Tylenol is Getting Sued for Increasing Chance of Autism and ADHD 

Oh yes I completely agree. : )

Thank you, you are a blessing. I always knew something was different with me and always felt out of place. My son was diagnosed with autism at 2 1/2 years old. If I could ever explain the story how everything fell into place it would take a long while, but I never noticed until I ran across your RU-vid the checklist of things that can be considered in the category of autism. I have made an appointment and am hoping to clarify I am also autistic. It’s interesting because I’m not scared of it, I am hoping that there is a set of ppl that I actually am a species to where it’s a unity in my heart, body and mind. Thank you for the way you explain things and being one of the first to step into this awareness and world that it’s not weird it’s just unique. So many positive vibe to you ❤❤❤❤❤

This! 👆

"Correlation is not causation." The causation is from the fever that the drug treated.

@@Desertphile But we don't know that either. It's possible, but there's so many other possibilities. Other factors may make the mother more susceptible to fever, more likely to have aches and pains, more likely to feel those aches and pains more intensely, etc.

No, correlation is not causation, but it may be prudent to put a warning label on all products containing acetaminophen.

I agree. Women used to get married very young and often weren't expected to work. I'm sure many young women with autism 1 or 2 back in the day got married young and were stay at home Moms. They were never tested for autism.

Not necessarily, it depends on how the study was created. A group of autistic people with a significantly higher or lower than normal number having the link could still be useful. Also, with rare and uncommon components of the general populatoin that sort of thing may be needed in order to get enough participants to be a representative sample. A study looking into this with 0 autistic participants would be useless.

*Possible wall of text if opened fully!!* @@SmallSpoonBrigade If you only recruit autistic individuals, but still wanted to compare it to the rest of the population, the data would be from 2 separate studies (that might not have the same conditions) - would that not mess with the results? Though, that also might mean that you're grouping people into autistic and allistic people and then testing to see if their mothers took paracetamol while pregnant, right (or not? please explain if not)? Like, if you wanted to use that data for the reverse (testing results being the groups), would that not skew the results? Why not group people into those whose mother took it while pregnant and those whose mother didn't (or something like that) - and then see how many people of each group have autism? In that case, accepting anyone who wants to participate instead of specifically searching for autistic people seems to be less likely to result in a biased outcome (and just have a large enough sample that there would, indeed, be some autistic people in anyways). One might result in "--% of diagnosed autistic people had contact* with paracetamol before birth, while [only**] --% of allistic people did" and the other in "--% of people who had contact* with paracetamol before birth have been diagnosed with autism, while [only**] --% of those who didn't are diagnosed autistic" - and well... depends on you if you prefer one over the other or think both lead to the same conclusion * _don't ask me how to word it better right now_ ** _if it would make sense with the results_

You are definitely my Guru for jargon❤ you actually make it almost fun to learn about something that's overwhelming❤ also realizing you're making something nice and simple and clear for me ❤ ❤❤ and doing lots and lots of work❤ just for all to see🎉

I so appreciate you and the day and the week in the year is definitely better🎉 now

@@mchobbit2951 why are all of the systems broken? Medicine is a mess. Education is a mess. Now science is a capitalist mess, too. Everything I grew up thinking our society had to rely on has revealed itself to be in utter shambles.

There are definitely journals out there that publish peer reviewed junk. Issues Law Med is one example.

They _can_ be but not necessarily. Cochrane collaboration meta-analyses actually provide great insight into the consistency of various studies when looked at over time. Meta-analyses are a critical part of moving knowledge forward since part of science is replication and meta-analyses look at what happens when various researchers try the same or similar things over time.

Meta-analyses are required to describe in exact detail the search terms and how they found and included or disincluded the papers. It’s not just picking and choosing a narrative. If it was, it wouldn’t be published by any reliable journal.

That's just Word Salad. Both the Cleveland Clinic & Mayo Clinic's entry on Encephalopathy don't mention Autism once. Autism is short for Autism Spectrum Disorder which has an entry in the DSM5 - the D in DSM5 is for DIAGNOSTIC.

Pure garbage: what are your sources, other than yourself?

What a bunch of BS.

That is fascinating.

@@JohnSmith-ft4gc Is it really, John Smith? Or do a high number of Autists have health comorbidities ignored by the Autism or neurodiverse diagnosis, which is only a BEHAVIORAL Diagnosis, and not a NEUROLOGICAL Diagnosis. Big difference, as it is a well hidden fact that Autism carries neurological comorbidities, including damage and demyelenation of the nerve cells, leading to either hypervigilant nerve responses or blunting/numbing of nerve responses especially in the auditory and ocular nerves. If this looks like word salad to you, maybe increasing your comprehension is in order.