fan myself. There is a place for it, but many years ago, I helped investigate a cluster of acute liver failure (and deaths) among alcoholics who were refused narcotic painkillers for acute and severe pain (for justifiable, yet modifiable reasons). They were instead given high doses of Tylenol. A major change in label resulted (and yeah, those treating physicians SHOULD have known beforehand that this was a high-risk consequence, but at least the label clearly shows the risk, now).
But acetaminophen and autism? Count me skeptical. Not to mention, many of these women given Tylenol were likely given Tylenol 3 (with codeine)--at least postpartum in recent years. Nursing exposures are notoriously difficult to evaluate but likewise unlikely. I can't think of many OB/GYNs who would be indiscriminately using much acetaminophen or Tylenol 3 in pregnancy.
Screw you, Bobby. There is no way you could have done more than a quick retrospective case review in this amount of time--not even a retrospective cohort study. Those are good for hypothesis-generation, but certainly not to establish causality.
The truth is that most of the increase in autism is due to the fact we look for it, clinical and epidemiological case definitions have changed over decades to broaden the 'net," so to speak, and insure
that we don't miss children who could be helped early on. This likewise applies to how we look for vaccine outcomes. Many self-reported "cases" may have little to do with the vaccine exposure (some in fact may have occurred before the vaccine was even given), but we allow them to be reported to evaluate as broadly as possible and be eliminated after the fact in detailed review. RFK JR has zero understanding of these principles and he has likewise surrounded himself with those equally ignorant.
= new reply since forum marked as read