You must log in or # to comment.
Tylenol is a brand. Acetominophen was created in 1878 (or 1852, depending on who you ask).
e: That doesn’t make RFKJr not wrong and insane, in case it needed saying.
Over half of Americans read at a 6th-grade level or lower and our President speaks at a 4th-grade level. How many you suppose know Tylenol and acetaminophen are the same thing?
Just wait till they hear what big pharma is doing with paracetamol
I could totally see acetaminophen makers rebranding with a “new” paracetamol
lol my guess is like 70% of people in the us don’t know what acetaminophen or paracetamol are, so Tylenol could just come out with Lonelyt Extra Stength and bam, sales
Ah!
There’s dihydrogen monoxide in my drinking water!
Ahhhhh!
It’s on the box.
Look at the elitist over here that knows how to read : P
I never learned and you can’t make me.
Wasn’t ibuprofen what they were blaming? Or did they switch to acetaminophen?
Edit: just saw the Trump clip, now it’s acetaminophen’s fault, lmao. Funny how it’s something that’s actually safe to take for pain during pregnancy, because of course they can never pass up a chance at making women suffer
I only ever saw Tylenol.
Not to mention, this doesnt prove tylenol doesnt cause cancer, it just proves that tylenol isnt the only cause of cancer.
Obv it doesnt, but this argument is just bad.
you fucked the argument lol
He is absolutely insane
Listen I know the RFK claim is nonsense but that doesn’t excuse faulty logic. This is like saying cancer existed before X so X can’t be a carcinogen.
Careful! Cancer was around before cigarettes or dioxin. Not that I don’t think RFK is full of shit, but sometimes it’s best to ignore bad arguments when there are so many good ones to be made.
puts on logic glasses
Oh look, another brilliant mind discovered that autism was identified before Tylenol existed, so obviously Tylenol can’t cause autism. That’s like saying cancer existed before radiation therapy, therefore radiation can’t cause cancer. Peak necessity/sufficiency confusion right here - apparently conditions can only have one cause and medical recognition equals temporal origin.
But hey, let’s ignore that Swedish study of 2.5 million kids that found zero causal link when they actually controlled for confounding variables using sibling comparisons. Or those other high-quality studies that show the association completely disappears once you account for genetics and family environment. Who needs actual science when you have timeline gotchas?
Meanwhile pregnant women might avoid the safest pain reliever available because some politician decided to manufacture outrage for political points. But at least someone gets to feel intellectually superior about their logical fallacy meme.
🐱
You’re not wrong. But my guess is that “autism predates Tylenol” is probably gonna convince more people than “large controlled study done by the Swiss”. People are generally really ignorant
How on earth is that a thing? Do Americans just read the first two letters of a name and then give up?
I mean, as an Austrian I get the confusion between Austria and AustrALia (emphasis added so that Americans can also see it), but SwEDEN vs SwISS is just wild.
I knew someone who lived in Switzerland. Switzerland isn’t part of the EU, Sweden is. That meant that a lot of online shopping sites for EU residents would ship to Sweden but not Switzerland. So, he would ship to his address, but in Sweden. The nice folks in Sweden would say “gosh, another person once again confused Sweden and Switzerland” and forward the shipment to Switzerland, and he’d get his stuff.
G’day mate. Put another shrimp on the barbie
Am I doing this right?
Hmm, i don’t like your tone, but you are correct. ASD has a heritability greater than 80% which is higher than blood pressure and the same as human height. It’s a genetic disorder.
Also, when was it necessary to differentiate ASD from schizophrenia? The age of onset of schizophrenia is around 18-21 and autism is present practically from birth (apparent 1-3 years). I think OP is wrongly interpreting the Kraepelinian dichotomy which is about bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.
@meowmeowbeanz@sopuli.xyz is totally right. The meme is based on a wrong premise.
It claims that Autism was a known thing in 1911 (true), and that Tylenol was created in 1955 (misleading since the active ingredient, Paracetamol was created in 1878 and was in wide use before the brand Tylenol was created). Then it implies that the argument is that Tylenol is the only cause of Autism and then poses that as a contradiction.
Logically, that’s like claiming that some People died in 1700, and that the Ford Model T was only created in 1908 and then claiming that thus it’s nonsense that cars can kill people.
