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 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.
> don't let morons take over your party
Oops for sure. Like if someone says school closures won't have an effect on infection rates, not only will you not be believed, you'll be "anti-science", whatever that means.
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...
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?
The charitable interpretation is that it is simply a more sensitive and accurate way to say that.
It puts aside all the big is beautiful and similar takes and points to the fact that many American kids, especially those in certain parts of the country are now afflicted with metabolic syndrome (which is closely associated with mitochondrial disfunction). It is well-known that overloading mitochondria with sugar is quite bad for them and a key contributor to type 2 diabetes.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10036395/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428560/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4408906/
Have you heard the term “sanewashing”? I don’t think the principle of charity requires us to replace false things he did say with thematically similar things that might have been reasonable. It’s like “explaining” that a crystal healer is just referring to the stress reduction benefits of aesthetically pleasing knickknacks.
My take is that overall he's right. The obesity epidemic should be our primary heath focus. Heart disease and obesity are the primary killers of americans.
You can in fact determine a huge percentage of americans including children are incredibly unhealthy just by looking. Increased focus on exercise and negative incentives on soft drinks and sugary beverages does seem like a major step in the right direction.
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.
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?
That's how he got where he is today.
Same reason he's anti-fish.
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
[dead]
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.
> 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".
> 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?
You don't get a 100x increase in a lifetime by using a genetic explanation, sorry
> 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.
Isn't the baseline risk for autism 1 in 30 presently?