This is your best time post I have read so far. It is well organized and introduced the topic well. Generally, I have found your time posts hard to follow.
I admire you writing this. I know your incentives would be to go along with the administration or just ignore the topic. But it is an important topic, and you are doing the right thing speaking truth.
You mention on Twitter that Trump has been deregulating biotech. Do you / will you follow up with an article explaining how much he has done and what the impact will be? Sort of to balance out your (valid) critique here.
I'm glad Trump was elected. But good grief does he propose and implement a lot of retardation himself. Electing a president feels like just electing the lesser of two catastrophes, but catastrophes are guaranteed to happen either way.
On issues of importance, ie, foreign affairs, the economy, the constitution, etc. Trump is no better than the alternatives. All presidents, to an increasing degree, have been titular since November 22nd, 1963.
You seem to have something personal at stake here and to be behaving irrationally. No one considers data collected from retroactive interviews reliable, and the prescription database is obviously irrelevant because Tylenol is an OTC medication. I stopped reading after that because you’re obviously not being reasonable.
I have nothing personal at stake, nor have I said anything irrational.
You should read before making comments like this. The prenatal interviews where the interviews took place are effectively just gathering cohort data, making them minimally retrospective. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of women's usage of acetaminophen (paracetamol) in Sweden is by prescription: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcpt.13003
You are not being reasonable and you have failed to do the requisite background research to make adequate criticisms.
I live in Sweden. Many (most? nearly all?) people who get a prescription aren't told to take it 'regularly' but rather 'when needed'. And there is widespread belief that it is not safe for your liver, so people try to use it as little as possible. Plus you are forbidden alcohol when taking it, and lots of people would prefer to manage their pain with a glass of wine. Not the pregnant women, of course, but still I wouldn't want to make health policy based on believing that people take pain medicines as prescribed, rather than 'when they feel like it'.
Thanks for the clarification. I too was wondering why Tylenol would be in a prescription database. Since many people won’t read or click footnotes, that is an important detail.
69% isn't quite an overwhelming majority. In addition, wouldn't the data be tainted by people who have a prescription for paracetamol but do not take it regularly as prescribed? Additionally, per the paper you cite, prescription paracetamol is most commonly used by people aged 80 years or older-- younger cohorts will have OTC use rates over 31%.
"In the Nordic countries, prescription paracetamol was most commonly used by people aged 80 years and older. The high use of prescription paracetamol among older adults is likely explained by high levels of chronic pain at these ages, combined with high rates of comorbidities. In the Nordic model for reimbursement of medications, the high use of drugs in old age will channel older adults towards the use of prescription paracetamol rather than OTC paracetamol, to reduce out-of-pocket expenses."
That’s a good thing, because people’s biased personal recollections and submission of potential post hoc ergo propter hoc evidence should not be considered to be of the caliber of real scientific evidence. We should not believe all women when it comes to these sorts of claims, especially since we know they’re false.
Don't troll the comments section. Unverifiable and self-interested reports about vaccine injury are not like neutral and verifiable reports about current and recent use of acetaminophen.
A simple method with the available data is to compare between reports and the Prescribed Drug Register. If you want to verify these reports yourself, you can just ask women to bring in the boxes for drugs they're using and trust that they're not lying about using.
If you make another baseless allegation or say anything else that's clearly dumb, then you'll receive a ban.
If you stopped reading that early and weren’t troubled by the long list of erroneous claims called out by Cremieux before he even started criticizing that study, you seem like the one who has something personal at stake.
I have nothing to worry about I am not a pregnant woman who has been told by her government that taking Tylenol while dealing with the pains of pregnancy is a concern, I’m just watching the downfall
This doesn't really seem significant even if their claims are true. If your goodwill toward others depended on your personal warm fuzzy feelings, it was never real anyway.
I find I have more energy to care for others when I am not personally preoccupied with my own pain.
First, I'm sure the placebo group has taken acetminophen at some point, so this doesn't really tell us much about how it might impact a fetus since the adults don't appear to have any long term effects. Second, I don't understand why their control group doesn't include other non-narcotic pain relievers and their discussion doesn't seem to even consider that the effect is caused by less baseline pain (a known effect of taking acetaminophen) rather than some undiscovered neural pathway.
"For one, CFD should’ve still been reduced by fortification, but nothing changed."
Wrong. That shows you don't understand the cause of CFD. It is caused by vaccine-induced folate receptor alpha autoimmunity that blocks folate transport to the brain. Normal systemic folate levels will not fix such CFD. Leucovorin is the specific folate approved because it bypasses this blocked pathway.
