9 ms·

The Poison Pill to End the MMR Is Tylenol

109 points by us-merul 1y ago

zeristor 1y ago
Tylenol Is paracetamol, apparently if you were perplexed like me.
- guhcampos 1y ago
  AKA Acetaminophen, depending on the country.
- chrisBob 1y ago
  I spent some time in Germany last year and I couldn't believe that the chemical name is somehow different between Europe and the US.
  - rich_sasha 1y ago
    I believe paracetamol and Tylenol are brand names.
    - ponector 1y ago
      Not really, paracetamol is international name of chemical compound.
      - SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
        No, N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)acetamide is the IUPAC name. Paracetamol & acetaminophen are "generic" names for it when used as a drug. Tylenol, Panadol, and quite a few other brand names are used worldwide¹. The International Chemical Identifier is InChI=1S/C8H9NO2/c1-6(10)9-7-2-4-8(11)5-3-7/h2-5,11H,1H3,(H,9,10). ¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paracetamol_brand_names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paracetamol_brand_name...
  - SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
    There are essentially 4 layers of naming: First you've got names that describe the structure in some detail, like the International Chemical Identifier (InChI) & SMILES. For paracetamol, the InChI is `InChI=1S/C8H9NO2/c1-6(10)9-7-2-4-8(11)5-3-7/h2-5,11H,1H3,(H,9,10)`. One level up is the IUPAC name, a systematic name for a compound which is less descriptive than the InChI but still generally allows determining the structure of that compound. For paracetamol, that's N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)acetamide. Next up you've got generic names for drugs. Different countries have different systems for naming generics, but they're usually designed to give some hint as to the sort of drug it is. E.g. drugs with generic names ending in "-vir" are antivirals. Most names are standardized in the International Nonproprietary Name system¹ but some drugs (particularly older ones) have different generic names in different countries. Last up you've got the brand names. These will often vary quite a lot & tell you nothing about the drug. The INN wikipedia article¹ actually uses paracetamol/acetaminophen as the example for comparing various national naming standards. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nonproprietary_name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nonproprietary_n...
boplicity 1y ago
How many WTF moments do we need from our president before he loses support from 90% of Americans? Do people just not care? Or do they really believe the lies and crazy justifications? Or maybe they think it's worth the tradeoff? I worry for our future. As it stands, it is looking to be very, very bleak.
- nemomarx 1y ago
  Do you think most people actually hear his speeches directly or know these things? I'm sure when it's chopped up in the right sound bites it's fine.
  - turkishdelight 1y ago
    I mostly know Trump through news sites like AP and Reuters. I heard one of his speeches after a flight accident early in his term though and he was blaming retards and amputee midgets for the collisions. Didn't see any mention of that in the news.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      The sanewashing is pretty bad. The headline probably reduced it to "Trump speaks out on aviation safety".
    - tzs 1y ago
      He was blaming it on DEI, and listed some of the groups he claimed were hired via DEI programs for air traffic control. Most mainstream news covered him blaming DEI and and most mentioned specifically people with disabilities. Many didn't go into the laundry list of specific disabilities Trump mentioned.
  - baby_souffle 1y ago
    > Do you think most people actually hear his speeches directly or know these things? I'm sure when it's chopped up in the right sound bites it's fine. Exactly this. We no longer have a grand total of 3 TV channels; it's a conscious choice to tune to fox news and consume that rage-bate-as-a-distraction. As long as it's profitable to offer up "bespoke" views of the world to individuals, there's next to no hope of those individuals being able to galvanize under a common and shared set of facts and that's a per-requistie for any sort of mass protest/change.
adolph 1y ago
I didn’t think President Donald Trump could possibly beat the infamous “inject bleach” press conference from 2020 for unhinged insanity You know a claim about Trump is insanely wrong when Snopes debunks it. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-inject-bleach-covid-19/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-inject-bleach-covid-...
- j4coh 1y ago
  He only said we should look into injecting disinfectants to cure Covid, not to actually do it. The full quote is a bit incoherent it’s hard to say what he was actually thinking - the one thing we can probably all agree on is it would do a tremendous number on your lungs if you injected disinfectant into them: THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that too. It sounds interesting. ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We'll get to the right folks who could. THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - seeEllArr 1y ago
