• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

RFK Jr., HHS to Link Autism to Tylenol Use in Pregnancy and Folate Deficiencies

Keep ignoring this and acting like I didn't already post a study(science) if you would like me to put you on ignore:

You keep ignoring the question. Try again. Why do you care about what a media organization thinks about medicine? Journalists are not doctors. Doctors are. This is you disregarding science when you attack CNN. That is your question answered.

You are aware of how weird this is, right? You have a hard time accepting expertise.
 
No, he's right. There is no causal link between acetaminophen and autism. There is a broad study which didn't filter data appropriately to isolate variables, but there's no study that shows any causal link between acetaminophen and autism.
Which one? There are dozens of studies since 2012.
 
You keep ignoring the question. Try again. Why do you care about what a media organization thinks about medicine? Journalists are not doctors. Doctors are. This is you disregarding science when you attack CNN. That is your question answered.

You are aware of how weird this is, right? You have a hard time accepting expertise.
Cool. I'm putting you on ignore
 
I'm not anti-vax at all. I am challenging faith.

You challenge faith and call vaccines faith based. Therefore you challenge vaccines.

I have provided you citations explaining why the effectivity of vaccines in regards to reducing deaths and the spread of specific diseases is based on objective methodology NOT faith.

You willfully circle back and repeat your false statement precisely because as you have shown you deliberately ignore the objective methodology presented to you.

Your repeat statement I would suggest comes as a result of your not understanding how the objective methodology to determine the effectivity of vaccines is applied.

Here is an article that examples one example of how objective methodology is used to determine vaccine effectivity. It provides you the calculations.

I also think it clear you do not know how statistical analysis is done including extrapolation.

Please go find out instead of refusing to find out.

There is no way to prove X lives were saved through science.
Yes there is. You just don't how the objective methodology is implemented.


One legit has to trust and believe in what they are preaching.

The above is poorly expressed and makes no sense. Many people are PAID to argue the positions they argue. A lawyer does NOT have to trust and believe his client, his or her job is to distance themselves from such emotions and feelings if they are to properly "preach" on behalf of their client. Politicians regularly accept fundraising donations from lobbyists to represent certain positions on behalf of those lobbyists. The last two stated examples show your comment is illogical.
One could absolutely claim that there are studies that show they have a had significant impact against a virus and be accurate in that statement.

But, a person of science cannot say 4,248,578,075 specific lives were saved. That's bullshit.

This is where you again show your ignorance as to the objective methodology used to show the effectivity of vaccines. If you bothered to study the methodology you would know any study of any rate of death or illness is fluid-its a snapshot of a specific time period measured using probabilities and extrapolation from past patterns to predict future ones. In fact the methodologies used that you do not understand build in to their calculations fail safes to prevent over or under estimation. With the kinds of logarithms now available for statistic analysis the rates extrapolated are very accurate and there is no bullshit. You again make assumptions based on faulty stereotypes of how the calculations are made.


I understand very well how they work. That is not my argument.

Clearly you do not otherwise you would have responded to me providing your calculations not subjective opinions as to why the articles I provided you including the above one were and are defective.
 
None have demonstrated a causal link.
True, same with vax studies in reverse.

There are studies that have showed less than significance and there are also studies that have shown significance for offspring having autism/ADHS when pregnant ladies take Tylenol after 16 weeks.

There is no way to prove vax saved X number lives and no true way to determine Tylenol specifically causes autism.
 
True, same with vax studies in reverse.

There are studies that have showed less than significance and there are also studies that have shown significance for offspring having autism/ADHS when pregnant ladies take Tylenol after 16 weeks.

There is no way to prove vax saved X number lives and no true way to determine Tylenol specifically causes autism.
There are studies, like the one cited by RFK Jr, which have not properly analyzed the data to isolate variables. So there is no causal proof. In fact if you take that study and look at ways to isolate variables, any link between acetaminophen and autism evaporate.
 
You challenge faith and call vaccines faith based. Therefore you challenge vaccines.
Again, you are missing my entire argument.

I'm not against vaccinations.

I am against full blown absolute statements like Tylenol causes autism and vax saved a specific number of lives.
 
We will wait for the scientific data to prove that vaccines are the “root cause“ of autism. I think we’re going to be waiting a very, very long time.

TALC ... how long did it take to prove it was unsafe?
 
So there is no causal proof. In fact if you take that study and look at ways to isolate variables, any link between acetaminophen and autism evaporate.
There are links else there would not have been dozens of continuation studies since 2012, but are they significant?
Your argument is no significance and there is nothing there. I get it.

Why would there be dozens of studies if there was nothing there?
 

Again you issue another absurd post with an absurd graph comparing the safety of ivermectin to tylenol.

