It never did, RFK just used his position to supercharge the myth and lower share prices long enough for Kimberly-Clark to acquire Kenvue.
post
In a sane world, you should be able to prosecute RFK for making or repeating lies. They would claim a defence that they were misinformed and not an expert in the field.
The precidence that needs to be set is that if you are appointed to a position of responsibility you are then automatically considered qualified in that field for the purpose of law.
Its either that, or break out the guillotines
It's a shame how the wretched US-regime has completely destroyed even such important organizations as the CDC. I recently talked about this with some old friends: All of them are specialists or senior physicians in hospitals in Switzerland, Germany, and Spain—and they all agreed: The CDC can no longer be taken seriously, as virtually all competent medical professionals have been dismissed. This is a huge loss that is costing many lives, and not just in the US.
And why all this? Just because of the blatant idiocy of this corrupt regime, which acts beyond all reason. Their actions are truly a crime against the whole world.
Don't bother me with facts, my mind's made up. --RFK,Jr.
And frankly, all of MAGA, about EVERYTHING.
Did anyone believe it was ever linked to autism? I saw it as Trump buying a shitload of Tylenol shares and then doing his political dystopic dance to manipulate the stock market (yet again) and rake in more cash.
In your mind he bought Tylenol shares, then tanked the value of those shares, then profit? I think in this case what is more likely is because RFK claimed he would find the cause for autism they had to find a scape goat.
Kimberly-Clark acquired Tylenol's parent company (Kenvue) during its dip in value around November last year:
I was suspicious Kimberly-Clark could have some ownership that meant someone Trump knew got money. But I never saw that reported and Trump hasn't shut up.
So I think it is just they wanted an autism scapegoat politically like you say
I'm sure you are correct. I was being a bit flippant but two (or more) things can be right at the same time.
Think about what the resources going into this distraction could have investigated instead of doing this.
At the very least I hope all the promotion coming from these republican clowns supporting the filthy supplement industry will lead to more rigorous critical scientific inquiry into the garbage snake oil insanity that this industry has become. It's no different than the unregulated advertising industry of the early 1900s where companies could say legally say their food products could cure illness and enhance performance.
no shit. how many people actually believe RFK’s claim? It was so obviously planned from the beginning, giving a date ahead of time that we’ll know the “cause”. Then afterwards, the company that owns tylenol got acquired. It’s wildly obvious this was just used as a way to push a business deal of sorts
Because people think autism equals very low functioning and intellectually disabled boys, so all those autistic people are both faking it to take autism away from very low functioning and intellectually disabled boys, and are the very low functioning and intellectually disabled boys themselves (if they say otherwise they're just being kept in an illusion by well intentioned parents - this was allegedly stolen from some movie as The Silence Of The Lambs wasn't the only place where bigots plagiarized their bigotry) to make the statistics look bad.
Well duh.
(not against the post or research, just against people propagating the misinformation)
Studies? STUDIES?! WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING STUDIES!!
Whatever money that went into this study could have been used on something less stupid.
What about all the memes we made? Don't they count for anything?
It was already disproven the second it was claimed, by being made up with no credible data or research
We know what is linked to autism. It's pollution. Fossil fuel exhaust is a big contributor. What does the Trump regime do? Promote fossil fuels. Kids and autism were never the concern.
We know what is linked to autism. It’s pollution.
source?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749121004383
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/1393589
ok then
we need to find alternative pollution that causes autism (only high-functioning autism though) but doesn't cause any harm, then put chemicals in the air to make your children intelligent (terrifying i know)
autistic people are propaganda and ad resistant, hold less regard for norms (which is probably why 40% of trans people have it), recognize obsolete things about society, and generally tend to be more progressive (oh no the chemicals put in the air by COMMIE LIBERALS are making your children WOKE by blessing them with intelligence)
actually I'm pretty sure that those are just signs of intelligence not exclusive to autism
and the social difficulties of autism will self-eliminate because way more people will have such social functioning, eliminating the abnormality of it and making it into a non-issue
(this is a joke... unless (there are major benefits but also consent problems making this unethical (unless the massive benefits to society outweigh that)))
Harmless painkiller doesn't cause autism as expected. Wow! It's a shame that this has to be news. Next week "Fruit consumed during pregnancy doesn't cause autism"
Tylenol is linked to liver damage. Happened to my friend.
Any substance taken beyond its safe dosage is harmful, even water.
Yeah if you take a metric fuck ton of it.
If you take the recommended dose then you're fine
And what has that to do with the risk of autism in someone's kids?
How about Ibuprofen? That is the one the doctors tell women to avoid when pregnant.
Ibuprofen isn’t a brand name so they won’t be able to manipulate the stock market.
If autism has increased over the past 70 years, a more likely culprit would be higher sugar consumption.
In many ways sugar acts as alcohol in our metabolism, and we know with certainty that excessive alcohol during pregnancy is a significant risk factor for the mental health of babies.
The rate of autism diagnosis is a product of the actual rate of occurrence of autism times the probability of diagnosis if someone has it. The probability of diagnosis (whether correct, false positive or false negative) depends on professionals' and clients' awareness of the condition. That has changed significantly over those 70 years, and because of that, it's very hard to assess whether the prevalence of the underlying condition has changed or not. It's also devilishly hard to determine whether ASD is being over-diagnosed now, or was massively under-diagnosed before.
And sugar doesn't really act like alcohol (for example, all the systemic damage caused by acetaldehyde when alcohol is metabolized doesn't happen with sugar), and fetal alcohol syndrome presents very differently than ASD.
and because of that, it’s very hard to assess whether the prevalence of the underlying condition has changed or not.
Yes, and that's the reason I wrote "if", because IDK if it is actually the case although it may seem so.
From the presentation "sugar is a poison" by Robert Lustig he demonstrates ways sugar is similar to alcohol, and also has a level of dependency when abused that is similar although weaker than alcohol.
Just because there are differences doesn't mean there aren't also similarities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
AFAIK it is much wider accepted today that sugar is harmful than it was in 2001 when he first made the presentation.
I have never seen anything to refute what Lustig suggested almost 25 years ago.
Child care professionals have widely warned against sugar as a behavior altering substance for children, warning it can make children behave like they have ADHD. These warnings have existed at least since the 70's that I know of, but AFAIK without any studies to either confirm or deny these claims. Despite the suspicion has existed for more than half a century now.
So we do have warnings from professionals that have indications it could be harmful during pregnancy too.
I have no idea why I'm downvoted for suggesting that?
I'm not claiming it is factually a problem during pregnancy, I'm just pointing out something that could be an issue, and AFAIK not very well researched.
If sugar is as harmful as many suggest, it is quite important knowledge we should have.
Everything in good measure is a good rule of thumb, but we don't really know what a good measure of sugar is.
But we do know it is harmful, and at a minimum can cause diabetes and heart disease.
But AFAIK we don't even have safety margins on sugar to avoid even those very widespread and well known problems.


all 54 comments