I added it in to my previous response but I figure I’ll just do it as a reply. The study was submitted in May so he very well may have seen it come up in his autism alerts. I’m sure he has some kind of autism study feed.
Oh boy, I sure do love getting all of my comments downvoted by you cunts just because you don’t like what I had to say. That sure proves me wrong…
My mistake I thought it was a reply in the other comment thread.
The thing that makes it possibly a good study is that it was published in a good journal from a good school. It’s not Harry Wang’s Big Book of Science. You expect poorly done research in pay to play journals, but less so in biomedcentral.
I’m still mildly skeptical and have seen people make the claim that it was more likely the age of the mother which has been legitimately associated with higher risks of autism. It makes sense. But having now seen that they’re pushing this shit super hard I’m immediately on guard.
I hadn’t seen the Trump TV announcement of this dumb shit. This is something worthy of further study not a doctor’s recommendation.
The study is fine. But its ethos is literally just correlation. The abstract:
Acetaminophen is the most commonly used over-the-counter pain and fever medication taken during pregnancy, with > 50% of pregnant women using acetaminophen worldwide. Numerous well-designed studies have indicated that pregnant mothers exposed to acetaminophen have children diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), including autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), at higher rates than children of pregnant mothers who were not exposed to acetaminophen.
This has zero cause effect relationship. Its literally the same issue with the vaccine correlation: medical care access.
I didn’t say the study wasn’t “good” I said its not automatically 100% correct because it’s a study. I haven’t read it let me look at the first page so I can elaborate.
Yes and there are also “real studies” that say smoking is healthy.
Just because there’s words formatted a certain way in a PDF doesn’t mean it has any merit.
I added it in to my previous response but I figure I’ll just do it as a reply. The study was submitted in May so he very well may have seen it come up in his autism alerts. I’m sure he has some kind of autism study feed.
Oh boy, I sure do love getting all of my comments downvoted by you cunts just because you don’t like what I had to say. That sure proves me wrong…
Can you elaborate on the first paragraph? How is that significant? It seems to agree with what I said.
My mistake I thought it was a reply in the other comment thread.
The thing that makes it possibly a good study is that it was published in a good journal from a good school. It’s not Harry Wang’s Big Book of Science. You expect poorly done research in pay to play journals, but less so in biomedcentral.
I’m still mildly skeptical and have seen people make the claim that it was more likely the age of the mother which has been legitimately associated with higher risks of autism. It makes sense. But having now seen that they’re pushing this shit super hard I’m immediately on guard.
I hadn’t seen the Trump TV announcement of this dumb shit. This is something worthy of further study not a doctor’s recommendation.
The study is fine. But its ethos is literally just correlation. The abstract:
This has zero cause effect relationship. Its literally the same issue with the vaccine correlation: medical care access.
I didn’t say the study wasn’t “good” I said its not automatically 100% correct because it’s a study. I haven’t read it let me look at the first page so I can elaborate.