Hey look, it’s big pharma not properly testing stuff and lobbying politicians to sell their shit over the counter.
Monday August 25, 2025
Drug has link to autism
The world’s most popular painkiller may put children at risk of ADID and autism, experts have warned.
Paracetamol is a common medication used by millions of youngsters and adults to treat mild symptoms from colds to headaches.
But new data has claimed the painkiller could be linked to autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Experts at Mount Sinai and Harvard’s School of Public Health conducted their research using more than 100,000 people and 46 case studies. The team reviewed which stage of pregnancy mothers took paracetamol and compared it to their subsequent medical records.
Their findings concluded expectant mothers should take the painkiller “for the shortest” period possible, and at the “lowest effective dose”
“Ultimately, the obtained scores suggest strong evidence of a likely relationship between prenatal acetaminophen use and increased risk of ADHD in children,” scientists wrote in the journal Environmental Health. "This includes high-quality studies that provide very strong evidence of an association and studies that provide strong evidence of an association.
ETA: Link to journal mentioned in article: https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01208-0
Edit: holy cow with the downvotes. I took the picture today with my phone camera. The ones bitching about the source: it’s fcking Harvard. The ones claiming later pregnancies have higher risk clearly don’t need to provide any sources for their claims. And together with [email protected] you can enjoy one less subscriber.
Ugh. You guys know I’m on vacation right?
kingofras it appears in their enthusiasm to share first took a picture of the article he saw. And this unfortunately came off as AI and not a real article.
He did link to the actual article (I am assuming later).
This is a scientific article from a legitimate publication.
What I would like to see is the article posted as a normal link. Then we can all read it and give our opinions.
It would appear a community about neurodiversity will get you some pretty random neurodiverse responses at times.
What you’re trying to build is hard. I found it in the news paper, and photographed it. There is no online version of it. The journal link should be sufficient.
Enjoy your holiday, and if this is too much, I don’t mind if you delete this. It’s not really a sign of a welcoming community that the only thing that gets upvoted here are your daily check ins (with US date notation) and memes. And scientific claims get nuked. Lol.
the community has learned through multiple rounds of astroturfing attacks to be cautious. this post is formatted like something that gets passed around “autism mom” facebook groups. that shit gets exhausting to filter out.
Well, I apologise for partaking in this community. This was posted and only posted on Lemmy, which is pretty far from Facebook, as you can see with the over the top and hilarious scrutiny here.
It would have made everything easier if you had simply noted from which newspaper you took the picture.
Just because an article gives a summary of a scientific study doesn’t mean that it’s believable. Cherry picking is a thing, especially in today’s political climate. So knowing which newspaper published (and probably paid the person making) the summary helps a lot to judge its quality.
Some people care about their privacy. Including the newspaper name or a link would not have changed anything about the content. The article quotes a journaled study from 2 esteemed places, one of them Harvard.
The fact is that 80% of comments here all went after the form and not the content, and were extremely defensive. I’m not sure why.
It’s fine to care about privacy but not citing a source will usually lead to people doubting the content. This is also why most people here discuss the form instead of the content because they don’t even know how truthful it is.
The article does quote a study but doesn’t cite the source so we can’t even be certain the study that has been mentioned in the comments is the one the article is about.
I understand that you were excited about the discovery and wanted to share it and it hurts that people don’t share your excitement but criticise the form of your post. This is why I’m trying to explain why people reacted that way.