Tylenol maker Kenvue denies the connection allegedly made in the report, which is expected to be published by the Department of Health and Human Services this month.
Not really. A link doesn’t mean a necessary causation. It doesn’t have to be exclusively caused by tylenol. Skin cancer is linked to excessive sun exposure, but it can occur without it, and likewise, not everyone who is experiencing increased UV exposure gets skin cancer. Not every smoker gets lung cancer, not every lung cancer is caused by smoking (IIRC only 50% of lung cancer patients are smokers - it’s just that not 50% of people are smokers). But a certain risk factor increases the occurence of a disease.
I guess what you are thinking of would be comparable with FASD, a mother who has a child with fetal alcohol syndrome but never drank any alcohol during pregnancy would disprove the causation. My guess would be that this isn’t what they are going for but a vague “it increases the likelihood of the child developing autism”.
Well, this is the worse scenario. If he goes down the “FASD route” it will be rather easy to debunk. An “increased risk” route will be much vaguer, more believable, and harder to disprove.
This might also go down the route of “if it wasn’t safe in the womb we should think twice about giving it to my baby who has a high fever” resulting in brain damage and death. (For the record: Fever is good, but high fever in babies is dangerous.)
This, then, adds up to “I didn’t give my baby tylenol when it had a fever, then it was hospitalized, they gave tylenol after all, now the kid has XYZ, it was the tylenol”.
Not really. A link doesn’t mean a necessary causation. It doesn’t have to be exclusively caused by tylenol. Skin cancer is linked to excessive sun exposure, but it can occur without it, and likewise, not everyone who is experiencing increased UV exposure gets skin cancer. Not every smoker gets lung cancer, not every lung cancer is caused by smoking (IIRC only 50% of lung cancer patients are smokers - it’s just that not 50% of people are smokers). But a certain risk factor increases the occurence of a disease.
I guess what you are thinking of would be comparable with FASD, a mother who has a child with fetal alcohol syndrome but never drank any alcohol during pregnancy would disprove the causation. My guess would be that this isn’t what they are going for but a vague “it increases the likelihood of the child developing autism”.
fair, but i expect much worse from this dipshit
Well, this is the worse scenario. If he goes down the “FASD route” it will be rather easy to debunk. An “increased risk” route will be much vaguer, more believable, and harder to disprove.
This might also go down the route of “if it wasn’t safe in the womb we should think twice about giving it to my baby who has a high fever” resulting in brain damage and death. (For the record: Fever is good, but high fever in babies is dangerous.)
This, then, adds up to “I didn’t give my baby tylenol when it had a fever, then it was hospitalized, they gave tylenol after all, now the kid has XYZ, it was the tylenol”.