Also I’m pretty sure paracetamol has been around for about 150 years or more.
Comment on proof of wormholes
Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 12 hours ago
Not to defend RFK, but this argument is dumb.
People from everywhere it doesn’t natively grow developed cancer long before they had access to tobacco. That doesn’t prove tobacco use doesn’t cause cancer, it just means it isn’t the only potential cause.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 10 hours ago
I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Also dumb because it wasn’t until 1943 that we had the first diagnosis of autism. OP is just making shit up.
Nalivai@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
That’s because cancer is a category of diseases, not a single one. Specific types of cancer that are caused by smoking are caused by smoking (there is afaik 12 of those, and some are associated with prolonged inhalation of any smoke, and some are only tabaco-related, but it doesn’t matter)
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 hours ago
The point is, the claim is that Tylenol is “linked to” autism.
This post is rebutting the claim that Tylenol “causes” autism.
Thats a classic straw man argument.
Nalivai@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
“Linked to” means “might cause in some cases”. If it’s “linked” then it should be at least correlated. The disconnect between the two shows that it isn’t.
grue@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
No, the post is claiming that because Tylenol was discovered after autism, it can’t be a cause of it. That’s flawed logic: it’s true that autism must also have some other cause, but it’s very possible in principle for things to have multiple causes, so the timeline argument proves nothing.
That’s not to say that Dipshit McBrainworm’s claim has any sort of merit whatsoever, mind you. It’s just that this argument is defective.
null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 hour ago
That’s what I said ?
Nalivai@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
If there is a bump in cases of autism post-Tylenol, then it might be a cause, if there isn’t, it can’t be. That’s the reason for the timeline argument, that’s what it proves.
grue@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Are there any cancers that were found to be "caused by smoking before 2003?
Of those, are there any that have subsequently also been found to be “caused by” vaping (such as the tobacco-related ones)?
If so, then it means vaping is indeed a cause (as opposed to the singular cause) of those cancers even though they were around before vaping was invented.
That’s why this meme is bad.
Nalivai@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
If you focus on nicotine specifically, nicotine causes specific type of cancer. Change in the delivery mechanism would cause fluctuations in dosage, but it doesn’t matter in this case (we ignore other types of cancer not to bog down the analogy).
If one would argue that Tylenol causes autism, two things should be shown, the delivery mechanism of Tylenol before it was invented/isolated, to explain pre-Tylenol cases of autism, and/or specific uptick in autism when it was started to be used as medication.
It’s possible that the meme is good you just didn’t get it.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Or that Tylenol is able to aggravate a pathway that results in development of autism. This would move it from “Tylenol causes autism” to “maternal use of Tylenol may be a trigger for development of autism in utero”. The latter statement would also require providing compelling that autism (or a condition currently indistinguishable from it) is either not genetic as currently suspected or is like schizophrenia in requiring both a genetic predisposition and a “trigger”.
Now, that’s quite a bit to have to prove and there’s no way in hell RFK Jr of all people managed to figure it out in 6 fucking months. So yeah if China or the EU starts saying this maybe it’s worth considering the possibility, otherwise it’s just another unsubstantiated claim that unfortunately means pregnant people are going to be recommended it’s not worth risking