Orangey and The Brainworm Strike Again

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Pedantry is not a bad idea in this debate.

well i'll leave it to you to set the intellectual tone as low as you need to in order to be comfortable then   

 

Quote

I prefer the term association to link just so we know we’re not necessarily taking about a cause here. 

Sure. 🙄🙄

Quote

I’m afraid there is no good evidence yet that Tylenol increases the likelihood of autism. Again, I refer you to the recent statement from the president of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology which is fairly explicit. Bear in mind that many of the alternatives to Tylenol come with their own risks. 

There is good evidence it may. 

Again, anyone with a quarter of a brain would say "if there is evidence that something may have a serious adverse effect then it is wise and prudent to avoid that thing as much as possible until you are sure". 

There is no universe where that statement is not true. Nothing you can say, nothing you can argue, no amount of  trump hatred will change that statement from being true. 

 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

well i'll leave it to you to set the intellectual tone as low as you need to in order to be comfortable then   

 

Sure. 🙄🙄

There is good evidence it may. 

Again, anyone with a quarter of a brain would say "if there is evidence that something may have a serious adverse effect then it is wise and prudent to avoid that thing as much as possible until you are sure". 

There is no universe where that statement is not true. Nothing you can say, nothing you can argue, no amount of  trump hatred will change that statement from being true. 

Again, why don’t the bodies advising clinicians agree with you? Just answer that question. I’m not sure you understand the weight doctors attach to such statements. Do you really think obstetricians are going to risk their careers and their patients’ welfare just to argue with some politician? The people advising these specialists have looked very carefully at the evidence you cite and are not convinced by it because it’s not good evidence. The flaws in the research are obvious even to me. The Swedish study is the best and it found no significant effect from Tylenol. 

And I suggest you look at the risks incurred with other medications as well. For example, no pregnant woman should be taking NSAIDS after 20 weeks. 
 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/health-canada-pushes-back-trump-tylenol-1.7642192
 

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/autism-and-tylenol-what-the-science-says-1.7641821
 

https://recalls-rappels.canada.ca/en/alert-recall/acetaminophen-recommended-treatment-fever-and-pain-during-pregnancy

 

Edited September 26, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Again, why don’t the bodies advising clinicians agree with you?

 

That's political.  Lets remember in 2016 and 2021 they did. 

Jamie Sarkonak: The CBC's anti-Trump bias distorts Tylenol reporting

You should become political and do not for a moment think that the medical community does not make statements and comments based on politics because they absolutely do.

Sorry.

In fact you now see most of the medical community rushing out to try and put a caveat on there claims that trump was full of it. They say things like women should absolutely take Tylenol when pregnant (when absolutely medically necessary).    LOLOL

And let me clue you in. The Canadian medical community has been wrong many many times before, often with tragic results.

Again. Absolutely nothing changes the very basic and 100% logical statement that if there is evidence that a thing may do you harm you should avoid that thing if you can until you are sure one way or another

Sorry, but your argument is just stupid. I think deep down you have to realize that yourself. There is evidence of problems with Tylenol, there have been problems in the past with Tylenol when it comes to pregnant women, new data suggests that somehow there may be a connection between a permanent and life-altering condition and Tylenol, if you can avoid it avoid it. That's not difficult

[SpankyMcFarland]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

That's political.  Lets remember in 2016 and 2021 they did. 

Jamie Sarkonak: The CBC's anti-Trump bias distorts Tylenol reporting

You should become political and do not for a moment think that the medical community does not make statements and comments based on politics because they absolutely do.

Sorry.

In fact you now see most of the medical community rushing out to try and put a caveat on there claims that trump was full of it. They say things like women should absolutely take Tylenol when pregnant (when absolutely medically necessary).    LOLOL

And let me clue you in. The Canadian medical community has been wrong many many times before, often with tragic results.

Again. Absolutely nothing changes the very basic and 100% logical statement that if there is evidence that a thing may do you harm you should avoid that thing if you can until you are sure one way or another

Sorry, but your argument is just stupid. I think deep down you have to realize that yourself. There is evidence of problems with Tylenol, there have been problems in the past with Tylenol when it comes to pregnant women, new data suggests that somehow there may be a connection between a permanent and life-altering condition and Tylenol, if you can avoid it avoid it. That's not difficult

So now that you’ve removed Tylenol from the list what would you recommend to treat fever in pregnancy? 

[Venandi]

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So now that you’ve removed Tylenol from the list what would you recommend to treat fever in pregnancy? 

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems like your "go to argument" for regular use is actually the worst case scenario where people (i'll say like me) would actually use and even recommend Tylenol as a rational choice under the circumstances. 

All of this comes down to the possibility of a connection vs making a rational threat assessment... if women are aware of a possible connection I think they can be trusted to chose wisely.