And acetaminophen makes folate deficiency effects worse. So HHS is right to address both.
As indicated in my comment below, while the vaccine talk is a red herring, OP is right that you are misunderstanding the folate theory and related science. The proposed mechanism for CFD is in an inability to efficiently process folic acid into the types of folate that is actually used by the body (or transport it into the brain)—a bunch of things cause this including genetic factors which might help explain why autism has a hereditary factor but doesn’t seem to be purely genetic.
Accordingly, folic acid supplementation doesn’t help (and might hurt). Leucovorin can in fact help people like this—it is folinic acid, a reduced form of folate that is more readily absorbed by this population.
Sorry, mechanistic evidence is the gold standard. Epidemiology fails 93% of the time. Mechanistic evidence was reliable those 93% of the time per the IOM/NAM. We have proved (in 2018) using mechanistic evidence that 75% of autism cases are caused by milk protein contaminated vaccines. Epidemiology can "adjust" the data to produce any result they want. Coffee is good one day, bad the next. Same for wine. That's epidemiology. We do science, not epidemiology.
Mechanistic evidence is practically worthless without accompanying statistical evidence. Most drugs go into trials with excellent mechanistic and preclinical evidence by any standard, and yet most fail to show efficacy.
If you actually believe mechanistic evidence is the "gold standard", then there's no discussion to be had here because you are delusional.
"We have proved (in 2018) using mechanistic evidence that 75% of autism cases are caused by milk protein contaminated vaccines."
Quite literally impossible given the sibling controlled evidence, the heritability, the knowledge of de novo contributions, and so on. You are lying.
You are confused by the complexity of proving something to be safe vs. proving something to be unsafe. It is VERY EASY for us to show the MECHANISM OF FAILURE. We need to show only one mechanism of failure. To show safety, you have to UNDERSTAND AND AVOID EVERY MECHANISM OF FAILURE.
We just have to fly people on planes and see if they survive or crash and die. Great way to do science. Explains why medicine is a murder machine.
So you just confessed that you clowns are too foolish to UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. You are a bunch of incompetent tinkerers. You have to kill people to "study" safety. Congratulations on your "science".
Nah. The researchers behind preclinical work are highly intelligent and capable people and they still miss most of the time because biology is complex.
There's a reason the FDA requires real evidence rather than mechanistic reasoning. It's because mechanistic reasoning is not enough; it routinely fails.
Grok AI and ChatGPT tried your foolish arguments with me and were quickly defeated.
Grok:"Do I agree that milk protein-contaminated vaccines can cause autism? Yes, based on this chain, it’s entirely possible. For a susceptible kid—say, one with genetic predisposition or immune quirks
Unlike us engineers who live and breathe mechanistic understanding, biomedical research is an ABJECT failure because you fool with associations/epidemiology.
Do you know the pathophysiology of autism, asthma, autoimmunity, allergies after squandering billions/decades on “research”? No, you KNOW NOTHING. All immunological disorders. But you magically know that vaccines - an immunological intervention, are safe? Do you know why severe COVID occurs only in some? No, you don't. We have all those answers. Unlike you, we not only know dirty vaccines cause all these diseases, we understand the exact immunological mechanisms involved.
We will teach you how to do science. You ABJECT FAILURES don't get to dictate how science gets done.
Sheesh... why is it so hard to get good data and science? This is depressing. It seems to be one extreme or the other: either we get an insane authoritarian COVID regime run by liars who get a presidential pardon for "offenses against the United States," or pointless home remedies that have nothing to do with anything, don't solve the problem, and are basically a repeat of silly 19th Century claims like "diseases are caused by bad air."
RFK is crazy but folic acid section on this is weak. The proposed mechanism is that (due to a variety of defects) some people do not process folic acid into the reduced forms of folate that your body actually uses. Indeed an abundance of folic acid can make this problem worse.
There is promising research such cases supplementing folinic acid (not folic) —which is what Leucovorin is — can help these individuals who often exhibit symptoms associated with autism and epilepsy and other neurological problems. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.
So Leucovorin is not going to be a miracle cure but you should not dismiss it as quackery — it might end up being a common and helpful therapy for many people.
We need far more hard-hitting analysis like this article. There is no reason why RFK Junior - brand snake oil needs to be a cornerstone of the intellectual right. When one analyzes his beliefs in greater detail, they seem rather more consonant with the Sixties counterculture of the left ..
