If RFK Jr says it's true, that's how I know it isn't. They go to great lengths to point out they're "using gold-standard science", which also makes me certain they aren't. They can't be, because none of this is about autism or science, it's about pushing their political agenda.
If medical facts can reliably be inferred from RFK's statements, by whatever algorithm (i.e. "believe the opposite of whatever he says"), then it follows that he understands what he is talking about. Which would contradict all the evidence I've seen.
The point isn't that it's a clever truth-seeking strategy. I'm sure some number of his health claims are true! He'll probably even publish some new recommendations which were better than the old ones, and promote some accurate groundbreaking research I won't believe. I'll have plenty of time to learn the accurate stuff later when HHS isn't dedicated to convincing me of nonsense.
There's a threshold where you just don't have a choice. He's made a number of obvious and verifiable health lies - most recently, he described how he can diagnose children with "mitochondrial challenges" by watching them walk around. I have a job, I don't have time to individually investigate all his health claims, the heuristic that he's a liar and everything he says is wrong will have to suffice.
I don't understand the response. Kennedy didn't say "factor" or "metabolic syndrome", he said "I see these kids that are just overburdened with mitochondrial challenges". If all he meant was that many kids are visibly overweight, wouldn't he have just said that?
He explained his views in detail in his confirmation hearing. He believes that pharmaceuticals in general are dangerous and overused, "the third-largest cause of death in our country after heart attacks and cancers" in his words, and wants healthcare to focus more on healthy food than on medicine.
Because that stance has been very beneficial for him financially and politically, ever since his pivot from legitimate and respected environmental lawyer to anti-vaxxer. He transitioned after receiving incredibly positive feedback for amplifying conspiratorial narratives while riding the coattails of the infamous "thimerosal causes autism" panic of the 2000s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_Immunity
> If RFK Jr says it's true, that's how I know it isn't.
And one of the reasons you don't let morons take over your party is that if they ever are right, they won't be believed. If these are actual risks with Tylenol then oops, that take is being lumped in with the antivax hysteria.
Which is what? Lots of this admin's actions have made sense once you know the underlying agenda—thanks project 2025 for spelling a lot of it out—but this one has me baffled. Taking on the woke… tylenol industry?
Looking around for sources from before the world ended I can find quite a few reputable studies that show the correlation. The effect size is small ~0.4% in absolute risk but statistically detectable. Like okay, sure. Doctors already tell pregnant women to limit NSAIDs. So… we keep doing that. Mission accomplished?
The advice to avoid NSAIDs in pregnancy (and contraindication in the third trimester) doesn’t cover acetaminophen, though, because it’s not regarded as an NSAID (different mechanism of action and minimal anti-inflammatory effects.)
From a recent meta analysis, a total of 6 studies meeting the inclusion criteria addressed the association between acetaminophen exposure in utero and ASD. The odds ratio for the aggregated data was 1.19 which puts the 0.2-0.4% relative risk increase depending on what baseline incidence you assume (along the lines of your estimate.)
If you take the baseline incidence to be 1% then I calculate the NNH - number needed to harm, at 533, meaning you have to expose 533 pregnant women to acetaminophen to observe one additional case of ASD.
Given that the current public health administration of this era in the U.S. operates by seat-of-the-pants guidance rather than statistical evidence, the statistics are irrelevant to them. My advice would be that health care providers caring for pregnant women have an informed discussion about the risk and call it a day.
News articles seem to state that the conclusions are clear as day but the same websites were equally sure of the opposite last year.
I'll wait or reliable sources of medical information, which the US government no longer is, to comment on these papers rather than assume whatever paper made the HN frontpage last is the final result of the scientific debate.
Why? Should we first suspect carrots of making people grow red hair, suspect eggs of causing pregnancy, and suspect Left Twix of causing left-handedness?
We don't know the cause of autism. We do know that autism has a heritable component, with significant rates of both siblings having it (which could be explained by environmental factors) and both parent and child having it (which cannot be explained by environmental factors). Surely it would make a lot more sense to suspect a genetic component first?
> Until you have a controlled study on pregnant women
I wouldn’t look for a prospective randomized controlled trial of this anytime soon. Hard to imagine an IRB approving such a study.
Observational studies do suggest a small but statistically significant association between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and ASD, but the relative risk increase is small, because both the effect size and baseline risk are small.
Tylenol was introduced in 1955. Autism was first scientifically documented in 1926. If Tylenol causes autism, how did those parents in the 1920s get their hands on it?
