The issue is the pregnancy is extremely stressful and painful. If we have good reason to believe something is safe the most ethical thing to do is to give women options to relieve the pain of pregnancy.
(Also, I’ll say massage and hot baths are expressly not recommended during pregnancy either)
It’s hard enough being pregnant. Women have to worry about so much. It’s harmful and unethical to inject more doubt into the system to score political points.
Fever, especially during the first half of pregnancy is highly correlated with brain and heart defects. Tylenol is the only allowed fever reducer during pregnancy because we have excellent data showing the risks of NSAIDs and Aspirin.
To get rid of Tylenol because of a spurious correlation, to score political points, will just cause more babies to born with birth defects.
RFK Jr is continuing is quest to kill and maim as many kids as possible.
Those dead kids in Samoa and Texas weren’t enough for him
Fever, especially during the first half of pregnancy is highly correlated with brain and heart defects. Tylenol is the only allowed fever reducer during pregnancy because we have excellent data showing the risks of NSAIDs and Aspirin.
To get rid of Tylenol because of a spurious correlation, to score political points, will just cause more babies to born with birth defects.
RFK Jr is continuing is quest to kill and maim as many kids as possible.
Stop talking out of your azz...Many top scientists and doctors disagree with you and believe there is a correlation between Tylenol and autism and think it should be used sparingly or not at all during pregnancy...
Joe Bidens mother must have gulped mounds of it while carrying Joe because he sure acted autistic.
dude, for someone pretending to be folksy your post is incredibly parsed in wording. (1) what they have actually said is "may" be a correlation. and (2) in science terms correlation is not causation. it just means 2 things showed up alongside each other.
to underline the basic dishonesty here, y'all do not advocate this sort of precautionary approach re smoking, drinking, oil, gas, fossil fuels, chemicals, etc. why? you like tech, big oil, tobacco, etc. you just decided to rip on big pharma for some reason.
personally i think it's you want to dismantle government health coverage, not directly, but instead by declaring x y z a b c treatments invalid under precautionary theories. you can't prove it's bad for you, but you're gonna declare it risky, then say government can't pay for it. so you don't touch the third rail of taking gramps' medicare, but you start limiting what it can pay for, are vaccines allowed or covered.
this is trump's basic MO. you find things government funds or controls. you use your gatekeeper power to extract something, money from consumers, taxes or tariffs, decisions you wouldn't otherwise get. government by shakedown. facts are beside the point unless the supreme court grows a spine.
All Im reading in these studies is that acetaminophen use MAY create an increased risk in ADHD or austism. That is a far cry from Acetaminophen CAUSES autism.
Whats the increase in risk? is it .001% chance? or is it 5%. There doesnt particualarly seem to be a number attached, which is the problem.
and it's worse than that, as many of the studies looked at were re ADHD, other NDD. and the basic flaw with looking at "ASD" is the "S" in there is "spectrum." that covers everything from nonresponsive and nonverbal to aspergers to the merely fidgety.
surely one sees how this poses a definitional and causation nightmare. should these kids even be clustered. are their issues caused by the same things.
Their review grades the Ahlquist Swedish study excellently then gives it a -2 score in “expert opinion” because they desperately need to underweight so it doesn’t disprove their pet theory.
The entire review is crafted to give the answer that, big surprise, Baccarelli makes money off of as an expert witness in sham lawsuits. Shameless.
No you weren't. You were just shown the valid reason the Ahlquist study is useless in this context so you switched to fallacious ad hominem attacks in a failed attempt to defend your politically/ideologically based assessment.
are you suggesting that conflicts of interest are somehow outside of "evidence based?"
Stop talking out of your azz...Many top scientists and doctors disagree with you and believe there is a correlation between Tylenol and autism and think it should be used sparingly or not at all during pregnancy...
Joe Bidens mother must have gulped mounds of it while carrying Joe because he sure acted autistic.
dude, for someone pretending to be folksy your post is incredibly parsed in wording. (1) what they have actually said is "may" be a correlation. and (2) in science terms correlation is not causation. it just means 2 things showed up alongside each other.
to underline the basic dishonesty here, y'all do not advocate this sort of precautionary approach re smoking, drinking, oil, gas, fossil fuels, chemicals, etc. why? you like tech, big oil, tobacco, etc. you just decided to rip on big pharma for some reason.
personally i think it's you want to dismantle government health coverage, not directly, but instead by declaring x y z a b c treatments invalid under precautionary theories. you can't prove it's bad for you, but you're gonna declare it risky, then say government can't pay for it. so you don't touch the third rail of taking gramps' medicare, but you start limiting what it can pay for, are vaccines allowed or covered.
this is trump's basic MO. you find things government funds or controls. you use your gatekeeper power to extract something, money from consumers, taxes or tariffs, decisions you wouldn't otherwise get. government by shakedown. facts are beside the point unless the supreme court grows a spine.
