They didn’t say that, at least definitely not in the way it’s being implied here by you (context matter and social media doesn't care about context 90% of the time). If you’ve ever read an OTC label, you’d know they all say something like: If pregnant or breast-feeding, ask a health professional before use. It’s generally not recommended to use any drugs without first consulting a doctor when pregnant or breast-feeding. This is why politicizing something as mundane as "we don’t know, but there might be an association" is harmful to society. Some people are just too political or too partisan, and they end up acting in ways that harm themselves or others. FDA statement: It is important to note that while an association between acetaminophen and neurological conditions has been described in many studies, a causal relationship has not been established and there are contrary studies in the scientific literature. It is also noted that acetaminophen is the only over-the-counter drug approved for use to treat fevers during pregnancy, and high fevers in pregnant women can pose a risk to their children. Additionally, aspirin and ibuprofen have well-documented adverse impacts on the fetus.
Of course they don't - no one thinks Tylenol is a supplement for pregnant women. If a woman is pregnant with high fevers - the one medication they can take is Tylenol. A woman can decide to NOT take Tylenol and live with the high fevers but the data shows that high fevers are associated with autism and other issues. People are going out of their way to make this convoluted.
She is a RADIOLOGIST...... and a regular on Fox News. So yes @ThatBoyNick SHE is involved in politics.
She is breast radiologist. Breast radiologists can comment on medical research outside of their field. I do not think she is particularly qualified to speak on medical research because of her training. But she has the right personality and look, so she is featured on Fox News.
Some people might not be familiar with this industry. For professional expert witnesses like this guy, he's not going to say whatever you tell him to say. He has his professional ethics to consider. You pay him to say what he believes. Of course, the client is going to shop for the right opinion and will only hire the guy who happens to believe what is helpful to your argument. It sounds like this dude didn't say much in the lawsuit or in the Trump announcement -- merely that there is some association of the two phenomena, which really anybody could have said. He's just making some good bank trading on Harvard's name. Not that $150k is ridiculous. For my purposes, $10-50k usually gets the job done, but my stakes are lower and I don't hire out of Harvard. I wonder what Trump paid him for his consultation -- a FOIA request probably could reveal that, right?
They cut billions in research funding. They are forming conclusions and determined to ignore everything in between. The messaging on this is terrible. Don't take Tylenol. Avoid at all costs. If you take it, is because you are too big of a wuss and don't care about your baby (this is what Trump implied). What freaking BS. Fevers are dangerous to the mother and child. They should absolutely take Tylenol if they have a high fever. They should talk to their doctor about and and all medications they take and when they should and shouldn't take it. Tylenol doesn't even seem strongly correlated with increased autism diagnosis. Internet and Cell phones though...
Professional Ethics? People steal, cheat, and lie all the time. You think there aren't professional expert witnesses that don't have a price on their ethics? There was an Accounting Expert Witness in one of Trump's trials that 100% in violation of professional ethics set by the AICPA. That isn't to say that any individual isn't giving their true opinion as there are crazies in every career field. There is always that one dentist that held out (and to be fair, often the holdout is the one with the ethics).
Memes are funny but they aren’t {always} real life. There’s almost nothing people take more seriously in this world than pregnancy. The thought that pregnant woman would in mass abuse a medicine in pure political rebellion leaves me question the people who would believe that thought. Although I will forewarn, I'm admittedly a pretty well regarded man myself. So take my take for what its worth. A Radiologist... Clearly a highly regarded person.
Yes, I don't think they have a price on their ethics. Or maybe they do but it doesn't make sense to pay it. In my experience, there is always someone among the think tanks that believes what you believe and will take money to say it aloud. You don't have to pay extra for them to lie when you can find someone else to say it earnestly. In the case of that lawsuit, there were 5 expert witnesses for the people suing Tylenol. If I had to guess, I'd think Baccarelli has a sneaking suspicion that there is a Tylenol-autism link but he just hasn't been able to prove it yet. But, I didn't post to defend the guy or something. I just wanted to put some color on the practice of hiring expert witnesses. I used to work in an expert witness company and later worked in a department that sometimes hired expert witnesses, either for trial or for advocacy, and I've even once been an expert witness myself (though I didn't get paid for it). There is enough money sloshing around in this industry that you don't have to stoop to saying things you don't believe to make a good living when you're as highly credentialed as that guy.
A big part of my job is hiring retained experts - in a variety of fields, but mostly in medicine and engineering. Like all people - the ethics of people in these fields that are retained experts vary. However, the reality is that if you retain an expert, they will do everything they can to help the person that retained them. They cannot usually entirely make things up because there is a paper trail of prior times they were retained experts and if they contradict their prior opinions they run into ethical issues with their various professional boards and also get less business because their opinions can be discredited. The way around that is that they typically will represent plaintiffs almost all the time or defendants all the time - that way their current opinions do not conflict with prior opinions. Also - with some of this stuff, the experts are in fields that are very questionable - for example blood splatter analysis, ballistics, and dentists --- these are all more arts than sciences and are VERY corrupt and not so much based on science/math and more on straight opinions. Also - you would be surprised how many prestigious and highly regarded experts are willing to offer opinions that they don't really have their heart in. It is one of the most disappointing things that I learned as a trial attorney. I have tried very hard to separate these types of experts - but it is a problem in the field, because everyone wants to win.
You mean someone that specializes in breast imaging and otherwise has no background in immunology/medicine? That’s ignoring the fact that if it’s not cancer related we don’t give af about what MSK says you should where a sign that signs I’m an inbred backwater r****d that wakes daily to grovel after MAGA diarrhea We both know you’re not this stupid
