I see we are back to pseudoscience created by charlatans. Coming soon the newest snake oil that will heal any aliment.
No.
Baccarelli noted in the “competing interests” section of the research paper that he has served as an expert witness for plaintiffs in a case involving potential links between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Hey everyone - a new Andrew Wakefield just dropped!
the drug is important for treating pain and fever during pregnancy, which can also harm the developing fetus. High fever can raise the risk of neural tube defects and preterm birth.
… uh huh, could, maybe, the correlation of Tylenol be the result of people taking it to treat symptoms of something else that is more strongly correlated?
The article shows more differentiation than the title. There must be literally hundreds or things you should be careful about during pregnancy; but after reading this article; and if I would be pregnant, I would use paracetamol.
oh the Ahlquist et al population study with 2.5 million participants was marked “low quality” due to “exposure limitations”.
can someone explain to me how you limit exposure in a population study?
We used the search term “ADHD AND acetaminophen.”
That was how the studies were selected… Lol. Real robust “research” there, guys.
That’s literally how you do review studies.
obviously publication bias exists, a study that shows nothing (good or bad) happening when a drug is used is less likely to get published, but that’s a broad problem.
Search for studies containing links between ADHD and Tylenol to determine if there’s a link between ADHD and Tylenol. P-hacking much? That is straight-up cherry-picking results to fit the hypothesis. 💩
Published by Harvard? I guess this is what you get when you shake down a university.
We really are entering the era of Idiocracy
Fake news and political propaganda warning!
this is originally from may, and passed review in june. idk how related it is to the current nonsense.
It certainly got posted in the context of the current debate. Or this wouldn’t have been posted today. And experts said what people currently think this study means is not at all what its factual/scientific significance is. So I’d say it’s misinformation unless we add a good amount of context here.
I mean for once the study doesn’t seem to say at all what’s in the title here, that tylenol may increse children’s autism risk. As far as my reading skills get me, that’s just not a conclusion of the paper… They kinda say reading some other papers “supports an association” and they “preclude definitive causation”. And they “recommend judicious acetaminophen use […] under medical guidance”. Explicitly not “broad limitation”.
So ultimately what they say is further research needs to be done to either find a link between these things or rule it out. And people need to be careful in the meantime. “…” may cause “…” is what people falsely assume to be the jist of it.
that’s usually how pop-sci journalism goes, unfortunately.
Unfortunately misinformation to outright anti-intellectualism are big these days. I think it’s one of the major issues of society and we better find ways to deal with it, because people are getting hurt by this.
And the “journalist” writing the linked article for Harvard (wtf?) uses exactly the phrases flagged as wrong by the peer-review. On the upside, people here seem to still be able to downvote this.
deleted by creator