You haven't read any of these studies...You are just reflexively opposing anything coming from Trump...
Studies show a correlation and top scientists and doctors are advising Women re-evaluate Tylenol usage during pregnancy...This is a fact...
Stop talking out of your azz...Many top scientists and doctors disagree with you and believe there is a correlation between Tylenol and autism and think it should be used sparingly or not at all during pregnancy...
Joe Bidens mother must have gulped mounds of it while carrying Joe because he sure acted autistic.
There’s maybe one or two top scientists, who have clear conflict of interest, who agree. Most think there’s not enough data to support limiting its use.
Remember, giving pregnant moms more to worry about WILL lead to worse health outcomes from maternal stress.
Whatever you’re doing has to outweigh that. Simply saying “well, let’s just be safe just in case” doesn’t cut it
similar to, they are looking to pull flouride from the water. you do that, teeth rot faster and more people get infections. tooth infections can cause health problems or kill you, on top of pain, blood pressure, etc.
dude, for someone pretending to be folksy your post is incredibly parsed in wording. (1) what they have actually said is "may" be a correlation. and (2) in science terms correlation is not causation. it just means 2 things showed up alongside each other.
to underline the basic dishonesty here, y'all do not advocate this sort of precautionary approach re smoking, drinking, oil, gas, fossil fuels, chemicals, etc. why? you like tech, big oil, tobacco, etc. you just decided to rip on big pharma for some reason.
personally i think it's you want to dismantle government health coverage, not directly, but instead by declaring x y z a b c treatments invalid under precautionary theories. you can't prove it's bad for you, but you're gonna declare it risky, then say government can't pay for it. so you don't touch the third rail of taking gramps' medicare, but you start limiting what it can pay for, are vaccines allowed or covered.
this is trump's basic MO. you find things government funds or controls. you use your gatekeeper power to extract something, money from consumers, taxes or tariffs, decisions you wouldn't otherwise get. government by shakedown. facts are beside the point unless the supreme court grows a spine.
You haven't read any of these studies...You are just reflexively opposing anything coming from Trump...
Studies show a correlation and top scientists and doctors are advising Women re-evaluate Tylenol usage during pregnancy...This is a fact...
no, actually i read the cited study yesterday. you can see my stream of consciousness posts as i read it.
if you had read the various studies you would know that from the set they used, the studies disagree with each other. to then say "studies show" is to misread even the study you claim to be leaning on.
No it’s 4 researchers affiliated with those institutions in a single paper that is hotly disputed.
And the senior author has multiple conflicts of interest.
The institutions are standing behind those researchers and their results. Its hotly disputed by people who have their own conflicts of interest. Baccarelli's alleged "conflict" was serving as an expert witness which has no bearing on the validity of the paper. The paper you believed was better was actually demonstrably garbage. Your problem is with the politics, not the evidence or science.
here's the deal. this is an accepted treatment that is generally understood as safe. millions of people have taken it. the argument it's a problem is speculative. given the sheer amount of mouths tylenol has gone in, and yet we aren't all autistic, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
repeating some of the other posters, i'm also going to be inherently suspicious because (a) this lousy government said they'd find a study and magically it appears and (b) conflicts of interest on the author. "consider the source."
No it’s 4 researchers affiliated with those institutions in a single paper that is hotly disputed.
And the senior author has multiple conflicts of interest.
The institutions are standing behind those researchers and their results. Its hotly disputed by people who have their own conflicts of interest. Baccarelli's alleged "conflict" was serving as an expert witness which has no bearing on the validity of the paper. The paper you believed was better was actually demonstrably garbage. Your problem is with the politics, not the evidence or science.
I have yet to see any of the institutions comment on the sibling-matched data. There is a glaring omission.
Even the FDA said today that there are contrary studies in the literature!
If Trump and RFK Jr truly believed they made a conclusive finding connecting Autism and Acetaminophen, wouldn’t they take a stronger position and ban it to protect people?
And do you find it interesting that Dr Oz owns a supplement company that sells what both of them now recommend for autism?
exactly. if FDA had found an actual safety issue it would be black boxed for that use. like we don't use aspirin with kids with flu or chicken pox. it's not.
this is a rogue CDC leader using his power to give advice, to push agenda. and more broadly, trump seeking to discredit CDC/FDA/etc. trump doesn't care if it's right. he doesn't want you to believe in government, or these agencies to have the power to tell you anything.
i also see this as a broader, multi-level snake oil meta problem. you tell people to think for themselves while discouraging higher education. you then try and deregulate and flood the zone with sh*t. without good education it's hard to review graduate level studies and tell how they are faulty.