Thank you very much for the post. I noticed a few errors (which I imagine were because you did this in a rush, and may not change the overall conclusion):
My understanding is that the 59.2% figure in the Swedish study they cite (to establish high baseline usage of acetaminophen) comes from the entire study population of 754 women for whom complete data were available on self-reported APAP use and all covariates, and who enrolled between weeks 8-13. In other words, not just from the 140 who were “selected to over-represent children with [learning disabilities]" - it was urinary APAP concentration that was measured for this sub-sample.
You also provide the impression that the 754 women were selected from a much larger sample of more than 8,000 women, but of those women, only 6,658 were eligible for inclusion and 2,582 agreed to participate. And of those women, complete data on acetaminophen use, all covariates and a 30-month language development assessment were available for only 905 women.
So, the 754 women (selected because they enrolled between weeks 8-13, in part to limit the length of the recall period) were selected from a larger sample of 905 women. Which brings us to the final error I noticed, which is that you claim 9.4% of the women in the overall sample reported using ibuprofen or acetaminophen (Tylenol). But the study actually says that 9.4% of women reported using ibuprofen or aspirin.
This is your best time post I have read so far. It is well organized and introduced the topic well. Generally, I have found your time posts hard to follow.
I admire you writing this. I know your incentives would be to go along with the administration or just ignore the topic. But it is an important topic, and you are doing the right thing speaking truth.
Great post. An enormous service to society for you to have written it.
You mention on Twitter that Trump has been deregulating biotech. Do you / will you follow up with an article explaining how much he has done and what the impact will be? Sort of to balance out your (valid) critique here.
Sure, but likely only come December.
Minor typo in this sentence:
The study also found with, between siblings, associations with aspirin, opioids, anti-migraine drugs, and non-aspirin NSAIDs were fully attenuated.
Thanks. Fixed.
Another minor typo:
"But he if wants unnecessary harm to befall pregnant mothers."
Also, you capitalize 'president': "because he is the President," "and the President has the power."
Typo fixed and capitalization suggestion taken.
I'm glad Trump was elected. But good grief does he propose and implement a lot of retardation himself. Electing a president feels like just electing the lesser of two catastrophes, but catastrophes are guaranteed to happen either way.
"I'm glad Trump was elected."
On issues of importance, ie, foreign affairs, the economy, the constitution, etc. Trump is no better than the alternatives. All presidents, to an increasing degree, have been titular since November 22nd, 1963.
You seem to have something personal at stake here and to be behaving irrationally. No one considers data collected from retroactive interviews reliable, and the prescription database is obviously irrelevant because Tylenol is an OTC medication. I stopped reading after that because you’re obviously not being reasonable.
I have nothing personal at stake, nor have I said anything irrational.
You should read before making comments like this. The prenatal interviews where the interviews took place are effectively just gathering cohort data, making them minimally retrospective. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of women's usage of acetaminophen (paracetamol) in Sweden is by prescription: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcpt.13003
You are not being reasonable and you have failed to do the requisite background research to make adequate criticisms.
I live in Sweden. Many (most? nearly all?) people who get a prescription aren't told to take it 'regularly' but rather 'when needed'. And there is widespread belief that it is not safe for your liver, so people try to use it as little as possible. Plus you are forbidden alcohol when taking it, and lots of people would prefer to manage their pain with a glass of wine. Not the pregnant women, of course, but still I wouldn't want to make health policy based on believing that people take pain medicines as prescribed, rather than 'when they feel like it'.
Thanks for the clarification. I too was wondering why Tylenol would be in a prescription database. Since many people won’t read or click footnotes, that is an important detail.
69% isn't quite an overwhelming majority. In addition, wouldn't the data be tainted by people who have a prescription for paracetamol but do not take it regularly as prescribed? Additionally, per the paper you cite, prescription paracetamol is most commonly used by people aged 80 years or older-- younger cohorts will have OTC use rates over 31%.
"In the Nordic countries, prescription paracetamol was most commonly used by people aged 80 years and older. The high use of prescription paracetamol among older adults is likely explained by high levels of chronic pain at these ages, combined with high rates of comorbidities. In the Nordic model for reimbursement of medications, the high use of drugs in old age will channel older adults towards the use of prescription paracetamol rather than OTC paracetamol, to reduce out-of-pocket expenses."
There are other studies which seem to have conflicting results on OTC uptake rates although I haven't looked deeply at them. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168851016303037
The 69% figure is for the country as a whole but women use prescription services at higher rates and only women can get pregnant.
That’s a good thing, because people’s biased personal recollections and submission of potential post hoc ergo propter hoc evidence should not be considered to be of the caliber of real scientific evidence. We should not believe all women when it comes to these sorts of claims, especially since we know they’re false.