On the one hand it ignores that the active ingredient of the medication was in use far earlier than that one random brand showing up, and on the other hand it claims that the argument with Tylenol and Autism is that every single case of Autism happens due to Tylenol, which pretty much nobody is claiming.
So the meme is just wrong on many levels.
So instead of making up and disproving a lie, why not use actual science? There’s overwhelming scientific evidence that Paracetamol has no effect on Autism.
One might say that this doesn’t really sway those who choose to ignore science in favour of their own gut feelings, but on the other hand, does a fallacious lie sway them?
I think we can agree the meme is terrible and misleading.
Paracetamol predates autism, the meme is wrong. It refers to a random brand, not the substance
There’s a 100% correlation between a child coming into direct physical contact with their family doctor and that same child later being diagnosed with autism. Show me an example where this was not the case. Family doctors are sporing autismomes like a tickled mushroom and no one is talking about it.
Not true! YOU just talked about it.
And now I am taking about it… holy shit, it’s spreading!
Delectable comment. I enjoyed every word.
Paracetamol was first made in the 1800’s though.
Or are they just blaming a certain brand?
Direct from Wikipedia
Paracetamol was first made in 1878 by Harmon Northrop Morse or possibly in 1852 by Charles Frédéric Gerhardt.
The left has misinformation too. Science is on our side; there’s no reason to propagate this shit.
It’s a brand thing, obviously.
It’s always about money.
Wonder what the announcement will be? Wonder which drug they’ll push and which of Trumps cronies will own the pharma company
Dr Oz as another poster said on another post.
The argument would be that autism is on the rise, not that it’s a new thing. I’m assuming this crowd understands the “rise” is from finer-tuned diagnoses. Hell, there may be another factor, but money says it ain’t Tylenol.
Literally no Americans know what paracetamol is. Randomly ask anyone.
Americans know brand names: Tylenol, Advil, Prilosec, Ambien.
I’ll bet you could survey Americans and 999/1000 have never even have heard the word paracetamol. Or zolpidem, and slightly less often, omeprazole (though that one may be increasing due to the general state of things and subsequent need for prescriptions). Most won’t have heard anything but the brand names, and the brand names have been drilled into their heads by way of constant advertising.
US brands have spend stupid amounts of money making sure people think of their propriety name instead of the real name of any drug.
Americans know “paracetamol” about as well as you apparently know “acetaminophen”.
They are the same compound.
“Paracetamol” is the generic term used in Europe and Australia. “Acetaminophen” is the generic term commonly used in the Americas.
Americans barely know ‘acetaminophen’ , too. Some, sure. Most know Tylenol.
Both are slightly less clunky words created from the corpse of “N-acetyl-para-aminophenol”
“Acetaminophen” takes the “acet” from “acetyl” and “aminophen” from “aminophenol”.
“Paracetamol” takes the “para” part, and then a few other random letters that don’t really make sence. “cet” from “acetyl”, and maybe “am” from the start of “amphenol” with the “ol” ending from the same word, ignoring that it ends in “nol”?
Paracetamol" takes the “para” part, and then a few other random letters that don’t really make sence.
Because it actually comes from a different chemical name for the same compound: para-acetylaminophenol
Whichever version you use, it doesn’t really make sense. The para part, sure. But “cetamol”? I guess you can can smush two of the words together and go from “para-acet” to “paracet”. But, the “amol” ending? It seems to be borrowing the “am” from amino, and the “ol” from the end. But, that’s a weird set of letters to borrow, and weird to not borrow the full “amin” from amino and not borrow the full “enol” from phenol.
I know several Americans who know what paracetamol is. Not sure it’s as rare as you think.
Nobody would’ve heard paracetamol, but you’d probably get some hits with acetaminophen. Not a lot, to be clear, but some.
I know almost all my meds by the generic names because I’m broke and that’s what the pharmacy will give me. Ibuprofen, levothyroxine, etc. Alprazolam.
I most certainly do because I’ve traveled a shit ton
I’m not ‘lumping all Americans’.
I’ve lived here for decades. I’m quite solidly informed.
There is some data to suggest there may be a link.
However. The data is very limited. Mt sinai did a meta of 46 studies and found a link (not necessarily causal). A Swedish population study of like 2.5 million children found no link. Etc.
The modest increase that could exist is unclear and confounded. Is it Tylenol or is something that the Tylenol is being taken for? Eg if the mom is having frequent headaches or fevers is the underlying condition impacting development and making it look like Tylenol does?