as such, deep down it's "every man for himself." at which point republicans have a massive blind spot for their own party's snake oil. like when they say, trust no one, think for yourself, maybe don't just parrot every right wing idea. like a walking contradiction.
but then most of the GOP leaders are ivy/ivy-plus educated and send their kids to higher education. they aren't fools. they think you are. "keep your guard up at all times" includes your own party.
dude, for someone pretending to be folksy your post is incredibly parsed in wording. (1) what they have actually said is "may" be a correlation. and (2) in science terms correlation is not causation. it just means 2 things showed up alongside each other.
to underline the basic dishonesty here, y'all do not advocate this sort of precautionary approach re smoking, drinking, oil, gas, fossil fuels, chemicals, etc. why? you like tech, big oil, tobacco, etc. you just decided to rip on big pharma for some reason.
personally i think it's you want to dismantle government health coverage, not directly, but instead by declaring x y z a b c treatments invalid under precautionary theories. you can't prove it's bad for you, but you're gonna declare it risky, then say government can't pay for it. so you don't touch the third rail of taking gramps' medicare, but you start limiting what it can pay for, are vaccines allowed or covered.
this is trump's basic MO. you find things government funds or controls. you use your gatekeeper power to extract something, money from consumers, taxes or tariffs, decisions you wouldn't otherwise get. government by shakedown. facts are beside the point unless the supreme court grows a spine.
You haven't read any of these studies...You are just reflexively opposing anything coming from Trump...
Studies show a correlation and top scientists and doctors are advising Women re-evaluate Tylenol usage during pregnancy...This is a fact...
The FDA itself added a “there is poor evidence here and it’s definitely not proven to be causative - also aspirin and ibuprofen are much worse” to their statement they released.
Nobody educated thinks there is strong evidence implicating Tylenol
here's the deal. this is an accepted treatment that is generally understood as safe. millions of people have taken it. the argument it's a problem is speculative. given the sheer amount of mouths tylenol has gone in, and yet we aren't all autistic, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
repeating some of the other posters, i'm also going to be inherently suspicious because (a) this lousy government said they'd find a study and magically it appears and (b) conflicts of interest on the author. "consider the source."
It cannot possibly explain the purported rise in autism unless you posit that women started taking Tylenol at 100x the rate randomly in the 90s.
. . . It seems that a prudent approach going forward for pregnant women would be to avoid all NSAIDS during pregnancy until we definitively know the causes of autism.
Tylenol is the safest of the NSAIDS, apparently, but why take the risk for your unborn child? Why take any risk you can avoid... alcohol, drugs, smoking, etc.
The exception would be to take Tylenol to reduce fever, which is a known risk. In that case, I'd advise a pregnant woman to take Tylenol, but only as long as it was needed to stop the fever. Fortunately, fever for most people is a relatively rare occurrence... maybe once or twice for 2-3 days over the course of 9 months.
I very strongly suspect that the overwhelming use of Tylenol is for aches and pains during pregnancy.
A prudent approach would be to use a non-drug approach for aches and pains during pregnancy... massage, hot baths, liniments, yoga, etc. Like everything else, there could be exceptions, but this is the approach I would recommend.
What you've written seems reasonable enough.
It's also not all that different from the FDA statement on the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy that dates back to 2015:
i also see this as a broader, multi-level snake oil meta problem. you tell people to think for themselves while discouraging higher education. you then try and deregulate and flood the zone with sh*t. without good education it's hard to review graduate level studies and tell how they are faulty.
as such, deep down it's "every man for himself." at which point republicans have a massive blind spot for their own party's snake oil. like when they say, trust no one, think for yourself, maybe don't just parrot every right wing idea. like a walking contradiction.
but then most of the GOP leaders are ivy/ivy-plus educated and send their kids to higher education. they aren't fools. they think you are. "keep your guard up at all times" includes your own party.
Yes spot on.
Vance is one of the worst, IMO. His entire personality hinges on always taking to people he views as vastly dumber than he is
As for Texas, that measles outbreak began on Jan 17th - before the new administration even took office - and in a Mennonite community. RFK has nothing to do with them not being vaccinated.
I've given you credit for being clueless but its looking like you're also psychotic.
As for Texas, that measles outbreak began on Jan 17th - before the new administration even took office - and in a Mennonite community. RFK has nothing to do with them not being vaccinated.
I've given you credit for being clueless but its looking like you're also psychotic.
RFK has been one of the nations most outspoken antivaxxers before he held a government position. He has everything to do with them not being vaccinated.
He’s been working on killing kids for decades and a large part of national antivaxx sentiment can be blamed on his platform and the organizations he works with.
So yeah, he’s responsible. But no, he wants more dead kids.
This post was edited 22 seconds after it was posted.
It’s crazy. RFK has said vaccines cause autism for decades. Now he’s given a platform to say to the nation what causes autism and he doesn’t say “vaccines.”
