From "A President’s ‘Surreal’ Advice Worries Pregnant Women/The administration’s guidance to avoid Tylenol and 'tough it out' prompted anxiety, especially for expectant women who face pain" (NYT).
One reason to avoid having children is the fear that you'll do something wrong or — like that mother in tears — the fear that other people will think you did something wrong. Why complicate your life with such things? The babies themselves may grow up into beings who tell you you've done it wrong. Thank God some women dare to have children. But what are the rest of us to do — we who feel called to protect children? Only Ms. Martinez knows how bad her pain is and how much Tylenol might help. Who but she should decide if it's worth the risk to take Tylenol after the President has cast aspersions upon it?
By the way, here's an interesting episode of the "Modern Wisdom" podcast: "Why Population Collapse is Closer Than You Think."
పోస్ట్లు
258 కామెంట్లు:
«అన్నిటి కంటే పాతది ‹పాతవి 258లో 201 – 258Beasts: Full disclosure: I am not a biologist.
I seem to recall that you've done an impressive amount of direct field research on the issue...
Leftists are losing their minds again
Anyone who considers Tylenol a pain killer is not interested in science IMHO.
Source your work - Inga.
“Why include unadjusted results from the Swedish study in the Harvard review?
Researchers who are unaffiliated with the Harvard-led paper have criticized the review for including the unadjusted results from the Swedish study, calling the decision unusual or biased. By including the unadjusted data, the Harvard-led team strengthened the impression of an association between acetaminophen and autism, even though the more reliable sibling-controlled analysis in the same Swedish paper found no such link.
The co-authors of the Harvard paper, including senior author Dr. Andrea Baccarelli, have not publicly explained their methodology for including both the adjusted and unadjusted findings. However, their decision has been described by critics as:
Methodologically questionable: Standard practice in meta-analyses and systematic reviews is to rely on the most rigorously controlled data, especially when higher-quality analyses from the same study override weaker ones. The 2024 JAMA study is widely considered high-quality because its sibling-control analysis is better at accounting for confounding variables like genetics and shared environment than the simpler, unadjusted analysis.
Potentially biased: Some researchers suggest the authors' assessment of the quality of studies was subjective. By presenting two results from a single paper—one that supports their conclusion and one that undermines it—the Harvard-led team could be perceived as "cherry-picking" results to create a more compelling narrative. The fact that Dr. Baccarelli previously served as a paid expert witness in lawsuits against acetaminophen manufacturers has also been raised as a potential conflict of interest.
Compromising transparency: For a systematic review to be transparent, a clear protocol outlining inclusion and exclusion criteria must be published beforehand. The criticism over the Swedish study's inclusion highlights concerns that the Harvard-led team's methodology was not robust enough to avoid including less-reliable data.
The controversy highlights a central concern in scientific research: the methodology used to synthesize existing studies is critical to avoiding biased or misleading conclusions.”
Inga:
Thanks.
So, we agree that the Harvard study supports Trump's recommendation. I am not surprised that some researchers criticize some aspects of the Harvard study. I wouldn't be surprised if the authors of the Swedish study are critical. But the unattributed piece you posted doesn't reference any peer-reviewed papers, so the Harvard study has to be given considerable weight, no? And Trump's position is, therefore based on considerable serious evidence, no?
Cnn thru the ages re Tylenol
Inga: thanks.
So, it looks like we agree that the Harvard paper supports Trump's announcement.
I am not surprised that some people in the field have some criticisms of the Harvard paper. I wouldn't be surprised if the authors of the Swedish paper are critical in some ways.
But the unattributed discussion you posted doesn't include any peer-reviewed publications, just comments by other researchers. So the Harvard paper stands as the most comprehensive and authoritative work so far, no?
And Trump's announcement is based on serious, peer-reviewed research, no?
My box of Tylenol with a 2022 expiration date on it says that pregnant women should talk to a medical professional before taking it. I bet every box out there says that.
"And Trump's announcement is based on serious, peer-reviewed research, no?"
Are you trying to get her head to explode?