Also, wouldn't there been a clear link between Tylenol sales and the occurrence of autism? Where is the data showing that the adoption of Tylenol in the 1960s resulted in a rise in autism, and that the "rise" of autism in the 1990s is linked to an increase in Tylenol use?
Not specific to tylenol and autism, but I think important: RFK Jr. will be issuing findings using "gold-standard science" and hold up the findings as definitive (as proof, etc.) at the same time that he completely minimizes and bemoans current scientific processes. While we may be able to tell the difference between RFK's BS science and real science, what does this mean for everyone else? Especially because RFK Jr. does not trust science?
Judging from the comments I've seen, nobody believes this because RFK has completely shot his credibility, and I don't blame them either.
But it turns out there may actually be some emerging evidence to support this. This recent Harvard meta-analysis [1] from just last month looked at 46 different studies and suggested that there may actually be something happening here although it's not conclusive. Correlation but not yet causation.
Nobody should be making policy on this yet, but it's the kind of thing that I would allocate some research dollars to if I hadn't just fired all of the competent researchers.
That is a retrospective meta study, which leads to lots of speculation, but little actual proof of causation.
>> The researchers noted that while steps should be taken to limit acetaminophen use, the drug is important for treating maternal fever and pain, which can also harm children.
also:
>> Baccarelli noted in the “competing interests” section of the paper that he has served as an expert witness for a plaintiff in a case involving potential links between acetominophen use during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Huh, but digging in a little more does show some stronger studies... hmmmm...
I read the study and TBH it's more or less expected that a correlation would exist between increased NDD diagnoses and prescriptions common to pregnant women in regions with increased NDD diagnoses.
Being afforded better care during pregnancy should correlate with better attention (and diagnosis of conditions) to offspring.
If one were cynical one might say this was a good call by Andrea Baccarelli, the Dean of the Faculty, to commission a meta study looking for correlations between common treatments and NDD diagnoses in the current climate of funding going toward whomever can put forward a thread to follow in pursuit of autism.
It’s insane that the RFK crowd continues to not consider that the increase is just due to better diagnoses.
I wouldn’t entirely rule out there being environmental factors, but from the data I could gather it seems that acetaminophen usage has decreased in pregnancy over the last several decades in the US, while autism has increased.
This all seems to go back to the boomer generation believing the world was simpler when they grew up and that it was somehow ruined. That may be true about some things but the reality of their generation is they had no idea what people were going through, and didn’t have the language to describe it
Someone needs to find a new brain worm for the heroin junkie who dabbled in environmental law that gets him doing the right thing™ like:
- going after quacks who promote bleach, horse dewormers (maybe that's the problem), and raw milk
- adopt the precautionary principle
- approve EU sunscreen compounds without animal testing and banning reef/human unsafe ones
- leave science to scientists
- increase regulatory oversight over food manufacturing, additive, and supply chain regulation so there aren't canyons of non-enforcement or exclusions between FDA and USDA
Or, maybe, this is really radical... find someone else competent to do the job.
I think you are severely underestimating the mental gymnastics these people routinely go through to never be wrong about anything.
When you go to the doctor because you child is on the spectrum. "Fill out this form Mam", on it is the question "Did you take Tylenol during the pregnancy?"
- You check "Yes" -> Your fault, should have known better. No help for you.
- You check "No" -> Well then it can't be autism, that's "scientifically" proven. No help for you.
If RFK Jr says it's true, that's how I know it isn't. They go to great lengths to point out they're "using gold-standard science", which also makes me certain they aren't. They can't be, because none of this is about autism or science, it's about pushing their political agenda.
While you're probably right in the outcome, you probably shouldn't argue based on the genetic fallacy[1]
1: https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/the-genetic-fallacy/#:~:te...
I agree with this criticism.
If medical facts can reliably be inferred from RFK's statements, by whatever algorithm (i.e. "believe the opposite of whatever he says"), then it follows that he understands what he is talking about. Which would contradict all the evidence I've seen.
The point isn't that it's a clever truth-seeking strategy. I'm sure some number of his health claims are true! He'll probably even publish some new recommendations which were better than the old ones, and promote some accurate groundbreaking research I won't believe. I'll have plenty of time to learn the accurate stuff later when HHS isn't dedicated to convincing me of nonsense.
There's a threshold where you just don't have a choice. He's made a number of obvious and verifiable health lies - most recently, he described how he can diagnose children with "mitochondrial challenges" by watching them walk around. I have a job, I don't have time to individually investigate all his health claims, the heuristic that he's a liar and everything he says is wrong will have to suffice.
