3 ms·

RFK didn't make it all up. J&J execs have been concerned about a possible link for years, based on leaked memos: https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/us-

RFK didn't make it all up. J&J execs have been concerned about a possible link for years, based on leaked memos: https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/us-news/bombshell-memo-claims-johnson-amp-johnson-admitted-to-tylenol-autism-link-years-ago/3991363/ https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/us-news/bombshel... The link isn't solid, so there's not exactly much of a case, and probably better to take it for high fever than taking nothing at all... we think. The big deal is that it's yet another case of government and big corporations hiding evidence that things aren't what they want us to think they are. RFK's big deal is simple: 1- autism diagnosis rates have skyrocketed 2- food today isn't what it used to be, what with all the dyes and not-food things put into food 3- daily diet advice is wildly inconsistent and based on old data 4- things which we've been taking for granted, like "tylenol is perfectly safe" or "the covid vaccine is perfectly safe" when neither are strictly true causes people to have LESS trust in the government, not more. Rather than treating everyone like idiots, give them information to make informed choices. There'll still be idiots either way, but better (in his mind) to let the rest make up their own minds on what they put into their bodies

ajross 1y ago
First, nothing you write seems to explain why we're seeing Trump at a podium or Paxton filing a suit. Why not just have the FDA announce an investigation? Second: this is one of the most common drugs on the planet, and has been for half a century. If there was a clear effect with non-trivial magnitude, someone would have noticed. As to the rest: > based on leaked memos That is a laundered Daily Caller story! It's a single screenshot of a single email, which doesn't even contain the word "autism". Given the context, if you force me to flag a conspiracy here: this thing you linked is probably fabricated to enable this very freakout. I mean, absent other criticism: it's talking about "studies". Studies get published. Surely you could just look them up and see if they show a link, no? Well, no, obviously, because the Caller didn't. Or they did, and they didn't support the breathless hyperbole.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  I think what I was trying to get at is that we see RFK at the podium because he doesn't trust the FDA is regulating industry as it should. Food should contain food, not dyes and other things, etc etc. > That is a laundered Daily Caller story I did point that out in my other posts around here on the topic, I missed it on this one. The fact that the article doesn't contain everything is irrelevant; I'm pointing it out under the assumption that there's more than just a PR stunt for the Texas lawsuit. Maybe more will come out in discovery, or maybe it really is just a PR stunt. Time will tell. > I mean, absent other criticism: it's talking about "studies". Studies get published. The thing that's wild to me in all of this is that people complain for years that industry shouldn't regulate itself, that it's too involved in studies about itself, and yet here we are, defending an indefensible status quo. Big Tobacco didn't publish their own studies showing how harmful tobacco was, and the extent and years that they knew about it and did nothing were big contributors to the judgments against them. > this thing you linked is probably fabricated to enable this very freakout. That would be pretty wild, but I imagine these memos will be part of the discovery in the Texas lawsuit. If it turns out to be nothing, then people will move on like they always do.
  - ajross 1y ago
    See... this is where conspiracy thinking takes you. It's like an addiction, and you need to keep feeding it out of your head when the spigot runs dry. > people complain for years that industry shouldn't regulate itself, that it's too involved in studies about itself, and yet here we are, defending an indefensible status quo. You are inferring from the article (as it wants you to believe) that somehow this letter declares the existence of heretofore unknown studies funded, performed by and then suppressed by Johnson & Johnson. It doesn't say that, at all. The author just thanks someone for sending them a PDF or whatever. So I see a partisan rag making an ambiguous point and assuming that the straightforward interpretation ("ambiguous evidence" is like the easiest bet in science) holds. You see it, having already been primed with an interpretation, and need to start filling in details to preserve the conspiracy you've already adopted. Occam argues strongly that the Caller is just wrong and publishing garbage spin, as they've done many times in the past. Please stop.
daveguy 1y ago
You apparently do not understand the difference between causation and correlation. This is also why the execs were concerned -- because most Americans are the same. 1. Diagnosis rates. Because diagnosis criteria has changed. 2. Sure okay. Don't eat junk food. Why are you pitching a little fit about it? 3. Don't know enough about dietary guidelines to comment on their quality, but the guidelines are updated based on best available science. 4. If you'd actually listen to doctors and researchers, rather than what your echo chamber claims, you'd know they don't claim any of it is "perfectly safe", just that it's safer than the alternatives like getting covid, or running a high fever when pregnant.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  FWIW, I do recall hearing that Trump ran with the announcement ahead of RFK's plan, so it's a good possibility that it got over-hyped. But, the question was why is RFK involved? The answer, it appears, is that he is putting the blame on the government - including the FDA - for not doing its job to regulate industry. Food should contain food. Europe understands this, but America has been a little slow to catch on. > the guidelines are updated based on best available science This has almost never been true, given that the available science has long been funded by the ag and food industry. The most recent updates are good for policy documents, but worthless for the average person. He's been promoting a simplified version. > If you'd actually listen to doctors and researchers, rather than what your echo chamber claims Actually, that claim has been thrown around, by both doctors in the public arena as well as the government, especially in tandem with the phrase "when used as directed". All in all, I'm mostly interested to see if there's any actual evidence that comes out from discovery, or if this is all just a big PR stunt by the Texas AG.
tartoran 1y ago
How do you explain inherited autism then, from parent to child? Or autism running in families? You can't possibly think it's that they used the same bottle of pills, can you? Have you ever looked at the prevalence of autism outside of the US?
- zdragnar 1y ago
  I don't think the argument was ever that acetaminophen or other compounds were exclusively the cause of autism. If anything, it is likely that they activate the genes during development that are responsible.
  - tzs 1y ago
    I believe there have been some pretty large studies that looked at autism in siblings where the mother took acetaminophen during one of the pregnancies but not the other and found no statistically noticeable difference in autism rates between the siblings.