    [dead]
  - bloomingeek 1y ago
    Whether you're defending THE PRESIDENT or not, I can't tell. But what sane person in that powerful position, when the whole nation is troubled about what's really factual, hint/say something this incredibly stupid?
storus 1y ago
"Tylenol, or acetaminophen, can cause liver damage if taken in excessive amounts, particularly over 4,000 mg in a 24-hour period. It is the leading cause of acute liver failure in the United States, often due to accidental overdoses from multiple medications containing acetaminophen." Doesn't sound super safe for kids who have small livers given the typical dose is 500mg to be honest.
- etchalon 1y ago
  The safe dose size for kids is well-known and well-studied.
  - storus 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - boplicity 1y ago
      It is literally printed on every bottle. "Regular rural folks" are not idiots.
    - tartuffe78 1y ago
      It’s on the bottles
    - saulpw 1y ago
      It's sold as a different product with different dosage.
    - Jtsummers 1y ago
      > How many Americans know about those limits though? Imagine regular rural folks Does "rural" equate to "stupid" and "illiterate" in your mind? It's on the packaging, among other sources of information they have access to.
    - etchalon 1y ago
      No one knows those off-hand. That's why they print it on the bottle. That's why we have regulations that require dosages to be printed on the bottles. This is how every medicine works.
bruce511 1y ago
This falls into the endless list of "remember you voted for this". With the ever present caveat that, no, clearly not everyone did, but he got more votes than anyone else. And it's not like this is a surprise. He campaigned with RFK. Kennedy's views on vaccines are well known. Trumps ability to do "medical" was amply demonstrated in his first term. This is exactly what he campaigned on, and exactly what voters were presumably hoping for. They looked at the options and said, "yeah, let's have some more of this".
- timmg 1y ago
  > This falls into the endless list of "remember you voted for this". I think, to be fair, there are only two parties. You can only vote for one "package" of policies. Maybe you are a one-issue voter or maybe you weigh all the different positions of the candidates to find the one who aligns most with you. I don't think it is accurate to say that all the people who voted for Trump approve of any individual policies -- like this one. So they are allowed to be as upset as anyone else about this stuff.
  - bruce511 1y ago
    I'll upvote you for at least laying out a coherent argument. But you're right. A lot of voters weighed the set of policies and decided that mass deportations, suspension of due process, tarifing imports to raise domestic prices, slashing federal agencies like the EPA and CDC, muzzling free speech at universities and on TV, grifting for personal gain at every opportunity, all of which was explicitly spoken about during the campaign, was ok to get their single-issue promoted. So yeah, lots of people voted for this. For all I know those same people think it's going just fine. Which brings us back to, "just remember, you voted for this."
    - timmg 1y ago
      I don't know, man. Did Biden voters vote for high inflation and open borders? Did they vote for 50% tariffs on solar panels? I was a Biden voter and I didn't.
artemonster 1y ago
Sorry for absolute tangential rant, but what the fuck is happening to our world. What is there actually to do besides quietly observe the insanity that is happening around? Prepare for things to get worse? Is there any other action that a normal citizen can take to actively make things better, besides the usual „go vote for X every Y years“?
- leetharris 1y ago
  Honestly, log off the internet and touch grass. Things have always been like this, and most things that happen are inconsequential to your average person. Like, who cares if he says Tylenol is bad for pregnant women? Just do whatever you want to do anyways.
  - us-merul 1y ago
    The point of the article addresses this. A directive on Tylenol like this then gives pretext to dramatically reduce vaccine access, which affects everyone.
  - guhcampos 1y ago
    Not really. Blaming Tylenol is actually a surprisingly harmless and almost a relief. Remember it used to be vaccines until a few days ago. Antivax sentiment is not inconsequential to the average person. Gun rights are not inconsequential to the average person. Women rights are not inconsequential to the average person. I get that some progressive arguments seem to be only relevant to particular audiences - "why should I care about trans rights if I'm not trans?" - but reality is these are a small portion of the actual discussions which take a disproportionate amount of atention from issues that do affect everyone.
- the__alchemist 1y ago
  Stop consuming news and social media.
  - xphos 1y ago
    How do you hold the world accountable if we just ignore reality? No how about we hold the world accountable