Inga said:
The initial, unadjusted findings that showed an association between acetaminophen use and autism. The later, adjusted findings from the sibling comparison that showed no link after accounting for genetic factors.
The Harvard study discusses this. It says:
A third, large prospective cohort study conducted in Sweden by Ahlqvist et al. found that modest associations between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes in the full cohort analysis were attenuated to the null in the sibling control analyses [33]. However, exposure assessment in this study relied on midwives who conducted structured interviews recording the use of all medications, with no specific inquiry about acetaminophen use. Possibly as a resunt of this approach, the study reports only a 7.5% usage of acetaminophen among pregnant individuals, in stark contrast to the ≈50% reported globally
That's a pretty serious flaw in the Swedish study. The discussion you posted doesn't mention this, though. Why? Did you prompt an AI to give only criticisms of the Harvard study?
Again, the Harvard study considered all the evidence and Trump is using that study as the basis for his policy. Sounds reasonable to me, no? Can you at least admit that there is a serious basis for Trump's policy?
“…in the summer of 2023 Baccarelli served as an expert witness during a class action lawsuit against Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol. A group of parents filed the suit in 2022 with New York federal court, alleging their children’s autism and ADHD was a result of prenatal use of acetaminophen, which is called paracetamol outside North America. According to a court deposition in August 2023, Baccarelli said he had made “about $150,000” as an expert witness in the case.
The complainants in the case engaged five experts, including Baccarelli, to testify in their case. But in December 2023 their testimonies were dismissed by a federal judge, Denise Cote, who found their views to be “unreliable”.
Of Baccarelli’s testimony, Cote said: “The discussion in his reports is incomplete, unbalanced and at times misleading. In general, Dr Baccarelli downplays those studies that undercut his causation thesis and emphasises those that align with his thesis.”
Cote said all five of the experts who testified in the unsuccessful lawsuit against Kenvue “have not served to enlighten but to obfuscate the weakness of the evidence on which they purport to rely and the contradictions in the research.”
https://www.thetimes.com/us/american-politics/article/autism-scientist-tesitify-andrea-baccarelli-havard-aceraminophen-paracetamol-wvvzznhsf
Inadvertently saw a tiktok of 5 months pregnant woman taking Tylenol.
Most mothers comments by far, were that their Drs. had recommended against it.
Admittingly not due to autism potential but rather to baby damage in general.
"Most mothers comments by far, were that their Drs. had recommended against it."
Have those doctors consulted Inga?
It should be noted that RFK Jr also spoke at the conference and was more measured.
HHS wants, therefore, to encourage clinicians to exercise their best judgment in the use of acetaminophen for fevers and pain in pregnancy by prescribing the lowest effective dose for the shortest necessary and only when treatment is required.
This follows the Harvard case conclusions:
We recommend judicious acetaminophen use—lowest effective dose, shortest duration—under medical guidance, tailored to individual risk–benefit assessments, rather than a broad limitation.
I can't blame the press for only covering what Trump said but anyone who digs a little deeper will find more nuance in this case. Tylenol will still be used and recommended by doctors to pregnant women under certain circumstances. And there will now be a warning label on all bottles. I don't that is unreasonable.
“Professor David Mandell, associate director for the Centre for Autism Research at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said Baccarelli’s methodology did not provide a “rigorous review of evidence”. He added that one of the studies examined by Baccarelli’s paper explored the autism-acetaminophen link without providing any measure of autism symptoms.”The statements in the discussion suggesting that the link is strong, rather than somewhat equivocal, combined with the unorthodox methods, raise serious concerns about bias,” he told The Times.
Members of the Coalition for Autism Scientists, a group of more than 250 American researchers, added that studies assessing whether acetaminophen causes autism were “difficult to conduct”.
“It is highly irresponsible and potentially dangerous to claim links between potential exposures and autism when the science is far more nuanced and uncertain,” the coalition said this month.
