47

Daisy4RN said:

And as I said before other studies (plural) show a link so why not look into this further. As we all know studies can be false for a number of reasons. Why do you have such a problem with looking into the problem which just might help children. I am guessing it is just bc it is the Trump admin doing the looking. 

Hi Daisy, 

This is why I have a problem with it -

If a study shows a correlation between Tylenol use during pregnancy  and autism, that doesn't mean Tylenol caused it. Many other factors could be at play— why are the women taking Tylenol? Getting the answers to those questions could lead to  more studies and better information. Correlation is far from the endpoint. (Imagine saying carrying umbrellas are the reason for rain because they're only seen when it rains)

For government to make a major announcement like "pregnant women should not take Tylenol,” they need strong causal evidence—proof that the Tylenol itself directly leads to autism. 

For those that say why not advise that women stay away from Tylenol? After all they should be minimizing medication use anyway...

Well this is why: 

1. They risk taking away a safe treatment based on incomplete or misleading data. Fevers need to be treated. Pain needs to be managed. Can't just take away safe options based on opinions by non-medical politicians with agendas to push.

2. It draws attention away from the need to continue the research to find actual answers, and leads people, especially those who jump on the less scientific information to think it's been definitively determined to be the cause when it hasn't.

3. It is a harm to the acetaminophen manufacturers to have their product slandered and creating unnecessary panic and confusion.

Even if there is a possible correlation, health guidelines should say something like "more research is needed" or "exercise caution". But even that does not seem warranted when looking at the research as a whole. Medical experts and policymakers wait for  very strong consistent evidence of harm - showing clear causation, not mere correlation. 

The way this non-scientific announcement was made was reckless and irresponsible.

Daisy4RN said:

I think that is a very good idea. We need to get to the root causes of why so many people are so violent in this country. Personally I think it has a lot to do with social media.

We periodically take up the subject of gun control and Second Amendment rights. In one such discussion around ten-ish years ago, I suggested studying gun deaths as a public health problem. That means applying the principles of epidemiology. One of the users on the other side of the debate opposed that because s/he believed it would result in lists of gun owners, enabling the feds to confiscate more guns. For some reason, studying gun deaths seems quite threatening to some people.

heron said:

We periodically take up the subject of gun control and Second Amendment rights. In one such discussion around ten-ish years ago, I suggested studying gun deaths as a public health problem. That means applying the principles of epidemiology. One of the users on the other side of the debate opposed that because s/he believed it would result in lists of gun owners, enabling the feds to confiscate more guns. For some reason, studying gun deaths seems quite threatening to some people.

The idea of studying gun violence is so threatening that some people passed the Dickey Amendment in 1996. That legislation sufficiently confused the language so that it impaired the ability of the CDC to conduct research on gun violence and to compile data for study on gun violence in the USA for years for fear of losing their federal funding in conservative retaliation.  

I specifically suggested study of "gun deaths" to include accidental and suicide. Not all gun deaths are a result of violence. 

NRSKarenRN said:

Childish... 

Fox News:  Trump replaces Biden's portrait with photo of autopen signature

https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1970902690474647786

 

Release the Epstein Files

We see that type of childish pettiness reflected in the words, actions, and attitudes of the fan base too. It all flows from the top. 

NRSKarenRN said:

Childish... 

Fox News:  Trump replaces Biden's portrait with photo of autopen signature

https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1970902690474647786

 

Release the Epstein Files

Pretty revolting. Anyone else here old enough to remember Jackie Kennedy's tour of the White House?

heron said:

Pretty revolting. Anyone else here old enough to remember Jackie Kennedy's tour of the White House?

I'm not sure that the Trump fan base is big on making historical comparisons. 

heron said:

Pretty revolting. Anyone else here old enough to remember Jackie Kennedy's tour of the White House?

Childish and unnecessary, yes. 

Not nearly as revolting as Biden' use of the autopen.

Just bc the Pentagon is enhancing rules doesn't mean they are censoring anyone. The Pentagon is not doing anything that military bases don't already do, you know to protect America. That is not censorship, it is called security and probably should have been updated sooner. 

Just because the Pentagon calls the censorship "security" doesn't actually mean that the actions meet the definition of security or that the objective isn't censorship.  Hegseth is a dishonest and incompetent secretary of the department of war.  We knew about and discussed some of that evidence when he was nominated.  

The same people who can't discern Trump's disqualifying character flaws also think that Pete Hegseth is focused upon national security even while knowing that he shares military secrets in chat messages with journalists, friends, and family.