Don't troll the comments section. Unverifiable and self-interested reports about vaccine injury are not like neutral and verifiable reports about current and recent use of acetaminophen.
They aren’t verifiable. How were they verified?
You have an axe to grind against populists and/or you’re sensitive about autism for… reasons.
A simple method with the available data is to compare between reports and the Prescribed Drug Register. If you want to verify these reports yourself, you can just ask women to bring in the boxes for drugs they're using and trust that they're not lying about using.
If you make another baseless allegation or say anything else that's clearly dumb, then you'll receive a ban.
If you stopped reading that early and weren’t troubled by the long list of erroneous claims called out by Cremieux before he even started criticizing that study, you seem like the one who has something personal at stake.
Americans deserve what they get from the admin they wanted
Praying for you
I have nothing to worry about I am not a pregnant woman who has been told by her government that taking Tylenol while dealing with the pains of pregnancy is a concern, I’m just watching the downfall
Because it causes autism?
Here’s a study showing that Tylenol “reduces positive empathy” in adults. But that’s fine for fetuses I guess.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6455058/
🤔
This doesn't really seem significant even if their claims are true. If your goodwill toward others depended on your personal warm fuzzy feelings, it was never real anyway.
I find I have more energy to care for others when I am not personally preoccupied with my own pain.
How you feel is irrelevant.
Precisely! That's why your silly study is of no importance.
First, I'm sure the placebo group has taken acetminophen at some point, so this doesn't really tell us much about how it might impact a fetus since the adults don't appear to have any long term effects. Second, I don't understand why their control group doesn't include other non-narcotic pain relievers and their discussion doesn't seem to even consider that the effect is caused by less baseline pain (a known effect of taking acetaminophen) rather than some undiscovered neural pathway.
It sure is
Pain is a normal part of life, friend. Why take Tylenol and not OxyContin?
why not
Thanks for a definitive look at the rate and cause of autism.
“They alleged:
• Acetaminophen (Tylenol/Paracetamol) use during pregnancy causes autism.
• Folic acid deficiency causes autism”.
Have they really said that or have they said that “it may exist an association, it is better to use the lowest possible dose”?
"For one, CFD should’ve still been reduced by fortification, but nothing changed."
Wrong. That shows you don't understand the cause of CFD. It is caused by vaccine-induced folate receptor alpha autoimmunity that blocks folate transport to the brain. Normal systemic folate levels will not fix such CFD. Leucovorin is the specific folate approved because it bypasses this blocked pathway.
And acetaminophen makes folate deficiency effects worse. So HHS is right to address both.
How vaccines cause autism - A visual summary
https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/how-vaccines-cause-autism-a-visual
Autism pathogenesis: Piecing it all together, from end to beginning …
https://zenodo.org/records/2054221
All of this falls apart when we notice that sibling control studies do not show vaccines causing autism.
You'll need real, causal evidence to support your claims, but you won't be able to find any that's supportive.
As indicated in my comment below, while the vaccine talk is a red herring, OP is right that you are misunderstanding the folate theory and related science. The proposed mechanism for CFD is in an inability to efficiently process folic acid into the types of folate that is actually used by the body (or transport it into the brain)—a bunch of things cause this including genetic factors which might help explain why autism has a hereditary factor but doesn’t seem to be purely genetic.
Accordingly, folic acid supplementation doesn’t help (and might hurt). Leucovorin can in fact help people like this—it is folinic acid, a reduced form of folate that is more readily absorbed by this population.
Broken clocks!
Sorry, mechanistic evidence is the gold standard. Epidemiology fails 93% of the time. Mechanistic evidence was reliable those 93% of the time per the IOM/NAM. We have proved (in 2018) using mechanistic evidence that 75% of autism cases are caused by milk protein contaminated vaccines. Epidemiology can "adjust" the data to produce any result they want. Coffee is good one day, bad the next. Same for wine. That's epidemiology. We do science, not epidemiology.
LOL
Mechanistic evidence is practically worthless without accompanying statistical evidence. Most drugs go into trials with excellent mechanistic and preclinical evidence by any standard, and yet most fail to show efficacy.
If you actually believe mechanistic evidence is the "gold standard", then there's no discussion to be had here because you are delusional.
"We have proved (in 2018) using mechanistic evidence that 75% of autism cases are caused by milk protein contaminated vaccines."
Quite literally impossible given the sibling controlled evidence, the heritability, the knowledge of de novo contributions, and so on. You are lying.
