Hello I feel confused

[Confused123]

I happened to read a Wall Street Journal article. Families in America are taking a medicine company to court because there is an increased chance of a baby being born with autism or adhd if the mam took this drug during pregnancy. The U.K. name for the drug is paracetamol. There are lots of scientist studies that say this information is true (but i don’t know) and yet our nhs website says it is safe to take paracetamol and doesn’t harm the baby. If there was even a tiny increase in chance i would have liked to have known. The researches go back as far as 1986.
I don’t know what to believe.



https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/lawsuits-seek-to-link-tylenol-ingredient-to-autism-adhd-f6ff5c13https://www.isglobal.org/en/-/la-ex...on-sintomas-de-tdah-y-autismo-en-la-infancia#https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/parace...ertility-while-taking-paracetamol-for-adults/

 

[Misty Avich]

These days everything causes autism so best not to take all these claims too seriously.

 

[AspieChris]

It’s the first class action lawsuit against a drug that supposedly causes Autism. There has definitely been a rise in autism in the last 50 years, but proving it goes back to taking paracetamol (Tylenol in the USA’) sounds impossible.

I saw a short documentary a few years ago. They interviewed a few grade school teachers (teachers in 1st - 6th grade) who had been teachers for 40-50 years. They all said that there has been a huge rise in the numbers of children with ASD since around 1980.

There’s also been a lot more Tylenol sold since the 1970’s (when those kids would have been born). But drawing a parallel in court and winning? I can’t see that working.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Just to put things into perspective, of this 2021 meta-analysis, there was an increase in "borderline" or diagnosed autism (19%) and ADHD by (21%), as compared to non-exposed children. I am not sure what qualifies as "borderline". The normal frequency of autism and ADHD, roughly 1/36 children, which likely includes mothers who took paracetamol/Tylenol (roughly 50%). The other thing is that from this data set, it makes no mention of frequency and dosage, but rather "did you take Tylenol", which doesn't tell us much. Was taking it a few times during the course of the pregnancy, or was it once a day, every day, or something different?

Tylenol is in a class of drugs called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), but part of their mechanism is the inhibition of inflammatory mediators. During a normal pregnancy, cytokines and other inflammatory mediators will rise and fall with a specific timing regimen, and act as "signals" to switch on and off certain growth factors. I can only speculate that Tylenol, Ibuprofen, and other NSAIDs would interfere with this normal process.

Keep in mind that there are many other associated factors when it comes to autism, such as the age of the parents, hyperinsulinemia (metabolic syndromes and diabetes), hypothyroidism, maternal infections, exposure to high levels of environmental pollution, as well as genetic and epigenetic factors. No one, identifiable cause of autism, but likely a combination of factors coalescing to create the condition.

From the reference study: "Acetaminophen (or paracetamol) is used by 46–56% of pregnant women in developed countries [1,2,3]. Whilst acetaminophen is considered the safest analgesic/antipyretic for pregnant women and children, mounting evidence has linked prenatal acetaminophen exposure to worse cognitive performance [4,5,6], more behavioural problems [1, 7, 8], Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASC) [6, 9] and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms [1, 3, 6, 10]. Recently, detection of acetaminophen in meconium has associated with increased odds of ADHD and altered frontoparietal connectivity at ages 9–10 years [11]."

Again, what we don't have is the frequency, dosage, nor when (an important variable) during the pregnancy Tylenol was used.

 

[AspieChris]

Just to put things into perspective, of this meta-analysis, there was an increase in autism and ADHD by 19%, as compared to what? The normal frequency of autism and ADHD, roughly 1/36 children, which likely includes mothers who took paracetamol/Tylenol. The other thing is that from this data set, it makes no mention of frequency and dosage, but rather "did you take Tylenol", which doesn't tell us much. Was taking it a few times during the course of the pregnancy, or was it once a day, every day, or something different?

Tylenol is in a class of drugs called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), but part of their mechanism is the inhibition of inflammatory mediators. During a normal pregnancy, cytokines and other inflammatory mediators will rise and fall with a specific timing regimen, and act as "signals" to switch on and off certain growth factors. I can only speculate that Tylenol, Ibuprofen, and other NSAIDs would interfere with this normal process.

