Comment by anonymousiam

14 hours ago

This paper says there are no adverse effects to the mother, but it does not mention possible adverse effects to the child beyond "birth health" and does not address the recent controversy about a possible link to autism.

Why would it need to? There is no medical controversy.

There’s only a weak and now discounted statistical association that was seized upon by two disgraceful anti-science politicians to create a political controversy.

  • >Why would it need to?

    Because that is what everyone (I mean, not if you are pharma) is interested in...

  • I can't figure it out. What is the actual reason they knowingly LIED about it?

    Some personal grievance against Tylenol brand?

    More graft from a competitor?

    Appease their conspiracy loving dumbass base?

    Destroy the scientific reputation of the US?

    Trump is actually that fucking stupid?

    All of the above?

    • They promised to find a reason. My best guess is that they picked a generic drug that is only a painkiller to blame in order to blunt any possible lawsuit. But it’s equally possible that RFK Hr, who is weird, fully evil and profoundly dangerous, actually believes it.

    • This is just how authoritarian governments operate. It’s not some Machiavellian set of dominos. It’s more of a test of loyalty to The Administration than anything else.

    • I am not sure, but the claim was that there is some date based correlation when this drug started being used, and rise of some health issues kids...

    • I don’t think they’re lying. They probably honestly think they are correct.

      They actively reject the values of intellectualism, critical thinking, and expert consensus. They instead embrace empiricism, loyalty, and the great man theory.

      It’s a recipe for severe Dunning-Kruger.