Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

sph.unc.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

#51

Post by leereeves »

ludwigschubert wrote: post #46
dofm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2817406 This is the study you are referring to. I will leave it to others to judge your comment.

> Acetaminophen use during pregnancy was not associated with children’s risk of autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability in sibling control analysis. This suggests that associations observed in other models may have been attributable to familial confounding. To spell it out: the study’s point (sorry, “Conclusions and Relevance”) is to explain away the very data GP cites?

It's a shame this became a high-profile political issue, because there is a real unanswered medical question there, as even that study acknowledges ("associations observed in other models", including that study itself outside of the sibling control analysis).

Also: "However, a 2021 consensus statement by an international group of scientists and clinicians recommended that pregnant individuals “forego [acetaminophen] unless its use is medically indicated,” among other precautionary actions, due to potential risk of developmental disorders such as autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)."

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41574-021-00553-7

Re: No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

#52

Post by tsoukase »

It's very difficult and boring to follow a newborn until at least their 16th year of age, when mental development and IQ stabilise. It would be interesting if we new about the effects of eg. breast feeding, co-sleeping, parenting types and even mother's drugs like anti epileptics during pregnancy. There are some long term studies that follow newborns and they tell a lot, although they swim in a confounding ocean.

Re: No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

#53

Post by UncleMeat »

zulux wrote: post #40
tootie wrote: post #16

And yet I still see MAHA defenders even on HN.

Some of us appreciate the "Eat fucking food, and do some exercise" part of it. The rest of it is a big meh. Not like I was looking to Rachel Levine as a paradigm either.

"Eat healthy food and exercise" has been recommendation #1 for ages. The idea that RFK and his friends are somehow novel in this public communication is bizarre.

Re: No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

#54

Post by wahern »

kube-system wrote: post #31
ourmandave wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don’t think they’re lying. They probably honestly think they are correct. They actively reject the values of intellectualism, critical thinking, and expert consensus. They instead embrace empiricism, loyalty, and the great man theory. It’s a recipe for severe Dunning-Kruger.

> empiricism, loyalty, and the great man theory.

One of those things is not like the others. Presumably you had another word in mind.

Re: No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

#55

Post by estearum »

qsera wrote: post #48
estearum wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drugs are approved for the specific uses based on extremely high-quality evidence. That evidence balances the benefits against the detectable downsides/costs/side-effects. Those downsides are also on the label . 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-labe…

>highest quality evidence generation system we could possibly have, which is RCTs. The "best we have" does not mean it is good enough for the task at hand. Just saying. Basically what I am saying is that qualifying something by saying "best we have", does not justify its using on its own..

1. I didn't say "the best we have." I said the best we could possibly have. There is no form of evidence generation, real or hypothetical, greater than the randomized controlled trial.

2. That doesn't necessarily make it always "sufficiently good evidence", but the beauty of statistics is we actually can know – quite precisely – whether a given evidence generation method gives us sufficient certainty. When an RCT is used as evidence for approval, it is not "well you did an RCT so I suppose it's fine." Approvals actually are not dependent whatsoever on the evidence generation method. The only thing that matters is whether you prove – to sufficient statistical certainty – the claims you are making. It's very hard to do this without RCTs (again being the greatest evidence generation form that could exist), which is why they tend to be the default. But you can run an RCT that fails to produce certainty, and your drug application will be denied. You can also get approval based on a non-RCT (but again it's hard to do because statistics).

We've had this discussion before and the crux of the issue is that you do not understand statistics while the people who design, run, and evaluate clinical trials do. I highly recommend taking a statistics course or four.

Re: No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

#56

Post by zulux »

UncleMeat wrote: post #53
zulux wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of us appreciate the "Eat fucking food, and do some exercise" part of it. The rest of it is a big meh. Not like I was looking to Rachel Levine as a paradigm either.

"Eat healthy food and exercise" has been recommendation #1 for ages. The idea that RFK and his friends are somehow novel in this public communication is bizarre.

RFK walked the talk. The previous inhabitant was... and I'll try to be polite... easy to dismiss when they said it.

Re: No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

#57

Post by UncleMeat »

zulux wrote: post #56
UncleMeat wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Eat healthy food and exercise" has been recommendation #1 for ages. The idea that RFK and his friends are somehow novel in this public communication is bizarre.

RFK walked the talk. The previous inhabitant was... and I'll try to be polite... easy to dismiss when they said it.

I don't know if advertising a diet of primarily beef and sauerkraut is walking the walk. His opinion of what "healthy food" is is based in vibes and conspiracy rather than scientific rigor.

Re: No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

#58

Post by qsera »

estearum wrote: post #55
qsera wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>highest quality evidence generation system we could possibly have, which is RCTs. The "best we have" does not mean it is good enough for the task at hand. Just saying. Basically what I am saying is that qualifying something by saying "best we have", does not justify its using on its own..

1. I didn't say "the best we have." I said the best we could possibly have. There is no form of evidence generation, real or hypothetical, greater than the randomized controlled trial. 2. That doesn't necessarily make it always "sufficiently good evidence", but the beauty of statistics is we actually can know – quite precisely – whether a given evidence generation method gives us sufficient certainty. When an RCT is…

>There is no form of evidence generation, real or hypothetical, greater than the randomized controlled trial.

Wrong. You are lying by omission.

Randomization and controlling are essential. But the version of RCT that we currently employ have problems with control and evaluation. If you have a flaw in control or evaluation, then the whole thing becomes flawed.

So the idea of RCT is good, but we are limited by our ability to control and evaluate.So there can be a better version of RCTs that we currently employ, but with precise control and evaluation.

> but the beauty of statistics is we actually can know

The beauty of statistics is also that it is quite easy to hide falsehoods behind statistics.

There Are Three Kinds of Lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

(I am not even going into the fraud problem, which is what we have discussed before, which turned out to be quite useless)

Re: No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

#59

Post by kube-system »

wahern wrote: post #54
kube-system wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think they’re lying. They probably honestly think they are correct. They actively reject the values of intellectualism, critical thinking, and expert consensus. They instead embrace empiricism, loyalty, and the great man theory. It’s a recipe for severe Dunning-Kruger.

> empiricism, loyalty, and the great man theory. One of those things is not like the others. Presumably you had another word in mind.

I did in fact mean empiricism... but it is empiricism while rejecting intellectualism. They believe their personal observation and judgement are superior.

Re: No link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes

#60

Post by anonymousiam »

dofm wrote: post #22
anonymousiam wrote: post #17

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.

Perhaps you believe there is no medical controversy, but there is a legal one:

https://reason.com/volokh/2026/07/20/the-second-circuits-pro...

Post reply on HN