Keep in mind that there are many other associated factors when it comes to autism, such as the age of the parents, hyperinsulinemia (metabolic syndromes and diabetes), hypothyroidism, maternal infections, exposure to high levels of environmental pollution, as well as genetic and epigenetic factors. No one, identifiable cause of autism, but likely a combination of factors coalescing to create the condition.

It could also be that it was a ‘dormant’ condition that never rose to the surface until we got all of this technology overstimulating us. Imagine living in the 1940’s, before television. I doubt I would be autistic. I would just have been a ‘loner’.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

It could also be that it was a ‘dormant’ condition that never rose to the surface until we got all of this technology overstimulating us. Imagine living in the 1940’s, before television. I doubt I would be autistic. I would just have been a ‘loner’.

Yes, this is a contributing factor, but certainly not the only one. People learned and developed their social and physical skills to a much higher level than today, frankly, because they had to. It wasn't an option not to develop these life skills, and when I say this, more likely for those that were, by today's definitions, ASD-1, 2 of normal to high intellect. Awareness and diagnostic recognition is much better. People had their children at a younger age and didn't suffer from as much obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndromes, and hypothyroidism, as these are far more prevalent in today's world than it was prior to the 1980s.

 

[AspieChris]

Yes, this is a contributing factor, but certainly not the only one. People learned and developed their social and physical skills to a much higher level than today, frankly, because they had to. It wasn't an option not to develop these life skills, and when I say this, more likely for those that were, by today's definitions, ASD-1, 2 of normal to high intellect. Awareness and diagnostic recognition is much better. People had their children at a younger age and didn't suffer from as much obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndromes, and hypothyroidism, as these are far more prevalent in today's world than it was prior to the 1980s.

Absolutely true. Diabetes and obesity are great examples of how the things we consume have changed our physical bodies and affected our children before birth.

I actually believe that the rise in autism rates is connected to Monsanto and the obscene quantities of pesticides and herbicides that are used on corn and soy crops in the last 50 years. Combine that with all of the processed convenience food we consume (all containing corn and soy extracts). Prior to 1970, the chemicals that killed weeds and pests would also kill the corn and soy. Also, the only real processed parts of our diets would have been something like ketchup or cheese.

It’s just a theory, but there’s an undeniable correlation between the quantities of those chemicals being sold and the rise in ASD rates.

 

[Ken]

There has definitely been a rise in autism in the last 50 years,

There has definitely been a rise in autism diagnosis in the last 50 years.

I was born in 1952 (71 years ago) and I am definitely autistic, but I was never diagnosed. Back then, no one knew what autism was or even knew the term, "autism", so no one ever got diagnosed. I have several cousins and know of several friends of the family and have several co-workers and acquaintances that are all very definitely autistic - none were ever diagnosed. I was diagnosed as "retarded". In today's world, I would certainly be diagnosed as autistic.

Autistic diagnosis is not because it is occurring more often, but because it has become more known - and even popular - an easy scapegoat.

 

[AspieChris]

There has definitely been a rise in autism diagnosis in the last 50 years.

I was born in 1952 (71 years ago) and I am definitely autistic, but I was never diagnosed. Back then, no one knew what autism was or even knew the term, "autism", so no one ever got diagnosed. I have several cousins and know of several friends of the family and have several co-workers and acquaintances that are all very definitely autistic - none were ever diagnosed. I was diagnosed as "retarded". In today's world, I would certainly be diagnosed as autistic.

Autistic diagnosis is not because it is occurring more often, but because it has become more known - and even popular - an easy scapegoat.

My Grandfather was definitely the same as me. But his life was less hectic as mine. He died when cellphones were a new idea, before the internet and social media. Today I carry 2 cellphones, have 6 e-mail accounts, and need several APPs just to submit a timesheet at work. The world is turning into a place that is not fit for those of us who need a lot of quiet time.

