21–30 of 456 posts
How much are people willing to bet that the incidence of autism will remain unchanged and the administration will disavow everything.
“Nobody knew autism was so complicated.” — future Trump, probably.
If RFK Jr says it's true, that's how I know it isn't. They go to great lengths to point out they're "using gold-standard science", which also makes me certain they aren't. They can't be, because none of this is about autism or science, it's about pushing their political agenda.
> that's how I know it isn't. Until you have a controlled study on pregnant women who use and don't use the drug, you won't really know for sure.
https://news.ki.se/no-link-between-paracetamol-use-during-pr... concludes that there is no link between acetaminophen and autism based on existing research. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-... concludes the opposite. I'm not qualified to determine which of these studies is more reliable, but the evidence is far from clear if multiple literature studies state the opposite conclusion.
News articles seem to state that the conclusions are clear as day but the same websites were equally sure of the opposite last year.
I'll wait or reliable sources of medical information, which the US government no longer is, to comment on these papers rather than assume whatever paper made the HN frontpage last is the final result of the scientific debate.
If RFK Jr says it's true, that's how I know it isn't. They go to great lengths to point out they're "using gold-standard science", which also makes me certain they aren't. They can't be, because none of this is about autism or science, it's about pushing their political agenda.
Why is he so against medicine?
If RFK Jr says it's true, that's how I know it isn't. They go to great lengths to point out they're "using gold-standard science", which also makes me certain they aren't. They can't be, because none of this is about autism or science, it's about pushing their political agenda.
While you're probably right in the outcome, you probably shouldn't argue based on the genetic fallacy[1] 1: https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/the-genetic-fallacy/#:~:te...
If RFK Jr says it's true, that's how I know it isn't. They go to great lengths to point out they're "using gold-standard science", which also makes me certain they aren't. They can't be, because none of this is about autism or science, it's about pushing their political agenda.
Why is he so against medicine?
If RFK Jr says it's true, that's how I know it isn't. They go to great lengths to point out they're "using gold-standard science", which also makes me certain they aren't. They can't be, because none of this is about autism or science, it's about pushing their political agenda.
While you're probably right in the outcome, you probably shouldn't argue based on the genetic fallacy[1] 1: https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/the-genetic-fallacy/#:~:te...
If medical facts can reliably be inferred from RFK's statements, by whatever algorithm (i.e. "believe the opposite of whatever he says"), then it follows that he understands what he is talking about. Which would contradict all the evidence I've seen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While you're probably right in the outcome, you probably shouldn't argue based on the genetic fallacy[1] 1: https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/the-genetic-fallacy/#:~:te...
I agree with this criticism. If medical facts can reliably be inferred from RFK's statements, by whatever algorithm (i.e. "believe the opposite of whatever he says"), then it follows that he understands what he is talking about. Which would contradict all the evidence I've seen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is he so against medicine?
He explained his views in detail in his confirmation hearing. He believes that pharmaceuticals in general are dangerous and overused, "the third-largest cause of death in our country after heart attacks and cancers" in his words, and wants healthcare to focus more on healthy food than on medicine.
This is the guy who caught a worm in his brain from eating roadkill?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While you're probably right in the outcome, you probably shouldn't argue based on the genetic fallacy[1] 1: https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/the-genetic-fallacy/#:~:te...
There's a threshold where you just don't have a choice. He's made a number of obvious and verifiable health lies - most recently, he described how he can diagnose children with "mitochondrial challenges" by watching them walk around. I have a job, I don't have time to individually investigate all his health claims, the heuristic that he's a liar and everything he says is wrong will have to suffice.
And are you really claiming you can't determine that factor by looking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a threshold where you just don't have a choice. He's made a number of obvious and verifiable health lies - most recently, he described how he can diagnose children with "mitochondrial challenges" by watching them walk around. I have a job, I don't have time to individually investigate all his health claims, the heuristic that he's a liar and everything he says is wrong will have to suffice.
What's the primary factor contributing to metabolic syndrome in children? And are you really claiming you can't determine that factor by looking?