ajross 1y ago

First, nothing you write seems to explain why we're seeing Trump at a podium or Paxton filing a suit. Why not just have the FDA announce an investigation? Second: this is one of the most common drugs on the planet, and has been for half a century. If there was a clear effect with non-trivial magnitude, someone would have noticed. As to the rest: > based on leaked memos That is a laundered Daily Caller story! It's a single screenshot of a single email, which doesn't even contain the word "autism". Given the context, if you force me to flag a conspiracy here: this thing you linked is probably fabricated to enable this very freakout. I mean, absent other criticism: it's talking about "studies". Studies get published. Surely you could just look them up and see if they show a link, no? Well, no, obviously, because the Caller didn't. Or they did, and they didn't support the breathless hyperbole.

zdragnar 1y ago
I think what I was trying to get at is that we see RFK at the podium because he doesn't trust the FDA is regulating industry as it should. Food should contain food, not dyes and other things, etc etc. > That is a laundered Daily Caller story I did point that out in my other posts around here on the topic, I missed it on this one. The fact that the article doesn't contain everything is irrelevant; I'm pointing it out under the assumption that there's more than just a PR stunt for the Texas lawsuit. Maybe more will come out in discovery, or maybe it really is just a PR stunt. Time will tell. > I mean, absent other criticism: it's talking about "studies". Studies get published. The thing that's wild to me in all of this is that people complain for years that industry shouldn't regulate itself, that it's too involved in studies about itself, and yet here we are, defending an indefensible status quo. Big Tobacco didn't publish their own studies showing how harmful tobacco was, and the extent and years that they knew about it and did nothing were big contributors to the judgments against them. > this thing you linked is probably fabricated to enable this very freakout. That would be pretty wild, but I imagine these memos will be part of the discovery in the Texas lawsuit. If it turns out to be nothing, then people will move on like they always do.
- ajross 1y ago
  See... this is where conspiracy thinking takes you. It's like an addiction, and you need to keep feeding it out of your head when the spigot runs dry. > people complain for years that industry shouldn't regulate itself, that it's too involved in studies about itself, and yet here we are, defending an indefensible status quo. You are inferring from the article (as it wants you to believe) that somehow this letter declares the existence of heretofore unknown studies funded, performed by and then suppressed by Johnson & Johnson. It doesn't say that, at all. The author just thanks someone for sending them a PDF or whatever. So I see a partisan rag making an ambiguous point and assuming that the straightforward interpretation ("ambiguous evidence" is like the easiest bet in science) holds. You see it, having already been primed with an interpretation, and need to start filling in details to preserve the conspiracy you've already adopted. Occam argues strongly that the Caller is just wrong and publishing garbage spin, as they've done many times in the past. Please stop.

daveguy 1y ago

You apparently do not understand the difference between causation and correlation. This is also why the execs were concerned -- because most Americans are the same. 1. Diagnosis rates. Because diagnosis criteria has changed. 2. Sure okay. Don't eat junk food. Why are you pitching a little fit about it? 3. Don't know enough about dietary guidelines to comment on their quality, but the guidelines are updated based on best available science. 4. If you'd actually listen to doctors and researchers, rather than what your echo chamber claims, you'd know they don't claim any of it is "perfectly safe", just that it's safer than the alternatives like getting covid, or running a high fever when pregnant.

zdragnar 1y ago
FWIW, I do recall hearing that Trump ran with the announcement ahead of RFK's plan, so it's a good possibility that it got over-hyped. But, the question was why is RFK involved? The answer, it appears, is that he is putting the blame on the government - including the FDA - for not doing its job to regulate industry. Food should contain food. Europe understands this, but America has been a little slow to catch on. > the guidelines are updated based on best available science This has almost never been true, given that the available science has long been funded by the ag and food industry. The most recent updates are good for policy documents, but worthless for the average person. He's been promoting a simplified version. > If you'd actually listen to doctors and researchers, rather than what your echo chamber claims Actually, that claim has been thrown around, by both doctors in the public arena as well as the government, especially in tandem with the phrase "when used as directed". All in all, I'm mostly interested to see if there's any actual evidence that comes out from discovery, or if this is all just a big PR stunt by the Texas AG.

tartoran 1y ago

How do you explain inherited autism then, from parent to child? Or autism running in families? You can't possibly think it's that they used the same bottle of pills, can you? Have you ever looked at the prevalence of autism outside of the US?

zdragnar 1y ago
I don't think the argument was ever that acetaminophen or other compounds were exclusively the cause of autism. If anything, it is likely that they activate the genes during development that are responsible.
- tzs 1y ago
  I believe there have been some pretty large studies that looked at autism in siblings where the mother took acetaminophen during one of the pregnancies but not the other and found no statistically noticeable difference in autism rates between the siblings.