But why?
Two big answers:
Kenvue (Tylenol manufacturer) is not exactly a “pharmaceutical giant”. They’re a much easier target for rfk to go after with much less in terms of resources. They absolutely will sue though and appear to be preparing to do so though. But going after vaccines (his big target), especially stuff like Covid vaccines, means going after real pharmaceutical giants. Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, etc. deeeeeep pockets and serious legal teams. This may be a fight he feels he can “win” to start gaining momentum and precedent.
IMO the bigger reason is political capital. He has a large following of desperate parents that want an answer for why their child has autism or intellectual disability. I know a lot of people on here are like “autism is a superpower” and that’s great but these people are stuck in the disability mindset. It’s also important to remember that autism is a broad spectrum. Some of these parents have children that are nonverbal, that can’t toilet or shower independently, that get extremely violent when frustrated, that need 24/7 assistance and will never live independently. Of course some of them are just frustrated that their otherwise fine kid isn’t “normal” enough but that’s a whole other frustrating thing.
They’re desperate for answers. The reality of the situation is that there isn’t a simple answer. The overwhelming evidence suggests a combination of factors: genetics, environmental, social and behavioral. But this is unsatisfying. I’ve worked with people on this for years and when you say “it’s probably a combination of factors” they are never happy with that. They want something to blame. This is the political capital. He is giving them that. Basically everyone has taken Tylenol within the past year. Most pregnant women will take Tylenol at some point for discomfort, pain, fever, etc.
Now they will not only have the answer to “what did this”, they will have him as a person to hold up as the savior who gave them the answer. I saw the same thing happen when I started around 2010. Even though it was years after it happened people still attached to Wakefield and were so grateful he gave them the explanation that it was the MMR vaccine. They’d “protect their other children” as a result by not vaccinating them. Didn’t matter if you pointed out Wakefields proven financial links to an alternative MMR vaccine, the retraction of the paper, him getting his medical license revoked, etc. That’s how desperate they are for answers. FWIW Wakefield is still super rich and got married to literal supermodels so that’s why he doubled down and probably a major factor in why rfk is doing the same
Do you have any idea how common it is to give people, even kids, Tylenol?
I’m not looking up their meta, but I suspect it’s as informative as the meta that shows a “link” between autism and vaccines.
Might as well investigate a link between Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches or wearing clothes.
Yes, I touched upon this towards the end of my (admittedly lengthy) post. Also, it’s not “their” meta. It’s a meta done by mt Sinai and Harvard (eg done with rigor) which openly admits the link cannot be established as causal because, as stated, there are many confounding factors to consider
it’s a bad argument, but the people claiming that Tylenol causes autism aren’t using logic to make their claim either.
The logic of the ‘meme’ is just bad. Something being identified before something else does not mean the second thing cannot create the first.
Cancer existed before cigarettes, yet cigarettes still cause cancer. Using this ‘meme’s’ logic, “anyone trying to tell you that cigarettes cause cancers is entirely full of crap”.
This is another dumb take. Cigarettes don’t cause cancer, they increase cancer risk.
RFK is claiming he knows the cause of Autism not something that can increases its risks.
The logic of this meme is sound.
This is giving some strong “bullets don’t kill people, it’s the blood loss and organ damage” and I don’t like it.
Hey, I know reading comprehension may not be your thing and this is certainly not my fight. I will break it down one more time for clarity.
RFK claims it CAUSES Autism. He does not claim merely it increases the risk.
This meme stated quite logically that if it is the cause of Autism and Autism existed before the medication use was widespread, then clearly it does not cause Autism.
Obviously it does not cause Autism, in fact I doubt it is even a risk factor for it. This is pseudo science bullshit that is being used to sell made up “treatments”.
Frankly, people that are having a hard time with this are playing devil’s advocate, misinformed, or are MAHA.
So what part of this are you not “getting”
Hey, reading comprehension isn’t an issue. Not gonna read past that though since you started out by stating that you’re a massive douchebag. Probably just kept hammering that home, anyway.
Yeah, just going to block you now.
You know how cigarettes increase cancer risk? They do it by causing cancer
We are here talking about RFK’s insistence that Tylenol causes Autism.
Cigarettes don’t cause cancer as many people who smoke never get cancer. They do increase the risk of developing it though.
Once again though, we are not talking about increased risk and nor is RFK.
