Acetaminophen use during pregnancy is not likely to raise the risk of having a child with autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability, according to a new study published Friday.

Acetaminophen use during pregnancy is not likely to raise the risk of having a child with autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability, according to a new study published Friday.

Researchers across Europe reexamined evidence from multiple studies investigating the link between these conditions and the use of paracetamol — called acetaminophen in the United States — and found that these purported associations fell apart after controlling for confounding factors.

    • porcoesphino@mander.xyzEnglish
      21·
      2 months ago

      Who has shares or ownership of Kimberly-Clark so that it helps RFK, Trump, or someone they know? And why didn’t they shut up about the autism thing after Nov so that the stock price would increase?

  • -RJ-@lemmy.worldEnglish
    52·
    2 months ago

    Harmless painkiller doesn’t cause autism as expected. Wow! It’s a shame that this has to be news. Next week “Fruit consumed during pregnancy doesn’t cause autism”

  • MehBlah@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    2 months ago

    How about Ibuprofen? That is the one the doctors tell women to avoid when pregnant.

    • jim@lemmy.orgEnglish
      4·
      2 months ago

      Ibuprofen isn’t a brand name so they won’t be able to manipulate the stock market.

  • Deestan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    71·
    2 months ago

    It was already disproven the second it was claimed, by being made up with no credible data or research

  • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
    28·
    2 months ago

    If autism has increased over the past 70 years, a more likely culprit would be higher sugar consumption.
    In many ways sugar acts as alcohol in our metabolism, and we know with certainty that excessive alcohol during pregnancy is a significant risk factor for the mental health of babies.

    • phutatorius@lemmy.zipEnglish
      8·
      2 months ago

      The rate of autism diagnosis is a product of the actual rate of occurrence of autism times the probability of diagnosis if someone has it. The probability of diagnosis (whether correct, false positive or false negative) depends on professionals’ and clients’ awareness of the condition. That has changed significantly over those 70 years, and because of that, it’s very hard to assess whether the prevalence of the underlying condition has changed or not. It’s also devilishly hard to determine whether ASD is being over-diagnosed now, or was massively under-diagnosed before.

      And sugar doesn’t really act like alcohol (for example, all the systemic damage caused by acetaldehyde when alcohol is metabolized doesn’t happen with sugar), and fetal alcohol syndrome presents very differently than ASD.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        2 months ago

        and because of that, it’s very hard to assess whether the prevalence of the underlying condition has changed or not.

        Yes, and that’s the reason I wrote “if”, because IDK if it is actually the case although it may seem so.
        From the presentation “sugar is a poison” by Robert Lustig he demonstrates ways sugar is similar to alcohol, and also has a level of dependency when abused that is similar although weaker than alcohol.

        Just because there are differences doesn’t mean there aren’t also similarities.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
        AFAIK it is much wider accepted today that sugar is harmful than it was in 2001 when he first made the presentation.
        I have never seen anything to refute what Lustig suggested almost 25 years ago.

        Child care professionals have widely warned against sugar as a behavior altering substance for children, warning it can make children behave like they have ADHD. These warnings have existed at least since the 70’s that I know of, but AFAIK without any studies to either confirm or deny these claims. Despite the suspicion has existed for more than half a century now.

        So we do have warnings from professionals that have indications it could be harmful during pregnancy too.
        I have no idea why I’m downvoted for suggesting that?
        I’m not claiming it is factually a problem during pregnancy, I’m just pointing out something that could be an issue, and AFAIK not very well researched.
        If sugar is as harmful as many suggest, it is quite important knowledge we should have.
        Everything in good measure is a good rule of thumb, but we don’t really know what a good measure of sugar is.
        But we do know it is harmful, and at a minimum can cause diabetes and heart disease.
        But AFAIK we don’t even have safety margins on sugar to avoid even those very widespread and well known problems.