It’s definitely been around forever. I’m 50. You were called a retard. I was called difficult. My 16 year old son is called “special needs”. But we are all survivors.

 

[Aspychata]

I was shocked when a very intelligent person l met had that label thrown at him as a younger child, because autism wasn't a diagnosis, and that label really hurt him. It makes me angry why this happened to him. Same as @Ken. I think the number of autism dxs has risen somewhat.

 

[Ken]

My Grandfather was definitely the same as me. But his life was less hectic as mine. He died when cellphones were a new idea, before the internet and social media. Today I carry 2 cellphones, have 6 e-mail accounts, and need several APPs just to submit a timesheet at work. The world is turning into a place that is not fit for those of us who need a lot of quiet time.

It’s definitely been around forever. I’m 50. You were called a retard. I was called difficult. My 16 year old son is called “special needs”. But we are all survivors.

My grandfather was also obviously autistic. However, he grew up in a very rural life out on a farm. Very remote, quiet and peaceful, but a life of hard work. He was considered unyieldingly rigid, stubborn and obsessive, but was always quiet. He was the happiest when alone and working.

There were no phones at all of any kind. No electricity or running water, no plumbing. He hand dug a well for water. He successfully farmed many crops. No irrigation, no fertilizer, not even a tractor. No modern farming methods or equipment, everything all by hand, no field hands, just him and his two children, but mostly just him; yet he still had high yields. They never missed any technology, because they had never experienced it to know about it.

And today, society believes that new knowledge of science and medical conditions means the science and medical conditions are new, when in fact, only the knowledge of it is what's new.

Sometimes we think our technologies are "required" without ever experiencing life without them. My grandfather was my mothers father. Here in the age of technology, she often exclaimed that her life out on that remote farm was the happiest times of her life.

 

[Slime_Punk]

Definitely have to agree that there are probably way more risk factors now than there used to be. Supposedly in rats, even those who are born to an obese mother have are more likely to have symptoms in line with ASD.

Plus, the whole MMR thing was weird, because it doesn't address all of the other vaccines that exist, or even immune responses that happen when people are exposed to viruses and diseases organically or through vaccines, so everything ranging from new medication to things like that could have little tidbits of truth that science just hasn't discovered yet, either due to some controversy or plenty of "internal investigations" that show conflicting results.

(Also, I think vaccines and medication can be great in certain circumstances, it's just that everything has a dark side)

Our environment is is terribly polluted now, too, so I wouldn't even doubt that things like that are just another factor to put on the stack of other factors. We also have weird traces of contaminants (sometimes medications, sometimes radioactive runoff) in our water in the US, so that's fun. Other people probably have it much worse than that

 

[Judge]

Autistic diagnosis is not because it is occurring more often, but because it has become more known - and even popular - an easy scapegoat.

Is autism truly occurring more often, or has medical science, its diagnostic process and public awareness all improved and increased at this point in time?

Autism may have well existed as long as humanity itself. However the discovery of it remains a relatively recent event. And a process that continues to evolve within the professional medical community.

 

[AspieChris]

Plus, the whole MMR thing was weird,

We held off on getting my son the MMR vaccine 15 years ago because it was all over the news that it causes Autism. I already knew I was on the spectrum. But my son began exhibiting undeniable signs that he too was autistic around 3 years old, so he got the vaccine.

There’s no question that the MMR vaccine didn’t contribute to his ASD. I doubt that it is the real cause.

 

[AspieChris]

There’s no question that NTs and ASDs are wired different. I guess the question is whether I was always going to be born this way or fid something happen during pregnancy that changed my wiring.

There’s a single drug that can cause premature labor, a different one that can cause a miscarriage. It seems totally rational that something as benign as Tylenol could cause a change in an unborn baby’s wiring. But figuring out what that could be (or proving it in court) sounds impossible.