To start with ivermectin in pill form is used to treat intestinal sytongyloidiasis and onchocercias ( conditions caused by parasitic worms) and topical invermectin (lotion) can be used to treat head lice and certain skin conditions.

Tylenol (acetaminophen) is used for the treatment of muscle and head aches, minor not major pain from a range of pain causing maladies such as menstrual cramps., back pain. Its also used to reduce fever.

So let us start with the above to explain how ignorant it is to compare the two in terms of safety. To start with they are used to treat different things and so the risks associated with their use would necessarily be different so to do an accurate study of safety you would need to compare tylenol to other pain medications or invermectin to other anti-parasitical drugs. The use to determines the negative side effects and scope of contraindications.

You clearly have zero basic understanding of risk analysis or drugs let alone how and when graphs you produce are not supporting what you think they claim precisely because of your ignorance of risk analyzis and pharmacology.

Next, the obvious must be stated. Any medication may have contraindications and this is why when we go to the pharmacy the pharmacist will explain to us orally and in writing with a computer read out and warning labels how to properly use any medication and to report any signs of allergy or negative reaction immediately to the doctor and/or pharmacist and immediate stoppage of the drug until a proper follow up can be done.

Both medications like ANY medication can be problematic for pregnant women. There is no such thing as a medication that is totally safe for anyone let alone pregnant women. Medications we take are based on studies that took years to weigh the percentage of bad reactions to the benefits of the medication.

Here are the contraindications when using ivermectin:



Here are the contraindications when using tylenol:


Before you take a medication all contraindications are considered and explained and the dose prescribed if it triggers an adverse impact can be addressed immediately by cessation and then reporting it to your physician or pharmacist who both will probably not allow you to continue with the drug or might lower the dose. When you go to the pharmacist you should always tell them what other medications you are on when they prescribe the medication, likewise your doctor because certain drugs can not be taken together

Ivermectin was wrongfully described by Trump and certain physicians as being an effective cure for Covid 19.This was absolutely false and we saw the plethora of idiot responses on this forum trying to claim studies showed a parasite medication could treat a covid virus.

Any drug when properly used is safe. Any drug when used for the wrong reason or with the wrong ,medication could be dangerous. A certain percentage of people will have allergies or negative side effects but not as a result of mixing it with a drug they should not have or for the wrong purpose but because their individual body chemistry is intolerant.

Your attempt to take a graph comparing two drugs not used for the same purpose is past idiotic. The only thing they have in common is that like any drug they may caused adverse reactions, are problematic when taken by people with compromised immunities or specific medical conditions or taking specific medication or are pregnant, children, seniors.

So your attempt to compare the two is past moronic.










Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea.
 
There are links else there would not have been dozens of continuation studies since 2012, but are they significant?
Your argument is no significance and there is nothing there. I get it.

Why would there be dozens of studies if there was nothing there?
Because that's how medical science works. You do studies to see if there are links, science is reproducible so there will be other studies to confirm or disprove findings in other studies. Also different countries will do their own studies on medicine, so you can get studies of a certain drug done multiple times, across various populations and nations. The fact that there are multiple studies looking at the effects of acetaminophen on pregnancy doesn't mean that there's necessarily a link between acetaminophen and certain symptoms.
 
To this very day, Tylenol has not definitively been proved to be unsafe.

if you don't think companies lie .... I mean I don't know what to tell you


talc wasn't for 120 years

in 2019 every liberal would have said tinfoil hat, conspiracy, right wing crazy .....

until in 2020 enough study was done .....

https://www.jnj.com/our-products/5-important-facts-about-the-safety-of-talc 2016 J&J swore it was safe

then

Yes, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) announced in August 2022 that it would discontinue the global sale of its talc-based baby powder by the end of 2023, replacing it with a cornstarch-based formula. This decision followed extensive litigation, public pressure, and internal documents that revealed the company's awareness of asbestos contamination in its talc products since the 1950s, which has been linked to cancer.
 
Again, you are missing my entire argument.

I'm not against vaccinations.

I am against full blown absolute statements like Tylenol causes autism and vax saved a specific number of lives.
I got your point and if you bothered to read the studies and look at the calculations used to justify the effectivity of vaccines or any medication or any medical treatment, the determination can not be 100% absolute and never claims to be. The studies I provided do NOT and have never stated the numbers are fixed absolutes. Objective methodology used to calculate pros and cons of medication by its inherent nature is an estimate but its not faith based which is where you are absolutely wrong. The fact the no's provided are estimates does not make them faith based. They are based on logarithms and extrapolations. The longer the period of extrapolation is the more accurate the analysis can be. Logarithms can estimate how risk probability can be distorted when the extrapolation period is short or long or in between.

The fact that the methodology can not create a rigid fixed number does not make it faith based which is what I have argued. You dancing around that faith based supposition is what I challenge. I don't care what your other positions are.

Thanks for your time. You and I are debating. If I did not respect you I would not spend the time I did to make my points. I know you are not a crackpot. I take you seriously and with respect. I always sound like a snot face in my responses. Lol, I intend that only with some not you. Smile.
 
if you don't think companies lie .... I mean I don't know what to tell you


talc wasn't for 120 years

in 2019 every liberal would have said tinfoil hat, conspiracy, right wing crazy .....

until in 2020 enough study was done .....

https://www.jnj.com/our-products/5-important-facts-about-the-safety-of-talc 2016 J&J swore it was safe

then

Yes, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) announced in August 2022 that it would discontinue the global sale of its talc-based baby powder by the end of 2023, replacing it with a cornstarch-based formula. This decision followed extensive litigation, public pressure, and internal documents that revealed the company's awareness of asbestos contamination in its talc products since the 1950s, which has been linked to cancer.
Autism was around for decades before Tylenol was ever invented, so don’t give me that s**t about Tylenol. Talcum powder is an entirely different thing that is breathed through the lungs.
 
Again you issue another absurd post with an absurd graph comparing the safety of ivermectin to tylenol.

To start with ivermectin in pill form is used to treat intestinal sytongyloidiasis and onchocercias ( conditions caused by parasitic worms) and topical invermectin (lotion) can be used to treat head lice and certain skin conditions.

Tylenol (acetaminophen) is used for the treatment of muscle and head aches, minor not major pain from a range of pain causing maladies such as menstrual cramps., back pain. Its also used to reduce fever.

So let us start with the above to explain how ignorant it is to compare the two in terms of safety. To start with they are used to treat different things and so the risks associated with their use would necessarily be different so to do an accurate study of safety you would need to compare tylenol to other pain medications or invermectin to other anti-parasitical drugs. The use to determines the negative side effects and scope of contraindications.

You clearly have zero basic understanding of risk analysis or drugs let alone how and when graphs you produce are not supporting what you think they claim precisely because of your ignorance of risk analyzis and pharmacology.

Next, the obvious must be stated. Any medication may have contraindications and this is why when we go to the pharmacy the pharmacist will explain to us orally and in writing with a computer read out and warning labels how to properly use any medication and to report any signs of allergy or negative reaction immediately to the doctor and/or pharmacist and immediate stoppage of the drug until a proper follow up can be done.

Both medications like ANY medication can be problematic for pregnant women. There is no such thing as a medication that is totally safe for anyone let alone pregnant women. Medications we take are based on studies that took years to weigh the percentage of bad reactions to the benefits of the medication.

Here are the contraindications when using ivermectin:



Here are the contraindications when using tylenol:


Before you take a medication all contraindications are considered and explained and the dose prescribed if it triggers an adverse impact can be addressed immediately by cessation and then reporting it to your physician or pharmacist who both will probably not allow you to continue with the drug or might lower the dose. When you go to the pharmacist you should always tell them what other medications you are on when they prescribe the medication, likewise your doctor because certain drugs can not be taken together

Ivermectin was wrongfully described by Trump and certain physicians as being an effective cure for Covid 19.This was absolutely false and we saw the plethora of idiot responses on this forum trying to claim studies showed a parasite medication could treat a covid virus.

Any drug when properly used is safe. Any drug when used for the wrong reason or with the wrong ,medication could be dangerous. A certain percentage of people will have allergies or negative side effects but not as a result of mixing it with a drug they should not have or for the wrong purpose but because their individual body chemistry is intolerant.

Your attempt to take a graph comparing two drugs not used for the same purpose is past idiotic. The only thing they have in common is that like any drug they may caused adverse reactions, are problematic when taken by people with compromised immunities or specific medical conditions or taking specific medication or are pregnant, children, seniors.

So your attempt to compare the two is past moronic.










Ivermectin tablets are approved by the FDA to treat people with intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis, two conditions caused by parasitic worms. In addition, some topical forms of ivermectin are approved to treat external parasites like head lice and for skin conditions such as rosacea.
Why did you ignore this response to your post?

 
You're seriously going with the antivax hippie crowd?

Damn.
Anti-vaxx hippie crowd? Oh! You mean the democrats during Trump's first term who said: "I'm not going to get the shot if Trump says I should", stating with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
 
Anti-vaxx hippie crowd? Oh! You mean the democrats during Trump's first term who said: "I'm not going to get the shot if Trump says I should", stating with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Intentional ignorance of the full quote.

Harris was asked if Americans should take the vaccine and if she would. Harris says that if doctors “tells us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.”
 
Intentional ignorance of the full quote.

Harris was asked if Americans should take the vaccine and if she would. Harris says that if doctors “tells us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.”
It is not fair to expect intellectual honesty from MAGAs for the same reason it is not fair to expect your dog to sing Elton John tunes.
 
Back
Top Bottom