3 ms·

The annoying part is that there is a credible link between them, so it's harder to dismiss. There is an established statistically measurable link between some

The annoying part is that there is a credible link between them, so it's harder to dismiss. There is an established statistically measurable link between some viral infections during pregnancy and autism. So there is a statistically measurable link between Tylenol use (which reduce fever and pain) with the person having fever and pain. If there is published science claiming so, they have to now argue for why this science is misleading or wrong instead of simply dismissing the case for having no scientific ground. The science is lazy but not outright wrong, and has not been retracted. The tragic part is that it's far worse for the baby for a the mother to have a high unchecked fever or infection, or to use any other painkiller (most of which are well known to be dangerous during pregnancy). So even if there is a remnant risk after taking relevant variables into account, it is a far preferable risk to continue to use it.

supportengineer 1y ago
Your last point is far too subtle for the American public to understand.
daveguy 1y ago
Your first sentence says "there is a credible link between them" and the rest of your post points out how the link is not scientifically credible. Were the first and third paragraphs just bait? You can't claim that "science says there's a measurable link" when the science in question says the link is just a correlation based on Tylenol being used to treat the causal link (fever from viral infection). Science isn't about finding correlation. It's about identifying causal links. That's why we do experiments.
- aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
  > Science isn't about finding correlation. It's about identifying causal links Science is fundamentally about finding correlations. We measure things we think are interesting to measure, and try to see if it matches our models and theories. The study found a correlation in their data, and that correlation is real. If that is where that study ends then it's still a valid study. Other papers could apply some more complex statistics to make a guess at the cause, or an aggregate study can take data from a collection of previous studies to re-process the data for new insights. The "scientific consensus" ends up being what the largest samples studies with good statistical rigor seem to agree on. But that always ends up murky to use in court. "Published paper says X" is usually where most popular science ends, and in this case they're right. "Scientific consensus" is pretty clear that the cause is likely viral infection during pregnancy, but scientific consensus isn't written down anywhere as scientific consensus. We've been fighting for 30 years about MMR and autism, which was a single retracted study discredited by every study since. And how we're gonna somehow discuss in courts about the correct statistical model to explain a real correlation.
  - daveguy 1y ago
    > We've been fighting for 30 years about MMR and autism, which was a single retracted study discredited by every study since. And how we're gonna somehow discuss in courts about the correct statistical model to explain a real correlation. Yeah, we mostly agree. Sorry if I was a bit harsh. I have been very frustrated about the MAHA push away from science based medicine and into lawyer based medicine. Your point about it being difficult to defend and easy to apply manipulative rhetoric around statistical integrity and methods is a good one.

supportengineer 1y ago

Your last point is far too subtle for the American public to understand.

daveguy 1y ago

Your first sentence says "there is a credible link between them" and the rest of your post points out how the link is not scientifically credible. Were the first and third paragraphs just bait? You can't claim that "science says there's a measurable link" when the science in question says the link is just a correlation based on Tylenol being used to treat the causal link (fever from viral infection). Science isn't about finding correlation. It's about identifying causal links. That's why we do experiments.

aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
> Science isn't about finding correlation. It's about identifying causal links Science is fundamentally about finding correlations. We measure things we think are interesting to measure, and try to see if it matches our models and theories. The study found a correlation in their data, and that correlation is real. If that is where that study ends then it's still a valid study. Other papers could apply some more complex statistics to make a guess at the cause, or an aggregate study can take data from a collection of previous studies to re-process the data for new insights. The "scientific consensus" ends up being what the largest samples studies with good statistical rigor seem to agree on. But that always ends up murky to use in court. "Published paper says X" is usually where most popular science ends, and in this case they're right. "Scientific consensus" is pretty clear that the cause is likely viral infection during pregnancy, but scientific consensus isn't written down anywhere as scientific consensus. We've been fighting for 30 years about MMR and autism, which was a single retracted study discredited by every study since. And how we're gonna somehow discuss in courts about the correct statistical model to explain a real correlation.
- daveguy 1y ago
  > We've been fighting for 30 years about MMR and autism, which was a single retracted study discredited by every study since. And how we're gonna somehow discuss in courts about the correct statistical model to explain a real correlation. Yeah, we mostly agree. Sorry if I was a bit harsh. I have been very frustrated about the MAHA push away from science based medicine and into lawyer based medicine. Your point about it being difficult to defend and easy to apply manipulative rhetoric around statistical integrity and methods is a good one.