canadiantim 1y ago
[flagged]
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  I'm not sure I'm willing to take medical advice from him.
- pron 1y ago
  Yes, and they hate him so much that they've been doing that to spite him not just in America but all over the Western world, and started decades before Trump even went into politics! Universities and hospitals in France, UK, and Korea have been falsifying data for decades just to stick it to Trump. Look how deep this thing goes!
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
throwaway106382 1y ago
"We don't recommend using any of our products while pregnant" -- Tylenol Mar 7, 2017 https://x.com/tylenol/status/839196906702127106 https://x.com/tylenol/status/839196906702127106 > Medical experts urge caution over use of acetaminophen-based painkillers during pregnancy > Ingredient found in hundreds of pain-relief drugs, including Tylenol, may impact fetal development Sep 23, 2021 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/acetaminophen-pregnancy-risks-1.6187013 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/acetaminophen-pregnancy-risks...
- slightwinder 1y ago
  Is there any serious medication without this warning? I was under the impression they all have it, as they can't 100% rule out any kind of sideeffect, even if it wouldn't be harmful.
  - NaomiLehman 1y ago
    Acetaminophen likely prevents embryogenesis by limiting cell division No good studies but better safe than sorry that's why there's a label
- cloverich 1y ago
  > > Medical experts urge caution over use of acetaminophen-based painkillers during pregnancy > Ingredient found in hundreds of pain-relief drugs, including Tylenol, may impact fetal development Sep 23, 2021 That was a good callout to provide justification for further analyses, such as sibling studies[1] which in turn do not seem to support the association. The biggest issue with your link is that the reason's you would take Tylenol in pregnancy are themselves risk factors for the associated conditions. In general it's pretty complex, which is why we have e.g. medical experts to help us contextualize as opposed to sensationalize it. The biggest issue with most of these kinds of arguments is they aren't mad win bad faith. They start from e.g. wanting to support Trumps statements, and then source the links without context to justify it. Maybe that's not what this post is but it certainly feels like it. [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38592388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38592388/
int0x29 1y ago
And it's flagged. It is far to easy for organized fringe groups to control the narrative here by just killing anything they don't like.
- us-merul 1y ago
  I submitted this because I thought the article made insightful points about how an announcement like this can pave the way for downstream policy changes. I’m not trying to start a debate about the announcement itself.
  - xphos 1y ago
    there is nothing wrong with what you posted
- dang 1y ago
  If users didn't flag opinion pieces on hot divisive topics, HN's front page would consist of nothing but opinion pieces about hot divisive topics. As that would be an entirely different site, user flags are vital to preserving HN for its intended mandate. As I put it years ago, we need those white blood cells. If you want to call that an "organized fringe group trying to control the narrative", I suppose it's really just a different way of wording the same thing.´
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    When I look at /new and /active, where flagged topics are present, I definitely don't see them "consist of nothing but opinion pieces and hot divisive topics."
    - xphos 1y ago
      I didn't know this was a thing thank you so much
  - boplicity 1y ago
    Please keep in mind that making something a divisive topic is a specific and intentional strategy for suppressing speech.
JaKXz 1y ago
Why is this flagged
- wk_end 1y ago
  It shouldn't be. In the interest of playing Devil's Advocate - even though it's a fine article, I don't think it's promoted particularly good discussion. Partisan politics in general means that people just dig in their heels angrily rather than have good discussion, and the Trump administration - at risk of falling into my own trap here - is far enough away from conventional wisdom on many issues, including this one, in such a way that their decisions and discussions around them sort of inevitably become partisan.
  - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
    It's very very sad that vaccinating kids against dangerous diseases is controversial.
- incomingpain 1y ago
  im nobody, i cant speak for whoever/everyone who flagged it. i try to stay out of foreign politics, but ill reply trying to share my understanding. Probably going to regret trying to help. I'd say the article is extremely opininated and biased against primarily trump and rfk. the article is very far from neutrally reporting facts. extremely hyperbolic and alarmist; immediately visible in the title itself. emotionally charged and advocating for political action. Its full of personal attacks, trump is unhinged insane, incompetent, dangerous, and irrational? The article seems to be entirely rhetorical. There's no audience for it. The only people who will find use if it are those who dont need any convincing.
  - us-merul 1y ago
    I submitted the article. I agree that much of the language and style is one-sided and partisan. If I could tone that down, I would. I submitted it because the outlined logical consequences stood out to me that I hadn’t encountered elsewhere—- the announcement itself, regardless of its underlying merits, opens the path to reduce vaccine access for all. Another commenter here missed that point, thinking that people should just ignore what Trump says. The point is that what Trump says can be used to influence downstream policy in ways that might appear unexpected, but are certainly intentional.
daft_pink 1y ago
I think it’s more about allowing people the freedom to make their own medical decisions. I got the covid vaccine and setup appointments for everyone in my family to get the vaccine and I think not getting the vaccine is crazy, but that doesn’t mean I support the government forcing every person to get the vaccine. However, I think it’s a bit frustrating that by not approving the vaccines for Covid it is a lot harder for people to get these vaccines. Also, I think the idea that we have all this healthcare it’s super expensive yet people aren’t really getting healthier is a legitimate criticism of our system and that we do need a more holistic view on healthcare.
- us-merul 1y ago
  I agree! You make a good point about how regulatory power can shape consequences in either direction.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  Vaccines don't work on a "everybody makes their own choice" basis. It's a basic medical science fact that you need a large enough population to take them to make a difference, and for the people who legitimately cannot take a vaccine, it is in society's interest to help them stay safe and healthy by vaccinating most people. >Also, I think the idea that we have all this healthcare it’s super expensive yet people aren’t really getting healthier Americans don't "have all this healthcare". Americans avoid going to the doctors because they cannot afford it. Other countries pay dramatically less for healthcare and get better results. Even just prescriptions in the US is absurd. People aren't taking medicine they need because a pill or injection that was invented 60 years ago and costs less than a penny a dose is sold for hundreds of dollars a week.
  - daft_pink 1y ago
    >Vaccines don’t work on a “everybody makes their own choice” basis. In my experience they do work exactly that way, you take a vaccine and then you are far less likely to get the disease. It’s true that you cannot reach herd imunity or reduce the spread until you get a large enough population. I’m still think it’s a choice thing though. >A pill or injection that was invented 60 years ago and costs less than a penny a dose is sold for hundreds of dollar a week. Currently, I take 3 different generics popular generics that cost a few bucks a month. I could get it covered under my insurance, but I prefer to just pay cash without insurance to buy in larger quantities direct from Amazon as it works out to be about the same, but I don’t have to manage the inventory. I also take a semiglutide for weight loss, which costs thousands upon thousands a year that insurance brings down to $25 a month. But it wasn’t invented 60 years ago. Someday it will probably be available extremely cheap though. I think most senior citizens would agree that most common medications that make it on the generic list really don’t cost much in the United States.
tsoukase 1y ago
Autism, paracetamol, vaccines are celebrity and loaded medical words that they want to relate while there is no scientific correlation between them. These people are at least dangerous and cause deeply bad and guilt feelings to innumerous families.
mkfs 1y ago
> Here’s what I think is going to happen. The next ACIP meeting is scheduled for late October. A few days before the meeting, the agenda will be posted. MMR will be on the agenda. They will request that CDC scientists present on febrile seizures caused by MMR. The MMR has been administered to millions of kids since it came on the market in 1971, so the CDC scientists will have mountains of data to present. It won’t matter. The risk of febrile seizure is not zero, so the MMR will be recommended only for kids over aged 4, when the risk subsides. > There is a way to reduce the risk of febrile seizure, by the way. Reducing fever prevents febrile seizures. You know how you safely reduce fever in babies? Tylenol. Which has now been designated by Trump and Kennedy’s entire HHS as the cause of autism, despite having no evidence to support that claim. I doubt the administration is this devious or thinking as far ahead as she thinks. Her reasoning is ironically similar to Trump supporters, who rebrand every flub, fumble, and gaffe as some form of "5D chess" that normies just don't understand. But it's evident form the tariff policy that much what the administration does is just shot straight from the hip.

109 points by us-merul 1y ago

zeristor 1y ago

Tylenol Is paracetamol, apparently if you were perplexed like me.

guhcampos 1y ago
AKA Acetaminophen, depending on the country.
chrisBob 1y ago
I spent some time in Germany last year and I couldn't believe that the chemical name is somehow different between Europe and the US.
- rich_sasha 1y ago
  I believe paracetamol and Tylenol are brand names.
  - ponector 1y ago
    Not really, paracetamol is international name of chemical compound.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
      No, N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)acetamide is the IUPAC name. Paracetamol & acetaminophen are "generic" names for it when used as a drug. Tylenol, Panadol, and quite a few other brand names are used worldwide¹. The International Chemical Identifier is InChI=1S/C8H9NO2/c1-6(10)9-7-2-4-8(11)5-3-7/h2-5,11H,1H3,(H,9,10). ¹https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paracetamol_brand_names https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paracetamol_brand_name...
- SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
  There are essentially 4 layers of naming: First you've got names that describe the structure in some detail, like the International Chemical Identifier (InChI) & SMILES. For paracetamol, the InChI is `InChI=1S/C8H9NO2/c1-6(10)9-7-2-4-8(11)5-3-7/h2-5,11H,1H3,(H,9,10)`. One level up is the IUPAC name, a systematic name for a compound which is less descriptive than the InChI but still generally allows determining the structure of that compound. For paracetamol, that's N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)acetamide. Next up you've got generic names for drugs. Different countries have different systems for naming generics, but they're usually designed to give some hint as to the sort of drug it is. E.g. drugs with generic names ending in "-vir" are antivirals. Most names are standardized in the International Nonproprietary Name system¹ but some drugs (particularly older ones) have different generic names in different countries. Last up you've got the brand names. These will often vary quite a lot & tell you nothing about the drug. The INN wikipedia article¹ actually uses paracetamol/acetaminophen as the example for comparing various national naming standards. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nonproprietary_name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nonproprietary_n...

boplicity 1y ago

How many WTF moments do we need from our president before he loses support from 90% of Americans? Do people just not care? Or do they really believe the lies and crazy justifications? Or maybe they think it's worth the tradeoff? I worry for our future. As it stands, it is looking to be very, very bleak.

nemomarx 1y ago
Do you think most people actually hear his speeches directly or know these things? I'm sure when it's chopped up in the right sound bites it's fine.
- turkishdelight 1y ago
  I mostly know Trump through news sites like AP and Reuters. I heard one of his speeches after a flight accident early in his term though and he was blaming retards and amputee midgets for the collisions. Didn't see any mention of that in the news.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    The sanewashing is pretty bad. The headline probably reduced it to "Trump speaks out on aviation safety".
  - tzs 1y ago
    He was blaming it on DEI, and listed some of the groups he claimed were hired via DEI programs for air traffic control. Most mainstream news covered him blaming DEI and and most mentioned specifically people with disabilities. Many didn't go into the laundry list of specific disabilities Trump mentioned.
- baby_souffle 1y ago
  > Do you think most people actually hear his speeches directly or know these things? I'm sure when it's chopped up in the right sound bites it's fine. Exactly this. We no longer have a grand total of 3 TV channels; it's a conscious choice to tune to fox news and consume that rage-bate-as-a-distraction. As long as it's profitable to offer up "bespoke" views of the world to individuals, there's next to no hope of those individuals being able to galvanize under a common and shared set of facts and that's a per-requistie for any sort of mass protest/change.

adolph 1y ago

I didn’t think President Donald Trump could possibly beat the infamous “inject bleach” press conference from 2020 for unhinged insanity You know a claim about Trump is insanely wrong when Snopes debunks it. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-inject-bleach-covid-19/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-inject-bleach-covid-...

j4coh 1y ago
He only said we should look into injecting disinfectants to cure Covid, not to actually do it. The full quote is a bit incoherent it’s hard to say what he was actually thinking - the one thing we can probably all agree on is it would do a tremendous number on your lungs if you injected disinfectant into them: THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that too. It sounds interesting. ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We'll get to the right folks who could. THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you're going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- seeEllArr 1y ago
  [dead]
- bloomingeek 1y ago
  Whether you're defending THE PRESIDENT or not, I can't tell. But what sane person in that powerful position, when the whole nation is troubled about what's really factual, hint/say something this incredibly stupid?

storus 1y ago

"Tylenol, or acetaminophen, can cause liver damage if taken in excessive amounts, particularly over 4,000 mg in a 24-hour period. It is the leading cause of acute liver failure in the United States, often due to accidental overdoses from multiple medications containing acetaminophen." Doesn't sound super safe for kids who have small livers given the typical dose is 500mg to be honest.

etchalon 1y ago
The safe dose size for kids is well-known and well-studied.
- storus 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - boplicity 1y ago
    It is literally printed on every bottle. "Regular rural folks" are not idiots.
  - tartuffe78 1y ago
    It’s on the bottles
  - saulpw 1y ago
    It's sold as a different product with different dosage.
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    > How many Americans know about those limits though? Imagine regular rural folks Does "rural" equate to "stupid" and "illiterate" in your mind? It's on the packaging, among other sources of information they have access to.
  - etchalon 1y ago
    No one knows those off-hand. That's why they print it on the bottle. That's why we have regulations that require dosages to be printed on the bottles. This is how every medicine works.

bruce511 1y ago

This falls into the endless list of "remember you voted for this". With the ever present caveat that, no, clearly not everyone did, but he got more votes than anyone else. And it's not like this is a surprise. He campaigned with RFK. Kennedy's views on vaccines are well known. Trumps ability to do "medical" was amply demonstrated in his first term. This is exactly what he campaigned on, and exactly what voters were presumably hoping for. They looked at the options and said, "yeah, let's have some more of this".

timmg 1y ago
> This falls into the endless list of "remember you voted for this". I think, to be fair, there are only two parties. You can only vote for one "package" of policies. Maybe you are a one-issue voter or maybe you weigh all the different positions of the candidates to find the one who aligns most with you. I don't think it is accurate to say that all the people who voted for Trump approve of any individual policies -- like this one. So they are allowed to be as upset as anyone else about this stuff.
- bruce511 1y ago
  I'll upvote you for at least laying out a coherent argument. But you're right. A lot of voters weighed the set of policies and decided that mass deportations, suspension of due process, tarifing imports to raise domestic prices, slashing federal agencies like the EPA and CDC, muzzling free speech at universities and on TV, grifting for personal gain at every opportunity, all of which was explicitly spoken about during the campaign, was ok to get their single-issue promoted. So yeah, lots of people voted for this. For all I know those same people think it's going just fine. Which brings us back to, "just remember, you voted for this."
  - timmg 1y ago
    I don't know, man. Did Biden voters vote for high inflation and open borders? Did they vote for 50% tariffs on solar panels? I was a Biden voter and I didn't.

artemonster 1y ago

Sorry for absolute tangential rant, but what the fuck is happening to our world. What is there actually to do besides quietly observe the insanity that is happening around? Prepare for things to get worse? Is there any other action that a normal citizen can take to actively make things better, besides the usual „go vote for X every Y years“?

leetharris 1y ago
Honestly, log off the internet and touch grass. Things have always been like this, and most things that happen are inconsequential to your average person. Like, who cares if he says Tylenol is bad for pregnant women? Just do whatever you want to do anyways.
- us-merul 1y ago
  The point of the article addresses this. A directive on Tylenol like this then gives pretext to dramatically reduce vaccine access, which affects everyone.
- guhcampos 1y ago
  Not really. Blaming Tylenol is actually a surprisingly harmless and almost a relief. Remember it used to be vaccines until a few days ago. Antivax sentiment is not inconsequential to the average person. Gun rights are not inconsequential to the average person. Women rights are not inconsequential to the average person. I get that some progressive arguments seem to be only relevant to particular audiences - "why should I care about trans rights if I'm not trans?" - but reality is these are a small portion of the actual discussions which take a disproportionate amount of atention from issues that do affect everyone.
the__alchemist 1y ago
Stop consuming news and social media.
- xphos 1y ago
  How do you hold the world accountable if we just ignore reality? No how about we hold the world accountable

canadiantim 1y ago

[flagged]

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
I'm not sure I'm willing to take medical advice from him.
pron 1y ago
Yes, and they hate him so much that they've been doing that to spite him not just in America but all over the Western world, and started decades before Trump even went into politics! Universities and hospitals in France, UK, and Korea have been falsifying data for decades just to stick it to Trump. Look how deep this thing goes!
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

throwaway106382 1y ago

"We don't recommend using any of our products while pregnant" -- Tylenol Mar 7, 2017 https://x.com/tylenol/status/839196906702127106 https://x.com/tylenol/status/839196906702127106 > Medical experts urge caution over use of acetaminophen-based painkillers during pregnancy > Ingredient found in hundreds of pain-relief drugs, including Tylenol, may impact fetal development Sep 23, 2021 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/acetaminophen-pregnancy-risks-1.6187013 https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/acetaminophen-pregnancy-risks...

slightwinder 1y ago
Is there any serious medication without this warning? I was under the impression they all have it, as they can't 100% rule out any kind of sideeffect, even if it wouldn't be harmful.
- NaomiLehman 1y ago
  Acetaminophen likely prevents embryogenesis by limiting cell division No good studies but better safe than sorry that's why there's a label
cloverich 1y ago
> > Medical experts urge caution over use of acetaminophen-based painkillers during pregnancy > Ingredient found in hundreds of pain-relief drugs, including Tylenol, may impact fetal development Sep 23, 2021 That was a good callout to provide justification for further analyses, such as sibling studies[1] which in turn do not seem to support the association. The biggest issue with your link is that the reason's you would take Tylenol in pregnancy are themselves risk factors for the associated conditions. In general it's pretty complex, which is why we have e.g. medical experts to help us contextualize as opposed to sensationalize it. The biggest issue with most of these kinds of arguments is they aren't mad win bad faith. They start from e.g. wanting to support Trumps statements, and then source the links without context to justify it. Maybe that's not what this post is but it certainly feels like it. [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38592388/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38592388/

int0x29 1y ago

And it's flagged. It is far to easy for organized fringe groups to control the narrative here by just killing anything they don't like.

us-merul 1y ago
I submitted this because I thought the article made insightful points about how an announcement like this can pave the way for downstream policy changes. I’m not trying to start a debate about the announcement itself.
- xphos 1y ago
  there is nothing wrong with what you posted
dang 1y ago
If users didn't flag opinion pieces on hot divisive topics, HN's front page would consist of nothing but opinion pieces about hot divisive topics. As that would be an entirely different site, user flags are vital to preserving HN for its intended mandate. As I put it years ago, we need those white blood cells. If you want to call that an "organized fringe group trying to control the narrative", I suppose it's really just a different way of wording the same thing.´
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  When I look at /new and /active, where flagged topics are present, I definitely don't see them "consist of nothing but opinion pieces and hot divisive topics."
  - xphos 1y ago
    I didn't know this was a thing thank you so much
- boplicity 1y ago
  Please keep in mind that making something a divisive topic is a specific and intentional strategy for suppressing speech.

JaKXz 1y ago

Why is this flagged

wk_end 1y ago
It shouldn't be. In the interest of playing Devil's Advocate - even though it's a fine article, I don't think it's promoted particularly good discussion. Partisan politics in general means that people just dig in their heels angrily rather than have good discussion, and the Trump administration - at risk of falling into my own trap here - is far enough away from conventional wisdom on many issues, including this one, in such a way that their decisions and discussions around them sort of inevitably become partisan.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago
  It's very very sad that vaccinating kids against dangerous diseases is controversial.
incomingpain 1y ago
im nobody, i cant speak for whoever/everyone who flagged it. i try to stay out of foreign politics, but ill reply trying to share my understanding. Probably going to regret trying to help. I'd say the article is extremely opininated and biased against primarily trump and rfk. the article is very far from neutrally reporting facts. extremely hyperbolic and alarmist; immediately visible in the title itself. emotionally charged and advocating for political action. Its full of personal attacks, trump is unhinged insane, incompetent, dangerous, and irrational? The article seems to be entirely rhetorical. There's no audience for it. The only people who will find use if it are those who dont need any convincing.
- us-merul 1y ago
  I submitted the article. I agree that much of the language and style is one-sided and partisan. If I could tone that down, I would. I submitted it because the outlined logical consequences stood out to me that I hadn’t encountered elsewhere—- the announcement itself, regardless of its underlying merits, opens the path to reduce vaccine access for all. Another commenter here missed that point, thinking that people should just ignore what Trump says. The point is that what Trump says can be used to influence downstream policy in ways that might appear unexpected, but are certainly intentional.

daft_pink 1y ago

I think it’s more about allowing people the freedom to make their own medical decisions. I got the covid vaccine and setup appointments for everyone in my family to get the vaccine and I think not getting the vaccine is crazy, but that doesn’t mean I support the government forcing every person to get the vaccine. However, I think it’s a bit frustrating that by not approving the vaccines for Covid it is a lot harder for people to get these vaccines. Also, I think the idea that we have all this healthcare it’s super expensive yet people aren’t really getting healthier is a legitimate criticism of our system and that we do need a more holistic view on healthcare.

us-merul 1y ago
I agree! You make a good point about how regulatory power can shape consequences in either direction.
mrguyorama 1y ago
Vaccines don't work on a "everybody makes their own choice" basis. It's a basic medical science fact that you need a large enough population to take them to make a difference, and for the people who legitimately cannot take a vaccine, it is in society's interest to help them stay safe and healthy by vaccinating most people. >Also, I think the idea that we have all this healthcare it’s super expensive yet people aren’t really getting healthier Americans don't "have all this healthcare". Americans avoid going to the doctors because they cannot afford it. Other countries pay dramatically less for healthcare and get better results. Even just prescriptions in the US is absurd. People aren't taking medicine they need because a pill or injection that was invented 60 years ago and costs less than a penny a dose is sold for hundreds of dollars a week.
- daft_pink 1y ago
  >Vaccines don’t work on a “everybody makes their own choice” basis. In my experience they do work exactly that way, you take a vaccine and then you are far less likely to get the disease. It’s true that you cannot reach herd imunity or reduce the spread until you get a large enough population. I’m still think it’s a choice thing though. >A pill or injection that was invented 60 years ago and costs less than a penny a dose is sold for hundreds of dollar a week. Currently, I take 3 different generics popular generics that cost a few bucks a month. I could get it covered under my insurance, but I prefer to just pay cash without insurance to buy in larger quantities direct from Amazon as it works out to be about the same, but I don’t have to manage the inventory. I also take a semiglutide for weight loss, which costs thousands upon thousands a year that insurance brings down to $25 a month. But it wasn’t invented 60 years ago. Someday it will probably be available extremely cheap though. I think most senior citizens would agree that most common medications that make it on the generic list really don’t cost much in the United States.

tsoukase 1y ago

Autism, paracetamol, vaccines are celebrity and loaded medical words that they want to relate while there is no scientific correlation between them. These people are at least dangerous and cause deeply bad and guilt feelings to innumerous families.

mkfs 1y ago

> Here’s what I think is going to happen. The next ACIP meeting is scheduled for late October. A few days before the meeting, the agenda will be posted. MMR will be on the agenda. They will request that CDC scientists present on febrile seizures caused by MMR. The MMR has been administered to millions of kids since it came on the market in 1971, so the CDC scientists will have mountains of data to present. It won’t matter. The risk of febrile seizure is not zero, so the MMR will be recommended only for kids over aged 4, when the risk subsides. > There is a way to reduce the risk of febrile seizure, by the way. Reducing fever prevents febrile seizures. You know how you safely reduce fever in babies? Tylenol. Which has now been designated by Trump and Kennedy’s entire HHS as the cause of autism, despite having no evidence to support that claim. I doubt the administration is this devious or thinking as far ahead as she thinks. Her reasoning is ironically similar to Trump supporters, who rebrand every flub, fumble, and gaffe as some form of "5D chess" that normies just don't understand. But it's evident form the tariff policy that much what the administration does is just shot straight from the hip.