21–30 of 60 posts
[flagged]
I expect, coming form one scholarly enough to be quoting elders, you'd have a strong one. Let's have it.
This paper says there are no adverse effects to the mother, but it does not mention possible adverse effects to the child beyond "birth health" and does not address the recent controversy about a possible link to autism.
There’s only a weak and now discounted statistical association that was seized upon by two disgraceful anti-science politicians to create a political controversy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A lot fatalities due to taking after hangovers" no, that's not how acetaminophen fatalities happen. In fact, the article you cited specifically mentions "there is no scientific evidence that people with AUD (alcohol use disorder) who take the recommended dose of acetaminophen increase their risk of liver damage." Fatalities happen basically from: product stacking combination medicines people don't realize contain ac…
> Fatalities happen basically from: product stacking combination medicines people don't realize contain acetaminophen and/or multi-day accumulation exceeding max daily limit over multiple days. I find it obnoxious that NyQuil has taken over as the default brand people grab for cough syrup, for that reason. It has acetaminophen, while Robitussin or such have the other active ingredients without that risk. The typical…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you do start munching on advil; note there are rumors, by medical researchers, case reports, and more, that if you dig beneath the shiny surface to find, do show a lot of compelling data for GI damage, heart risk and other serious side-effects. And depending on how fair one wants to be with 'evidence' -- almost all wording describing NSAIDs as "protective", uses easy-to-miss but distinct qualifiers such as "potent…
Yeah I work in clinical trials so I'm very comfortable with all the caveats the need to be applied to correlative studies like these. Which also answers your other question of why doctors don't recommend it: we don't actually know that it does this. As for the rest of the ramble, you (or I) definitely don't know hardly anything that hasn't been established in clinical trials. Certainly can't just vibes-based assess a…
"we have no substantive or high-quality evidence that the drug is unsafe." - (damn all the research showing it is)
--to
"we have no substantive or high-quality evidence that the drug is safe." - (damn all the research suggesting it isn't)
Well, that's as good a green light for an ad campaign as one could ask for. "we don't actually know that it does this." ain't never stopped a motivated pharmaceutical rep before. You have my official endorsement for feeding advil and acetaminophen to all. And protection from dementia is just what America needs. !Win / !Win
Maybe restless leg and depression too! And don't tell me fetuses don't get depressed there in that dark womb. We know damn well they get restless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I work in clinical trials so I'm very comfortable with all the caveats the need to be applied to correlative studies like these. Which also answers your other question of why doctors don't recommend it: we don't actually know that it does this. As for the rest of the ramble, you (or I) definitely don't know hardly anything that hasn't been established in clinical trials. Certainly can't just vibes-based assess a…
Because we couldn't possibly modify "we have no substantive or high-quality evidence that the drug is unsafe." - (damn all the research showing it is) --to "we have no substantive or high-quality evidence that the drug is safe." - (damn all the research suggesting it isn't) Well, that's as good a green light for an ad campaign as one could ask for. "we don't actually know that it does this." ain't never stopped a mot…
That's almost entirely generated by the highest quality evidence generation system we could possibly have, which is RCTs. And no, pharma reps actually aren't allowed to encourage (or even talk about) off-label uses of drugs.
I get the sense that you don't know much about this space.
This paper says there are no adverse effects to the mother, but it does not mention possible adverse effects to the child beyond "birth health" and does not address the recent controversy about a possible link to autism.
Why would it need to? There is no medical controversy. There’s only a weak and now discounted statistical association that was seized upon by two disgraceful anti-science politicians to create a political controversy.
Some personal grievance against Tylenol brand?
More graft from a competitor?
Appease their conspiracy loving dumbass base?
Destroy the scientific reputation of the US?
Trump is actually that fucking stupid?
All of the above?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it need to? There is no medical controversy. There’s only a weak and now discounted statistical association that was seized upon by two disgraceful anti-science politicians to create a political controversy.
I can't figure it out. What is the actual reason they knowingly LIED about it? Some personal grievance against Tylenol brand? More graft from a competitor? Appease their conspiracy loving dumbass base? Destroy the scientific reputation of the US? Trump is actually that fucking stupid? All of the above?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-cause-of-autism-research...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it need to? There is no medical controversy. There’s only a weak and now discounted statistical association that was seized upon by two disgraceful anti-science politicians to create a political controversy.
I can't figure it out. What is the actual reason they knowingly LIED about it? Some personal grievance against Tylenol brand? More graft from a competitor? Appease their conspiracy loving dumbass base? Destroy the scientific reputation of the US? Trump is actually that fucking stupid? All of the above?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it need to? There is no medical controversy. There’s only a weak and now discounted statistical association that was seized upon by two disgraceful anti-science politicians to create a political controversy.
I can't figure it out. What is the actual reason they knowingly LIED about it? Some personal grievance against Tylenol brand? More graft from a competitor? Appease their conspiracy loving dumbass base? Destroy the scientific reputation of the US? Trump is actually that fucking stupid? All of the above?
surely some abuse of the drug could lead to adverse reactions?
are they just arguing for specific doses to not have negative effects? (that would be true of a lot of things we consider harmful)