 

[Ken]

Our environment is indeed becoming toxic; I believe catastrophically toxic. It is causing dramatically increased occurrences of disease. I have three autoimmune disease that can easily be traced to pollutants and lifestyle issues. However, those are diseases. Diseases are medical issues that are caused by something. A disease is something you catch. In all my research and 71 years of observation; autism is a characteristic; not a disease. It is not something you catch. It is something you are born with. It is the physical routing and arrangement of you neurology. It is a natural occurance. Autism is a spectrum. It's different for everyone. One is labeled autistic when their list of characteristics match enough items on the established autism definition list. Not everything on one's list is very noticeable to the general population. Those will be labeled high functioning. In some respects I could be labeled high functioning, but for the most part I am anything but. However, there were enough characteristics that propelled me to a good life. It's just a life that doesn't include social.

There was a time when I suffered greatly for my autism, making a good argument for the disease misperception. But now after a lot of life, I can see that autism is just who I am; a characteristic of my life, of me. If I was suddenly "cured", I would no longer be me. A huge part of me would be missing. It would be catastrophic. I wouldn't want that. Looking back on my life and where I ended up, I can be proud not just for where I ended up, but how I got there. I would have never ended up in my present life if I was not autistic. When I was young, life was traumatically hard. I was diagnosed as retarded. No one believed I could succeed at anything and I would be dependent all my life. If I was what my parents and everyone else believed I was, that would have been true. They never imagined that instead, I was saved by my autism and advanced in life far beyond any of them. I have an uncle that still refuses to believe my success in life because I was/am too weird - I act to retarded.

It makes me want to plead with parents and schools to never degrade, look down on or consider anyone incapable of life simply because they live in a different world. I strongly believe that attempts to fix them is catastrophically detrimental to their life. I was not successful in life because I learned to fit in. I have never fit in, never tried to fit in. I am not like everyone else. Now I can see that not fitting in was my path to success.

Good example here:

 

[Rodafina]

Hello and welcome @Confused123. I hope you find the forum to be a place where you can really enlighten yourself and get a diversity of opinions, ideas, and resources.

 

[Shamar]

There is a demonstration in bad statistics I used to do. I would drop a ball and let it bounce a few times before catching it, then say "While the ball was bouncing, somewhere in the world there was at least one detectable seismic event." These events occur at the rate of tens per second, so it was pretty much guaranteed. I would drop the ball again and make the same statement. If I dropped the ball 10,000 times, there would be an event for each one. This is as close to a 100% correlation as you can get. However, it does not go in both directions. The event occurs whether the ball is dropped or not. As close to 0% correlation as you can get. Additionally, there is no cause and effect. Dropping the ball has no effect of seismic events, and there is no explanation for how there could be.

For a correlation to be valid, two things are necessary. First, the correlation must work in both directions. Second, cause and effect must be demonstrated. In this case, I don't believe either of these conditions have been met. What is the rate of autistic children in mothers who did not take this medication? Has cause and effect been truly demonstrated and explained? On this point Neonatal RRT had some good speculation.

I have seen this sort of thing before in the courts. Some years ago there was a trial against breast implant manufacturers because many women with implants had scarring and hardening in their breasts. The defendants showed that this problems occurred at the same rate for any breast surgery, whether implants were involved or not. In other words, there was no statistical correlation between these problems and implants. The plaintiffs brought in a parade of women who said they had implants and these problems followed. The defendants lost, because the plaintiffs' lawyers made it so facts didn't matter. The lawyers ended up with most of the settlement. I fear the same will happen here.

 

[tazz]

For a correlation to be valid, two things are necessary. First, the correlation must work in both directions. Second, cause and effect must be demonstrated.

Is that second point correct? I thought two things can have correlation but not causation, and the problem is that people get those two mixed up a lot.

So if A happens, we also see B happening, and vice versa. But A might not be the cause of B. So we have a correlation but no causation. It could be, for example, that there's a third factor C that we haven't discovered yet which causes A and B.

 

[Shamar]

You are correct, in all points. However, cause and effect must be demonstrated in order to have statistical validity. Your third factor C could be the cause and effect relationship, but until that third factor is demonstrated, the statistics are still invalid, even with a seeming correlation. Most apparent correlations break down over the long term, but picking short terms can often show a statistical relationship. My main point was the far too common abuse of statistics, proving something using invalid statistics. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain