5 ms·

I don't know whether this is a truly serious paper or can be filed under "Spurious Correlations"[0] - paracetamol is widely enough used that links to the mentio

I don't know whether this is a truly serious paper or can be filed under "Spurious Correlations"[0] - paracetamol is widely enough used that links to the mentioned "issues" could be tenuous at best. [0]: https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Zpalmtree 5y ago
Paracetamol is widely used so any attempts to investigate its safety aren't 'truly serious'? This is really strange, closed minded thinking.
flarg 5y ago
It is possible that lifestyle and other factors lead to both the negative outcomes in the article, and by general pain and fever that require paracetamol. The animal studies, if verified, may be more concerning.
rewma 5y ago
> I don't know whether this is a truly serious paper or can be filed under "Spurious Correlations"[0] I don't understand what leads you to believe that a paper that can be filed under "spurious correlation" could be automatically discarded as not being serious. One of the purposes of scientific articles is to report interesting findings to peers, which serve as food for thought. By definition, the state of the art of any field is perpetually in a "work in progress" stage, and researchers feed off each other's work to progress. This paper reports an observation. Like all similar papers, now the community is free to look into it and bring some clarity to the topic. This is how progress is achieved.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  I think the issue comes when results are reported and consumers try to use those results to determine which behaviors are risky. We all try to stay on top of "the latest science" but are results like this really actionable by consumers?
  - rewma 5y ago
    > I think the issue comes when results are reported and consumers try to use those results to determine which behaviors are risky. Well, consumers are doing it completely wrong if they're looking up to papers as established and definite references regarding scientific findings. Papers do not define reality, at most they only describe the author's perception of reality give their circumstances and current understanding, and reflecting the current state of the art. Thus observations might be off, but still interesting enough to spark further work to build up knowledge and clarify misconceptions. It's like the parable about the blind men and an elephant[¹]. We might have an academic paper describing a novel species of trees that have a strong correlation with snakes, and consumers would be using that paper to justify shooting at treetops just to be sure they aren't attacked by a snake. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
Lutger 5y ago
It's published in nature, you can be sure it's pretty serious. That doesn't mean it 100% establishes a causal relationship. Generally science is more nuanced and it's best not to negate its findings with the 'correlation is not causation' trope. That is something I guess everyone learns in their first year at university, you can assume peer reviewed scientific work is created by people who got the memo.
- rscho 5y ago
  > It's published in nature, you can be sure it's pretty serious Haha. No. (MD with 15y experience in clinical research)
bananabiscuit 5y ago
My initial reaction was similar: “everyone uses Tylenol, if there was something really that bad about it, we would have seen it more”. But then someone pointed out that we have much more ADHD today than in the past and that does coincide with the more casual use of Tylenol starting in the 70s and 80s, so maybe we really are seeing the bad effects of Tylenol use during pregnancy after all.

Zpalmtree 5y ago

Paracetamol is widely used so any attempts to investigate its safety aren't 'truly serious'? This is really strange, closed minded thinking.

flarg 5y ago

It is possible that lifestyle and other factors lead to both the negative outcomes in the article, and by general pain and fever that require paracetamol. The animal studies, if verified, may be more concerning.

rewma 5y ago

> I don't know whether this is a truly serious paper or can be filed under "Spurious Correlations"[0] I don't understand what leads you to believe that a paper that can be filed under "spurious correlation" could be automatically discarded as not being serious. One of the purposes of scientific articles is to report interesting findings to peers, which serve as food for thought. By definition, the state of the art of any field is perpetually in a "work in progress" stage, and researchers feed off each other's work to progress. This paper reports an observation. Like all similar papers, now the community is free to look into it and bring some clarity to the topic. This is how progress is achieved.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
I think the issue comes when results are reported and consumers try to use those results to determine which behaviors are risky. We all try to stay on top of "the latest science" but are results like this really actionable by consumers?
- rewma 5y ago
  > I think the issue comes when results are reported and consumers try to use those results to determine which behaviors are risky. Well, consumers are doing it completely wrong if they're looking up to papers as established and definite references regarding scientific findings. Papers do not define reality, at most they only describe the author's perception of reality give their circumstances and current understanding, and reflecting the current state of the art. Thus observations might be off, but still interesting enough to spark further work to build up knowledge and clarify misconceptions. It's like the parable about the blind men and an elephant[¹]. We might have an academic paper describing a novel species of trees that have a strong correlation with snakes, and consumers would be using that paper to justify shooting at treetops just to be sure they aren't attacked by a snake. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

Lutger 5y ago

It's published in nature, you can be sure it's pretty serious. That doesn't mean it 100% establishes a causal relationship. Generally science is more nuanced and it's best not to negate its findings with the 'correlation is not causation' trope. That is something I guess everyone learns in their first year at university, you can assume peer reviewed scientific work is created by people who got the memo.

rscho 5y ago
> It's published in nature, you can be sure it's pretty serious Haha. No. (MD with 15y experience in clinical research)

bananabiscuit 5y ago

My initial reaction was similar: “everyone uses Tylenol, if there was something really that bad about it, we would have seen it more”. But then someone pointed out that we have much more ADHD today than in the past and that does coincide with the more casual use of Tylenol starting in the 70s and 80s, so maybe we really are seeing the bad effects of Tylenol use during pregnancy after all.