I can assure you I take smoking cigarettes seriously. In fact, I helped lobby to end smoking in bars and restaurants in my town and I was successful in doing so.
Just because something already exists, doesn’t mean it can’t be also caused by something else. Like canser. It already exists. But smoking can cause it too.
Next to that, it’s paracetamol. It predates the discovery/naming of autism. It’s already proven not to be the cause by other studies. Of course these studies could have been wrong, but I highly doubt that.
So this statement is incorrect. Doesn’t change the fact that I don’t believe a word of either Trump or RFK. I still believe science and I still don’t believe pseudoscience.
There’s proof it’s NOT caused by paracetamol? Pretty sure that’s not how science works. You’d have to say there’s no evidence it’s caused by paracetamol
You actually believe their bullshit 😂 fucken sheep
See the other comments. Someone linked to the studies stating there was no link found.
Finding no link isn’t proof that no link exists. Only that none has been found. It’s evidence, not proof.
That’s how science works in general. Stuff is proven until proven otherwise.
I just don’t believe the pseudoscience claims from RFK or Trump.
Their announcement is bullshit for sure. There’s no evidence to support their claims, and lots to support the contrary.
Yeah but that’s the thing nowadays: there’s an attack on facts, proof and science in general. It’s all about feelings and the loudness of the biggest screamers (populist politicians and extremist influencers). Scientists and fact checkers are portrayed as dumb, incompetent, terrorists, etc. These arguments are the weakest possible in a discussion but somehow people just follow these idiots and reject science and facts.
The same happened when the church felt threatened by science during the discovery of the round earth traveling around the sun. The general public was riled up against science, even forcing academia to practice in secret.
Where is the proof that you don’t fuck goats?
That settles it, then. Obviously, autism was caused by time travel.
Til autism was once understood as being the same as schizophrenia.
Quite interesting how the concept of neurodivergence is almost doing the opposite with respect to individuals who overlap on multiple neurological labels. Except it celebrates the individual uniqueness of their mind, needs, strenghts and challenges rather then generalising to find the one pill to sell to all.
I am autistic and I can understand it. When stressed, autistic people can exhibit disordered thinking or just naturally pick up on relationships and patterns that neurotypical people do not. We can also have the appearance of unpredictable volatility when facing things like burnout or abuse.
Especially in an era where mental health treatment was really just sending you you to a prison.
Not to defend RFK, but this argument is dumb.
People from everywhere it doesn’t natively grow developed cancer long before they had access to tobacco. That doesn’t prove tobacco use doesn’t cause cancer, it just means it isn’t the only potential cause.
That’s because cancer is a category of diseases, not a single one. Specific types of cancer that are caused by smoking are caused by smoking (there is afaik 12 of those, and some are associated with prolonged inhalation of any smoke, and some are only tabaco-related, but it doesn’t matter)
Are there any cancers that were found to be “caused by smoking” before 2003?
Of those, are there any that have subsequently also been found to be “caused by” vaping (such as the tobacco-related ones)?
If so, then it means vaping is indeed a cause (as opposed to the singular cause) of those cancers even though they were around before vaping was invented (in 2003).
That’s why this meme is bad.
If you focus on nicotine specifically, nicotine causes specific type of cancer. Change in the delivery mechanism would cause fluctuations in dosage, but it doesn’t matter in this case (we ignore other types of cancer not to bog down the analogy).
If one would argue that Tylenol causes autism, two things should be shown, the delivery mechanism of Tylenol before it was invented/isolated, to explain pre-Tylenol cases of autism, and/or specific uptick in autism when it was started to be used as medication.
It’s possible that the meme is good you just didn’t get it.
The point is, the claim is that Tylenol is “linked to” autism.
This post is rebutting the claim that Tylenol “causes” autism.
Thats a classic straw man argument.
No, the post is claiming that because Tylenol was discovered after autism, it can’t be a cause of it. That’s flawed logic: it’s true that autism must also have some other cause, but it’s very possible in principle for things to have multiple causes, so the timeline argument proves nothing.
That’s not to say that Dipshit McBrainworm’s claim has any sort of merit whatsoever, mind you. It’s just that this argument is defective.
Also I’m pretty sure paracetamol has been around for about 150 years or more.
Oh he also recently ate thermal paper/reciept because it was healthy on an article today. hes also associated epstein too.
