely to have a kid diagnosed with autism. You can see how being poor probably causes millions of things that could relate to autism but it also makes tylenol consumption correlate with autism. However if you only compare siblings then you are only comparing poor kids to poor kids and rich kids to rich kids, so you've removed most of the effect of being poor from the analysis.

This is over-simplified but it starts to get at the purpose.

JustMe22 wrote:

obturator wrote:

100,000 total participants looked at in the Harvard study vs over 2.4 million in the Swedish/U.S study that found no link.

Link:jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarti...

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:

Link:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

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?