What's the primary factor contributing to metabolic syndrome in children?
And are you really claiming you can't determine that factor by looking?
I don't understand the response. Kennedy didn't say "factor" or "metabolic syndrome", he said "I see these kids that are just overburdened with mitochondrial challenges". If all he meant was that many kids are visibly overweight, wouldn't he have just said that?
Why is he so against medicine?
He explained his views in detail in his confirmation hearing. He believes that pharmaceuticals in general are dangerous and overused, "the third-largest cause of death in our country after heart attacks and cancers" in his words, and wants healthcare to focus more on healthy food than on medicine.
> (...) and wants healthcare to focus more on healthy food than on medicine.
This is the guy who caught a worm in his brain from eating roadkill?
Because that stance has been very beneficial for him financially and politically, ever since his pivot from legitimate and respected environmental lawyer to anti-vaxxer. He transitioned after receiving incredibly positive feedback for amplifying conspiratorial narratives while riding the coattails of the infamous "thimerosal causes autism" panic of the 2000s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_Immunity
That's how he got where he is today.
[dead]
> If RFK Jr says it's true, that's how I know it isn't.
And one of the reasons you don't let morons take over your party is that if they ever are right, they won't be believed. If these are actual risks with Tylenol then oops, that take is being lumped in with the antivax hysteria.
> it's about pushing their political agenda.
I've seen this kind of thing mentioned before. As a non USA person, I don't know what the deal is with RFK and autism. Wasn't it vaccines last month?
It's about pushing general distrust of the medical/pharmaceutical establishment, in favor of folk wisdom, home remedies, and anything "natural".
Which is what? Lots of this admin's actions have made sense once you know the underlying agenda—thanks project 2025 for spelling a lot of it out—but this one has me baffled. Taking on the woke… tylenol industry?
It’s simple, RFKj is a well-intentioned idiot.
Looking around for sources from before the world ended I can find quite a few reputable studies that show the correlation. The effect size is small ~0.4% in absolute risk but statistically detectable. Like okay, sure. Doctors already tell pregnant women to limit NSAIDs. So… we keep doing that. Mission accomplished?
The advice to avoid NSAIDs in pregnancy (and contraindication in the third trimester) doesn’t cover acetaminophen, though, because it’s not regarded as an NSAID (different mechanism of action and minimal anti-inflammatory effects.)
From a recent meta analysis, a total of 6 studies meeting the inclusion criteria addressed the association between acetaminophen exposure in utero and ASD. The odds ratio for the aggregated data was 1.19 which puts the 0.2-0.4% relative risk increase depending on what baseline incidence you assume (along the lines of your estimate.)
If you take the baseline incidence to be 1% then I calculate the NNH - number needed to harm, at 533, meaning you have to expose 533 pregnant women to acetaminophen to observe one additional case of ASD.
Given that the current public health administration of this era in the U.S. operates by seat-of-the-pants guidance rather than statistical evidence, the statistics are irrelevant to them. My advice would be that health care providers caring for pregnant women have an informed discussion about the risk and call it a day.
> that's how I know it isn't.
Until you have a controlled study on pregnant women who use and don't use the drug, you won't really know for sure.
Until we have a controlled study, we don't really know if using nouns causes autism either. We don't know what causes autism so everything is suspect.
https://news.ki.se/no-link-between-paracetamol-use-during-pr... concludes that there is no link between acetaminophen and autism based on existing research. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-... concludes the opposite. I'm not qualified to determine which of these studies is more reliable, but the evidence is far from clear if multiple literature studies state the opposite conclusion.
News articles seem to state that the conclusions are clear as day but the same websites were equally sure of the opposite last year.
I'll wait or reliable sources of medical information, which the US government no longer is, to comment on these papers rather than assume whatever paper made the HN frontpage last is the final result of the scientific debate.
> We don't know what causes autism so everything is suspect.
Obviously what goes into your body should be suspected first, whether it's food, pollutants, or medical interventions.
Why? Should we first suspect carrots of making people grow red hair, suspect eggs of causing pregnancy, and suspect Left Twix of causing left-handedness?
We don't know the cause of autism. We do know that autism has a heritable component, with significant rates of both siblings having it (which could be explained by environmental factors) and both parent and child having it (which cannot be explained by environmental factors). Surely it would make a lot more sense to suspect a genetic component first?
> Until you have a controlled study on pregnant women
I wouldn’t look for a prospective randomized controlled trial of this anytime soon. Hard to imagine an IRB approving such a study.