In response to Monday’s press conference, the coalition said the government’s announcement “alarms us researchers who committed our entire careers to better understanding autism. The data cited do not support the claim that Tylenol causes autism … and only stoke fear and falsely suggest hope when there is no simple answer.”“
https://www.thetimes.com/us/american-politics/article/autism-scientist-tesitify-andrea-baccarelli-havard-aceraminophen-paracetamol-wvvzznhsf
So now you are doubling down on the idea that there is no risk to an unborn child from exposure to Tylenol, now that you see that Trump's advice mirrors the study's. author's suggestions regarding Tylenol use? So now these people don't know their business, because the press was able to cherry pick some critics of the methodology?
Perhaps you can share the better methodology that the researchers should have used, and don't say "cherry pick the one that contradicts Trump."
"I can't blame the press for only covering what Trump said but anyone who digs a little deeper will find more nuance in this case."
If you can't count on the press to at least try to present the full story, why would you listen to them at all? I mean- aside from getting your daily dose of Trump hate, that is.
Inga: thanks for the info about Bacarelli.
I agree that there is usually disagreement among medical experts, and I am guessing we can all agree that judges are often wrong too.
Baccarelli is only one of four authors on the Harvard paper, in fact, she is the FOURTH author on the paper. Your source doesn't mention that.
The fact remains that the Harvard paper was peer reviewed and stands as a serious, comprehensive paper on the issue. And the Swedish paper has some serious flaws. And there are dozens of other papers that find a positive link as well. So Trump's announcement is based on serious evidence, right?
Craig Mc said...
If pain is that unbearable, I doubt tylenol is going to help.
This.
"One researcher stated that they had "never seen any kind of review... in which somebody said, 'I don't like the adjusted results, so I'm going to include the unadjusted results'".
That's because the effect that they were looking for included genetic factors. What is wrong with you people? Is point scoring worth looking this stupid, or are you really blind to the implications of what you quoted?
"The later, adjusted findings from the sibling comparison that showed no link after accounting for genetic factors."
So how do young mothers rule out genetic factors in making their decision, autism and ADHD are pretty common.
There are lots of drugs thst women who are pregnant, or trying to become pregnant should not take. Thalidomide comes to mind, for instance. If you can’t take Tylenol, take Aleve.
Inga:
A little background about expert testimony at trials: both sides present experts at trials, and they virtually always criticize each other.
Also, none of the discussion you cite says it has been proven that there is NO link between acetaminophen and NDDs. In fact, they reinforce the notion that there might be a link.
“So now you are doubling down on the idea that there is no risk to an unborn child from exposure to Tylenol…”
No, I’m not. I’m stating that until there is more definitive evidence that Tylenol causes autism, don’t rely on studies that may be BIASED, as in the Harvard study. Use your common sense and don’t take ANY over the counter med heavily.
As I said several days ago, I would caution my daughters and loved ones who are pregnant to avoid taking Tylenol to be EXTRA cautious, but IF you have to, use only sparingly and for as short a time as possible.
"So Trump's announcement is based on serious evidence, right?"
An optimist, I see.
"but IF you have to, use only sparingly and for as short a time as possible." - Inga
"For this reason they are strongly recommending that women limit Tylenol use during pregnancy unless medically necessary. That’s, for instance, in cases of extremely high fever..." - Donald Trump
WTF are you upset about? That Trump said something you agree with?
“There are lots of drugs thst women who are pregnant, or trying to become pregnant should not take. Thalidomide comes to mind, for instance. If you can’t take Tylenol, take Aleve.”
NOOOO, don’t take Aleve. It’s an antiinflammatory.
“Risks of Aleve (Naproxen) during Pregnancy
Premature closure of a fetal heart vessel: This can lead to serious complications for the baby's circulation and overall health.
Low amniotic fluid: NSAIDs can cause the fetus to have kidney problems, resulting in insufficient amniotic fluid.
Increased risk of congenital defects: There is some evidence suggesting a potential link between first-trimester NSAID use and congenital defects.”
Inga:
As I said several days ago, I would caution by daughters and loved ones who are pregnant to avoid taking Tylenol to be EXTRA cautious, but IF you have to, use only sparingly and for as short a time as possible.