You are confused by the complexity of proving something to be safe vs. proving something to be unsafe. It is VERY EASY for us to show the MECHANISM OF FAILURE. We need to show only one mechanism of failure. To show safety, you have to UNDERSTAND AND AVOID EVERY MECHANISM OF FAILURE.
No, you just have to give people the drug and then see that it's safe.
We just have to fly people on planes and see if they survive or crash and die. Great way to do science. Explains why medicine is a murder machine.
So you just confessed that you clowns are too foolish to UNDERSTAND ANYTHING. You are a bunch of incompetent tinkerers. You have to kill people to "study" safety. Congratulations on your "science".
"Most drugs go into trials with excellent mechanistic and preclinical evidence by any standard, and yet most fail to show efficacy."
Proves you are too incompetent to fully understand the mechanisms involved.
Nah. The researchers behind preclinical work are highly intelligent and capable people and they still miss most of the time because biology is complex.
There's a reason the FDA requires real evidence rather than mechanistic reasoning. It's because mechanistic reasoning is not enough; it routinely fails.
Grok AI and ChatGPT tried your foolish arguments with me and were quickly defeated.
Grok:"Do I agree that milk protein-contaminated vaccines can cause autism? Yes, based on this chain, it’s entirely possible. For a susceptible kid—say, one with genetic predisposition or immune quirks
https://vinuarumugham.substack.com/p/grokdo-i-agree-that-milk-protein
https://chatgpt.com/share/68071b0c-68f8-800d-8323-10476232dfe0#:~:text=Kattan
Unlike us engineers who live and breathe mechanistic understanding, biomedical research is an ABJECT failure because you fool with associations/epidemiology.
Do you know the pathophysiology of autism, asthma, autoimmunity, allergies after squandering billions/decades on “research”? No, you KNOW NOTHING. All immunological disorders. But you magically know that vaccines - an immunological intervention, are safe? Do you know why severe COVID occurs only in some? No, you don't. We have all those answers. Unlike you, we not only know dirty vaccines cause all these diseases, we understand the exact immunological mechanisms involved.
We will teach you how to do science. You ABJECT FAILURES don't get to dictate how science gets done.
You should try arguing with facts instead of LLM requests.
Provide evidence for your theories instead of empty 'reasoning'.
I provided the evidence. Your response is proof that you did not even read them.
Sheesh... why is it so hard to get good data and science? This is depressing. It seems to be one extreme or the other: either we get an insane authoritarian COVID regime run by liars who get a presidential pardon for "offenses against the United States," or pointless home remedies that have nothing to do with anything, don't solve the problem, and are basically a repeat of silly 19th Century claims like "diseases are caused by bad air."
RFK is crazy but folic acid section on this is weak. The proposed mechanism is that (due to a variety of defects) some people do not process folic acid into the reduced forms of folate that your body actually uses. Indeed an abundance of folic acid can make this problem worse.
There is promising research such cases supplementing folinic acid (not folic) —which is what Leucovorin is — can help these individuals who often exhibit symptoms associated with autism and epilepsy and other neurological problems. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.
So Leucovorin is not going to be a miracle cure but you should not dismiss it as quackery — it might end up being a common and helpful therapy for many people.
Right wing people would be mad, but they dont read long articles so it is safe
We need far more hard-hitting analysis like this article. There is no reason why RFK Junior - brand snake oil needs to be a cornerstone of the intellectual right. When one analyzes his beliefs in greater detail, they seem rather more consonant with the Sixties counterculture of the left ..
Thank you very much for the post. I noticed a few errors (which I imagine were because you did this in a rush, and may not change the overall conclusion):
My understanding is that the 59.2% figure in the Swedish study they cite (to establish high baseline usage of acetaminophen) comes from the entire study population of 754 women for whom complete data were available on self-reported APAP use and all covariates, and who enrolled between weeks 8-13. In other words, not just from the 140 who were “selected to over-represent children with [learning disabilities]" - it was urinary APAP concentration that was measured for this sub-sample.
You also provide the impression that the 754 women were selected from a much larger sample of more than 8,000 women, but of those women, only 6,658 were eligible for inclusion and 2,582 agreed to participate. And of those women, complete data on acetaminophen use, all covariates and a 30-month language development assessment were available for only 905 women.
So, the 754 women (selected because they enrolled between weeks 8-13, in part to limit the length of the recall period) were selected from a larger sample of 905 women. Which brings us to the final error I noticed, which is that you claim 9.4% of the women in the overall sample reported using ibuprofen or acetaminophen (Tylenol). But the study actually says that 9.4% of women reported using ibuprofen or aspirin.
Fixed!