I look at it from the vantage point of busy pregnant women using it routinely for low level pain relief like sore knees, back pain, headaches etc that may be (or even not be) associated with pregnancy... and doing that with a feeling of confidence that may be misplaced. That confidence may be why they use it routinely and most of them would (and could) easily just "suck it up" if they where aware of a possible connection.   

That's really it from my perspective... If I were using it routinely for low level pain relief because I believed it to be safe and innocuous only to find out that the government sat on information suggesting it wasn't I'd be severely pi$$ed. 

I'd say remove "Trump bluster" and politics from the equation entirely, spend 5 minutes with Dr Google, and do the rational threat assessments most thoughtful women are easily capable of making.

That's it that's all.... 

Edited September 27, 2025 by Venandi

[Hodad]

43 minutes ago, Venandi said:

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems like you're" go to argument" for regular use is actually the worst case scenario where people (i'll say like me) would actually use and even recommend Tylenol as a rational choice under the circumstances. 

All of this comes down to the possibility of a connection vs making a rational threat assessment... if women are aware of a possible connection I think they can be trusted to chose wisely.

I look at it from the vantage point of busy pregnant women using it routinely for low level pain relief like sore knees, back pain, headaches etc that may be (or even not be) associated with pregnancy... and doing that with a feeling of confidence that may be misplaced. That confidence may be why they use it routinely and most of them would (and could) easily just "suck it up" if they where aware of a possible connection.   

That's really it from my perspective... If I were using it routinely for low level pain relief because I believed it to be safe and innocuous only to find out that the government sat on information suggesting it wasn't I'd be severely pi$$ed. 

I'd say remove "Trump bluster" and politics from the equation entirely, spend 5 minutes with Dr Google, and do the rational threat assessments most thoughtful women are easily capable of making.

That's it that's all.... 

But it's not the government's information to sit on, is it? It wasn't hidden. It's not like a government lab was doing research and came to a result and had to decide whether to publish or not. It's publicly available information from multiple research organizations compiled over decades. It's neither new nor timely.

The medical community knows. OBGYNs know. They've been advising pregnant patients on how and when to use acetaminophen for a loooong time. 

The question--and why people are reacting to this scenario--is why did this government jump on a loose association that the medical world is already well aware of and decide to put on a public show about it? Why insert themselves in this process at this moment? They're bringing nothing to the table. 

Is it pure attention seeking behavior? Again this is a man who literally can't even pronounce acetaminophen--has clearly never read or said the word in his life. What motivates such a demonstrably ignorant person to go on TV and start dispensing medical advice? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT7Scg2okMs

It's certainly not altruism or conscience. If this government wanted to warn Americans about definitive, scientifically established threats that we can mitigate through behavioral changes, boy do they have options. But that's clearly not the goal. 

 

[robosmith]

On 9/25/2025 at 7:33 AM, Shady said:

😂😂😂

Don't you know that "associated with elevated risks" DOES NOT MEAN "causes"?

Basic SCIENCE!    

[robosmith]

On 9/25/2025 at 12:31 PM, Shady said:

You forgot to post the CONCLUSIONS. Duh

[robosmith]

On 9/25/2025 at 1:12 PM, Legato said:

Back in 2017 Tylenol told pregnant women not to use it's medication.

You seem to be CONFUSED about the difference between "don't recommend using" and "not to use."

Maybe you should get your MD BEFORE pretending to be an expert. 💡

[robosmith]

On 9/25/2025 at 1:44 PM, paxamericana said:

That's a cop out. Tylenol is basically shifting liability to the doctors. 

No, it is assigning the role to experts who are fully INFORMED about the PATIENT and their NEEDS.

[Venandi]

4 hours ago, Hodad said:

The question--and why people are reacting to this scenario--is why did this government jump on a loose association that the medical world is already well aware of

I think that's the point (or it's my point).

Personally, I hadn't heard about this association and wouldn't have thought to go looking because it's generally assumed to be innocuous during pregnancy. I suppose it's reasonable to assume that no medication is truly innocuous during pregnancy, but in the absence of grabbing the bull by the horns and doing a deliberate search, most women would simply take Tylenol without a second thought after being told it's OK to use duing pregnancy.

Realistically, I think that's how most women look at it.

It's that simple really and I think most women actually want to know... my own small, anecdotal and totally useless survey suggests that the ladies I know didn't know. 

Put another way, if the medical community is so familiar with it I think that their patients should be too. I don't see why that's a problem... women shouldn't have to do a bunch of research and read studies. On the other hand, knowing that something isn't recommended for routine use doesn't mean it shouldn't be used as required and when required.

I don't unstrap after takeoff and insist you do the landing... Doctors shouldn't assume that women will read the studies either.

 

Edited September 27, 2025 by Venandi

[robosmith]

On 9/25/2025 at 3:09 PM, paxamericana said:

I read that as , support big pharma and ignore medical basic common sense. 

I read ^this as "my BASIC COMMON sense" is superior to a doctor's ELITE SENSE. LMAO

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Venandi said:

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it seems like your "go to argument" for regular use is actually the worst case scenario where people (i'll say like me) would actually use and even recommend Tylenol as a rational choice under the circumstances. 

All of this comes down to the possibility of a connection vs making a rational threat assessment... if women are aware of a possible connection I think they can be trusted to chose wisely.

Why would you believe the average woman choose MORE WISELY than a HIGHLY EDUCATED EXPERT?

5 hours ago, Venandi said:

I look at it from the vantage point of busy pregnant women using it routinely for low level pain relief like sore knees, back pain, headaches etc that may be (or even not be) associated with pregnancy... and doing that with a feeling of confidence that may be misplaced. That confidence may be why they use it routinely and most of them would (and could) easily just "suck it up" if they where aware of a possible connection.   

That's really it from my perspective... If I were using it routinely for low level pain relief because I believed it to be safe and innocuous only to find out that the government sat on information suggesting it wasn't I'd be severely pi$$ed. 

I'd say remove "Trump bluster" and politics from the equation entirely, spend 5 minutes with Dr Google, and do the rational threat assessments most thoughtful women are easily capable of making.

That's it that's all.... 

Dr. Google and "capable of making" are OXYMORONS. AKA, most doctors KNOW BETTER.

[Legato]

17 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You seem to be CONFUSED about the difference between "don't recommend using" and "not to use."

Maybe you should get your MD BEFORE pretending to be an expert. 💡

Where did you get your MD?

[robosmith]

52 minutes ago, Legato said:

Where did you get your MD?

I don't need an MD to read simple text and understand the differences of TWO DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT PHRASES. Duh

Are you STILL CONFUSED by that? LMAO

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, Venandi said:

I think that's the point (or it's my point).

Personally, I hadn't heard about this association and wouldn't have thought to go looking because it's generally assumed to be innocuous during pregnancy. I suppose it's reasonable to assume that no medication is truly innocuous during pregnancy, but in the absence of grabbing the bull by the horns and doing a deliberate search, most women would simply take Tylenol without a second thought after being told it's OK to use duing pregnancy.

Realistically, I think that's how most women look at it.

It's that simple really and I think most women actually want to know... my own small, anecdotal and totally useless survey suggests that the ladies I know didn't know. 

Put another way, if the medical community is so familiar with it I think that their patients should be too. I don't see why that's a problem... women shouldn't have to do a bunch of research and read studies. On the other hand, knowing that something isn't recommended for routine use doesn't mean it shouldn't be used as required and when required.

I don't unstrap after takeoff and insist you do the landing... Doctors shouldn't assume that women will read the studies either.

 

There is still no good evidence that Tylenol causes autism. That’s what women should hear. The Swedes took 25 years worth of data from their country, virtually every singleton birth, to demonstrate that. Here is the response of the UK’s minister of health to Trump’s frightening and ill-informed claims:

Quote

“I trust doctors over President Trump, frankly, on this,” he said. “I’ve just got to be really clear about this: there is no evidence to link the use of paracetamol by pregnant women to autism in their children. None.

“So I would just say to people watching: don’t pay any attention whatsoever to what Donald Trump says about medicine. In fact, don’t even take my word for it, as a politician – listen to British doctors, British scientists, the NHS.”

Quote

Senior figures from bodies such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which regulates medicines, NHS England, the Royal College of GPs, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the UK Health Security Agency conveyed similar messages to Streeting’s in media interviews throughout Tuesday.

The National Autistic Society criticised “the incessant misinformation about autism from President Trump and [the US health secretary] Robert F Kennedy Jr”, which it said would undermine decades of research and leave autistic people “dismayed and frightened”.

Their responses aligned with those issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) and leading medical bodies in the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/22/trump-tylenol-experts-autism

 

Edited September 27, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[Legato]

20 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

There is still no good evidence that Tylenol causes autism. That’s what women should hear. The Swedes took 25 years worth of data from their country, virtually every singleton birth, to demonstrate that. Here is the response of the UK’s minister of health to Trump’s frightening and ill-informed claims:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/22/trump-tylenol-experts-autism

 

There's still no good evidence that it doesn't.

There has been many cites on this forum alone that shows there could be a possible connection and yet here you still are pushing a TDS driven rhetoric.

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Dr. Google and "capable of making" are OXYMORONS. AKA, most doctors KNOW BETTER.

Good Lord, as usual I don't know WTF you're talking about. 

I would want to know about it and the women I know want to know too....it seems pretty simple to me. If you don't want to know or don't think the information should be made public in an overt way then cool, stick you head in the sand or up your A$$, what ever.

Frankly I don't understand the debate here...

"Armed with knowledge, wisdom we seek."

[SpankyMcFarland]

10 minutes ago, Legato said:

There's still no good evidence that it doesn't.

There has been many cites on this forum alone that shows there could be a possible connection and yet here you still are pushing a TDS driven rhetoric.

 

What sort of evidence would you like? Have you read the Swedish study? As Wes Streeting says, pay no attention to him or any other politician - this isn’t their area of expertise to put it mildly. 
 

4 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Good Lord, as usual I don't know WTF you're talking about. 

I would want to know about it and the women I know want to know too....it seems pretty simple to me. If you don't want to know or don't think the information should be made public in an overt way then cool, stick you head in the sand or up your A$$, what ever.

Frankly I don't understand the debate here...

"Armed with knowledge, wisdom we seek."

What don’t you understand? 

Edited September 27, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Why would you believe the average woman choose MORE WISELY than a HIGHLY EDUCATED EXPERT?

The average woman is capable of doing their own risk assessment when armed with the information to do it. Most in my circle didn't know about the connection, I didn't ask how many used it for routine minor pain like back aches and such but I got the impression they considered it safe and innocuous.

And maybe it is... but tell em the truth... then turn the seatbelt sign off and let em dance. 

Edited September 27, 2025 by Venandi

[SpankyMcFarland]

52 minutes ago, Venandi said:

The average woman is capable of doing their own risk assessment when armed with the information to do it. Most in my circle didn't know about the connection, I didn't ask how many used it for routine minor pain like back aches and such but I got the impression they considered it safe and innocuous.

And maybe it is... but tell em the truth... then turn the seatbelt sign off and let em dance. 

A problem arises when people in positions of authority speak inaccurately about the evidence and mislead women on it. As UK health minister Wes Streeting says, this is a debate where politicians should follow the best advice made available to them by experts in the field which has been the norm for many years in well-run countries. Only in places like North Korea is the leader expected to know everything about every subject. Would we want Trump to advise Elon Musk on how to build his rockets? 

Edited September 27, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[robosmith]

44 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Good Lord, as usual I don't know WTF you're talking about. 

You don't know what "doctors know better" means. LMAO

44 minutes ago, Venandi said:

I would want to know about it and the women I know want to know too....it seems pretty simple to me. If you don't want to know or don't think the information should be made public in an overt way then cool, stick you head in the sand or up your A$$, what ever.

The FACT IS RFK and Trump have NO CREDIBILITY when it comes to medicine that Trump just learned how to pronounce. LMAO

44 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Frankly I don't understand the debate here...

"Armed with knowledge, wisdom we seek."

The "debate" is you: "listen to TRump" vs. "listen to your doctor."

Did you shove a light bulb up your ass to sterilize COVID? LMAO

Coronavirus: Trump's disinfectant and sunlight claims fact- ...

BBC

https://www.bbc.com › world-us-canada-52399464

Apr 24, 2020 — President Donald Trump has questioned whether injecting people with disinfectants and exposing patients' bodies to UV light could help treat ...

 

[Venandi]

53 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

A problem arises when people in positions of authority speak inaccurately about the evidence and mislead women on it. As Wes Streeting says, this is a debate where politicians should follow the best advice made available to them by experts in the field. In well-run countries this sort of conflict is rare. Following the science has been a successful strategy for those who have employed it. 

I really have little in the way of argument with that, I'm simply suggesting that if most women knew about a possible link between Tylenol and autism/ADHD they (perhaps) would not have used it routinely for minor pain relief thinking it was totally innocuous. 

Maybe it is... maybe it isn't, the point is most (or some) might play it safe and suck up a bit of minor discomfort had they been aware. Taking it for a fever isn't in the same file folder as daily consumption for minor back aches. 

I'm not going to continue around the buoy on this but I'd suggest that most women don't do in-depth research on such things and don't read studies posted online as a matter of course. The fact this is a topic of conversation now seems to bear that out.  

[Venandi]

17 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You don't know what "doctors know better" means. LMAO

The FACT IS RFK and Trump have NO CREDIBILITY when it comes to medicine that Trump just learned how to pronounce. LMAO

The "debate" is you: "listen to TRump" vs. "listen to your doctor."

Did you shove a light bulb up your ass to sterilize COVID? LMAO

Coronavirus: Trump's disinfectant and sunlight claims fact- ...

BBC

https://www.bbc.com › world-us-canada-52399464

Apr 24, 2020 — President Donald Trump has questioned whether injecting people with disinfectants and exposing patients' bodies to UV light could help treat ...

 

Well, the monkey has a few thoughts for ya:

"Just because you agree with something doesn't make it "THE TRUTH." Duh" and

"You've gone off the rails on the crazy TROLL train."

 

[Venandi]

21 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Did you shove a light bulb up your ass to sterilize COVID? LMAO

No, that would have been Herb you were performing first aid on.