It sounds like we pretty much all agree here. There is some serious evidence there may be a link, so be careful.
What I object to is the hyper hysteria of the anti-Trump people. That's what makes me think a significant chunk of it is driven by institutionally sponsored talking point conduits.
Mason G:
I have many, many criticisms of Trump and he often, OFTEN, says ridiculous and unbelievable things.
But, in this case, his actions are based on serious evidence.
I suspect he is intentionally playing this up because he wants to please JFK Jr. and people like him, but doesn't want to go out on a limb for JFK Jr.'s sillier ideas.
“Also, none of the discussion you cite says it has been proven that there is NO link between acetaminophen and NDDs.”
I mentioned waiting for BETTER studies, that weren’t likely biased. It’s silly to hook your wagon onto a paper because RFK Jr. cited it. The Harvard Study is problematic and very possibly biased.
Mason G
If you can't count on the press to at least try to present the full story, why would you listen to them at all?
Yeah I somewhat agree with that. I try to go beyond the headlines. But most Americans don't watch a full press conference [if they can even find it] and most news orgs will focus only on what the president says because most people will only really care what the president says. After all they voted for Trump and not for RFK Jr or Mehmet Oz or anyone else who spoke yesterday. So, his words do have more weight. But of course CNN and NYT will definitely looked for and highlight the juicy [exaggerated] quotes even though they are not the only thing that Trump says. It's not unfair to say that the press wants nuance from Trump but they aren't willing to report the same nuance.
So basically you are saying that because RFK Jr cited it, it's a bad study. That's your argument, your point about genetic predisposition is, as has been shown, a damp squib, the Swedish study, which you like to cherry pick, was included, including data relevant to genetic predisposition, which was part of the study, removing that data would have blinded the study to the signal they were seeking.
So all you have is the attribution fallacy. "RFK Jr cited it, so it mush be bad!"
"My point is ... I have chronic headaches. And I've never used Tylenol to combat them."
Not me, but some other fellow who's also not a doctor said maybe you ought to consider giving it a try.
The danger is grossly overstated.
So Inga agrees with Trump but thinks she should have said it instead of Trump. Got it.
" It's not unfair to say that the press wants nuance from Trump but they aren't willing to report the same nuance."
From where I sit, it looks like the press wants whatever they can get if it makes Trump look bad. And they'll make stuff up if they have to.
The studies Trump cited are inherently flawed. Women requiring pain relief in pregnancy are likely to be suffering from underlying ailments -- some of those cause risk to the baby not the acetaminophen itself (he mistakes correlation for causation). The best Swedish control study on this (sampled millions of children) established as much.
Trump's ignorant commentary on the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy was ugly for two main reasons:
1) It is not scientifically sound; and
2) It underscores the paternalism of Trump's views on what women should and shouldn't do.
I suspect that this is yet another example of Trump's uncanny ability to get himself into trouble because of "beliefs" and loyalty to lieutenants and constituents who helped to "bring him to the dance".
Oh- and... if you're getting your medical advice from the president, you're doing it wrong.
See: Joe Biden/clot shots
These anti-Trump pregnant women bragging about ingesting Tylenol are tempting fate. Statistically some of them will bear autistic children even if Tylenol use played no role. Will they be able to persuade themselves that their use of Tylenol as a political stunt had nothing to do with their child being autistic? Somehow I doubt it.
@Inga, thank you for your comment at 6:34. I should have checked before my snarky remark.
’I seem to recall that you've done an impressive amount of direct field research on the issue...’
Only in the interest of science, bb. ;)
Believing Trump and RFK Jr. is like going to this comment section for qualified medical advice. I guess it's on the internet so it must be true.
Inga references a judge. A JUDGE! Judges have as much credibility as scientists during COVID and FBI agents during the Biden administration.
In this house, we believe in Science, Beasts ;^)
"If you can’t take Tylenol, take Aleve."
That's an NSAID. Already contraindicated.
The most important thing is that women should now be aware of this risk. Though you can't really count on your doctor for the best advice.