Observational studies do suggest a small but statistically significant association between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and ASD, but the relative risk increase is small, because both the effect size and baseline risk are small.
Just one slight problem:
Tylenol was introduced in 1955. Autism was first scientifically documented in 1926. If Tylenol causes autism, how did those parents in the 1920s get their hands on it?
Also, wouldn't there been a clear link between Tylenol sales and the occurrence of autism? Where is the data showing that the adoption of Tylenol in the 1960s resulted in a rise in autism, and that the "rise" of autism in the 1990s is linked to an increase in Tylenol use?
Not specific to tylenol and autism, but I think important: RFK Jr. will be issuing findings using "gold-standard science" and hold up the findings as definitive (as proof, etc.) at the same time that he completely minimizes and bemoans current scientific processes. While we may be able to tell the difference between RFK's BS science and real science, what does this mean for everyone else? Especially because RFK Jr. does not trust science?
RFKjr is disgusting. He is a QUACK, and not a medical professional. He is a danger to the welfare of all people.
Tylenol and autism, lacks any proof:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/lawsuits-claiming-tylenol-caus...
https://www.acog.org/news/news-articles/2021/09/response-to-...
If he really wants to help autism, why not fund schools and programs to help existing people with this neuro-divergency? Where is that effort?
Oh, wait, he is slashing other efforts to fund his own:
https://nevadaautism.com/rfk-jr-slashing-traditional-autism-...
Disgusting!
This man says everything causes autism.
Woah, what if EVERYTHING causes autism?!
everything This man says causes autism.
Judging from the comments I've seen, nobody believes this because RFK has completely shot his credibility, and I don't blame them either.
But it turns out there may actually be some emerging evidence to support this. This recent Harvard meta-analysis [1] from just last month looked at 46 different studies and suggested that there may actually be something happening here although it's not conclusive. Correlation but not yet causation.
Nobody should be making policy on this yet, but it's the kind of thing that I would allocate some research dollars to if I hadn't just fired all of the competent researchers.
1 - https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/using-acetaminophen-during-pre...
That is a retrospective meta study, which leads to lots of speculation, but little actual proof of causation.
>> The researchers noted that while steps should be taken to limit acetaminophen use, the drug is important for treating maternal fever and pain, which can also harm children.
also:
>> Baccarelli noted in the “competing interests” section of the paper that he has served as an expert witness for a plaintiff in a case involving potential links between acetominophen use during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Huh, but digging in a little more does show some stronger studies... hmmmm...
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6822099/
I read the study and TBH it's more or less expected that a correlation would exist between increased NDD diagnoses and prescriptions common to pregnant women in regions with increased NDD diagnoses.
Being afforded better care during pregnancy should correlate with better attention (and diagnosis of conditions) to offspring.
If one were cynical one might say this was a good call by Andrea Baccarelli, the Dean of the Faculty, to commission a meta study looking for correlations between common treatments and NDD diagnoses in the current climate of funding going toward whomever can put forward a thread to follow in pursuit of autism.
It’s insane that the RFK crowd continues to not consider that the increase is just due to better diagnoses.
I wouldn’t entirely rule out there being environmental factors, but from the data I could gather it seems that acetaminophen usage has decreased in pregnancy over the last several decades in the US, while autism has increased.
This all seems to go back to the boomer generation believing the world was simpler when they grew up and that it was somehow ruined. That may be true about some things but the reality of their generation is they had no idea what people were going through, and didn’t have the language to describe it
Someone needs to find a new brain worm for the heroin junkie who dabbled in environmental law that gets him doing the right thing™ like:
- going after quacks who promote bleach, horse dewormers (maybe that's the problem), and raw milk
- adopt the precautionary principle
- approve EU sunscreen compounds without animal testing and banning reef/human unsafe ones
- leave science to scientists
- increase regulatory oversight over food manufacturing, additive, and supply chain regulation so there aren't canyons of non-enforcement or exclusions between FDA and USDA
Or, maybe, this is really radical... find someone else competent to do the job.
If he’s right, we’ll know before the end of Trump’s term.
How much are people willing to bet that the incidence of autism will remain unchanged and the administration will disavow everything.
“Nobody knew autism was so complicated.” — future Trump, probably.
I think you are severely underestimating the mental gymnastics these people routinely go through to never be wrong about anything.
When you go to the doctor because you child is on the spectrum. "Fill out this form Mam", on it is the question "Did you take Tylenol during the pregnancy?"
- You check "Yes" -> Your fault, should have known better. No help for you.
- You check "No" -> Well then it can't be autism, that's "scientifically" proven. No help for you.