I developed knee pain from a 40 yr old injury a few years back. I had to take two Tylenol every night and this concerned me. I avoided NSAIDs to limit stress on my kidneys since they are busy day and night producing stones. I asked my doctor and he just waved off any concerns.
In the end I went carnivore from keto in my diet and cut out the broccoli I was eating and the pain went away. If I slip in my diet, I can sense the inflammation returning and go strict for a while.
Really the solution is to try to find alternatives if you find yourself needing any drug frequently.
Inga:
I wanted to back off a bit on my above comments. To be fair:
1. It is entirely possible that there is little or no causal link between acetaminophen and NDDs. The evidence is mixed and this type of study is difficult.
2. It is entirely possible that the Harvard paper is an attempt to counter the Swedish study for litigation purposes by mixing it in with other papers. It is possible that the Swedish study's size should be given more weight despite its dramatic under-reporting of acetaminophen use.
2a. A better attack on the Harvard paper might be to criticize the journal it was published in. I don't recognize it, although I also don't know it to be a bad journal.
3. I give JFK Jr. zero credibility since I watched him argue a link between vaccines and autism. In fact, he convinced me of the opposite because his argument was so weak.
4. It is entirely possible Trump is sensationalizing this whole thing because that's what he does. OTOH, sensationalism is pretty much what most politicians do today.
5. OTOH the opposition is being highly sensational as well and scandalously distorts the discussion. We have often seen this dynamic.
Not me, but some other fellow who's also not a doctor said maybe you ought to consider giving it a try.
The danger is grossly overstated.
I don't take acetaminophen because it's dangerous.
It just never worked for me.
Besides, my liver's too busy processing other poisons. :)
In the end the Lefties here agree with the substance of Trump’s announcement but are mad as hell Trump made it and hate the president’s word selection. All else above is kerfuffle and argument signifying nothing.
I don't know if anybody has referenced this but Lesile Eastman at Legal Insurrection has a post with a lot of commentary about how acetaminophen use during pregnancy has been discouraged for over a decade and has been linked with numerous possible bad outcomes (scroll past the pregnant AWFLs binging Tylenol to own Trump). The makers of Tylenol themselves discourage use during pregnancy due to lack of information on possible issues.
Nobody should take a known endocrine disrupter like Aleve before they have reached sexual maturity, this goes double for exposing an unborn child to it. You can draw your own conclusions regarding the introduction of "children's Motrin" and cultural events over the past couple decades.
I looked at the bottle of Tylenol in my medicine cabinet. It said that pregnant women should consult their doctor before using.
It didn’t say “take them like tic tacs because you hate Donald Trump”
I swear if Trump said don’t drink your own piss, lefties would be walking around with mountain dews bottles filled with something other than Mountain Dew.
I’m wondering if this is true. This is not the only report of something like this happening: woman, pregnant, took Tylenol to prove Trump wrong, on life support now.
https://x.com/nicolesirotek/status/1970829211737997532?s=46
Imagine having a doctor that knows the evidence and would recommend against taking Tylenol, but instead told you just the opposite because he doesn't like Trump. That's the doctor in whose hands some people want to put the life of their child, so they can take a drug risk that 99.9% of all the mothers in history didn't use to get through pregnancy, and 100% didn't need. I don't even understand why their is a controversy. Well, yea, I know why, but it's ridiculous.
Bumble Bee
Tylenol is all I CAN take.
No alcohol
No fun drugs
No red meat
No processed meat
No shellfish-all the good ones.
No salty snacks
No carbs-this ones self inflicted.
And yet every day I wake up with a happy can do attitude and do my very best not to bludgeon someone to death.
Trump orders armed, masked Nation Guard members to every outlet that sells Tylenol. Visible signs or not, every purchaser will require a definitive DNA test for XX or XY chromosomes. Those with evidence they are biological women will be required to take a pregnancy test. Age of the biological women will NOT be considered in this process. Those found to be pregnant will NOT be able to purchase Tylenol. They will also be required to prove US citizenship to eliminate anchor babies. /continued
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.