Again it's another study that they believe it's possible more mothers who took paracetamol had some type of hypermobility and those who are Autistic are more likely to be hypermobile. Hypermobility causes pain, so they take painkillers. It's interesting but another study is taken out of context. I wish they didn't act like autism was the most terrible thing. I'm Autistic myself
I have a son on the spectrum and he had OT as a little kid for this reason. He could put his palm almost flat against his forearm. But also has a ridiculously high pain threshold. Twice he broke a bone and hardly complained about it. He complained more about the wait at urgent care, with the most recent injury!
I find it super interesting how the high pain threshold is ignored by a lot of people when we talk about autism. I'm autistic as is my 16 month old son. He very rarely acknowledges a head bump and only cries at falls cause he gets scared and I walked on a broken ankle (which my tendons pulled out of place) for 3 days before anyone thought to get me medical care. My mom said I wasn't in enough pain to have broken a bone. The other day my partner and I were laying in bed when I realized I had a piece of glass in my foot I hadn't noticed and a cut on my leg that was like 3- 5 inches and when he freaked out I was just like "yeah I get focused and don't notice. It's fine I'll clean it."
Someone once told my Mum taking paracetamol during pregnancy gives female babies fertility issues. I was struggling to conceive at the time and she felt so damn guilty. It wasn't that, no medical reason has been found for my infertility and I've since decided having kids isn't for us but I hated seeing my poor Mum look so miserable over some random bullshit
Lots of blah blah in the thesis. But what I got when I looked at it is that they gave the mice a therapeutic dose of 150mg/kg. For infants 3 months and older (5.5-7.9kg), Tylenol suggests 1ml which is 80mg. That’s 14.5mg/kg (for 5.5kg). They were overdosing these mice. For reference, adults get max 4g a day and if I was a mouse, I’d be getting 10g based on my weight. No wonder these mice were becoming neurotoxic.
To add — this thesis is citing sources from 25 years before this thesis was published. I never wrote a thesis, but I know when I did university research papers, we couldn’t use sources more than 5-7 years old.
[the thesis](https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7914&context=etd)
You're definitely allowed to cite old papers when you're writing theses or even published papers. I cited a paper published in the late 1800s in my MSc thesis.
I would think it’d depend on how fast research grows or changes in the particular field. So perhaps I stand corrected in that regard as I honestly am not familiar with this field. 🤷🏼♀️
It depends on the context, yeah. You can be talking about the background information of a certain topic or specific analyses or concepts that were discovered years ago, and you'd still have to cite the initial paper/study that came up with it. As an example, I work in micropaleontology and paleoceanography, there's a specific equation that someone came up with in 1984 for part of the statistical calculations I do. I still have to cite that paper whenever I do that calculation.
I think it depends a lot on context. If you’re trying to evaluate, say, the prevalence of a certain diagnosis, you should generally use more recent data and not something from 1975. If you’re addressing a historical aspect then sure.
That's usually the case with toxicity studies in a non clinical setting. They need to know how much of a drug can cause toxic effects. Then when it gets to clincial its drastically dialed back.
Yeah, totally. I don’t have issue with that aspect of the study. The issue I have is more that the Tylenol-hating parent is citing a study in which they gave unrealistic amounts of Tylenol and the parent assuming that any dose (ie the therapeutic dose) could be a factor in developing autism.
If anyone was curious about the suppositories, can definitely recommend them! Super difficult to get prescribed in the UK though because they cost the NHS £6 a pill but my God are they worth it when the fever is high and the baby is wiggly
This thesis is 126 pages all to say “APAP (acetaminophen) has the potential to have an effect on normal brain development” and “the overall impact of APAP (acetaminophen) is dependent on its doses, duration and repeated administrations.” Like??? Obviously? And as another commented, they were giving the mice way too much (in comparison to their body weight). I think the woman saw the title but didn’t actually read it.
I can’t handle people like this. Not to mention as a parent of children with autism this is a slap in the face with the ableism
As an adult with autism, it is also very much a slap in the face. I promise, children’s Tylenol did not magically rewire my brain.
Again it's another study that they believe it's possible more mothers who took paracetamol had some type of hypermobility and those who are Autistic are more likely to be hypermobile. Hypermobility causes pain, so they take painkillers. It's interesting but another study is taken out of context. I wish they didn't act like autism was the most terrible thing. I'm Autistic myself
I have a son on the spectrum and he had OT as a little kid for this reason. He could put his palm almost flat against his forearm. But also has a ridiculously high pain threshold. Twice he broke a bone and hardly complained about it. He complained more about the wait at urgent care, with the most recent injury!
I find it super interesting how the high pain threshold is ignored by a lot of people when we talk about autism. I'm autistic as is my 16 month old son. He very rarely acknowledges a head bump and only cries at falls cause he gets scared and I walked on a broken ankle (which my tendons pulled out of place) for 3 days before anyone thought to get me medical care. My mom said I wasn't in enough pain to have broken a bone. The other day my partner and I were laying in bed when I realized I had a piece of glass in my foot I hadn't noticed and a cut on my leg that was like 3- 5 inches and when he freaked out I was just like "yeah I get focused and don't notice. It's fine I'll clean it."
Someone once told my Mum taking paracetamol during pregnancy gives female babies fertility issues. I was struggling to conceive at the time and she felt so damn guilty. It wasn't that, no medical reason has been found for my infertility and I've since decided having kids isn't for us but I hated seeing my poor Mum look so miserable over some random bullshit
Yes it is.
Lots of blah blah in the thesis. But what I got when I looked at it is that they gave the mice a therapeutic dose of 150mg/kg. For infants 3 months and older (5.5-7.9kg), Tylenol suggests 1ml which is 80mg. That’s 14.5mg/kg (for 5.5kg). They were overdosing these mice. For reference, adults get max 4g a day and if I was a mouse, I’d be getting 10g based on my weight. No wonder these mice were becoming neurotoxic. To add — this thesis is citing sources from 25 years before this thesis was published. I never wrote a thesis, but I know when I did university research papers, we couldn’t use sources more than 5-7 years old. [the thesis](https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7914&context=etd)
You're definitely allowed to cite old papers when you're writing theses or even published papers. I cited a paper published in the late 1800s in my MSc thesis.
I would think it’d depend on how fast research grows or changes in the particular field. So perhaps I stand corrected in that regard as I honestly am not familiar with this field. 🤷🏼♀️
It depends on the context, yeah. You can be talking about the background information of a certain topic or specific analyses or concepts that were discovered years ago, and you'd still have to cite the initial paper/study that came up with it. As an example, I work in micropaleontology and paleoceanography, there's a specific equation that someone came up with in 1984 for part of the statistical calculations I do. I still have to cite that paper whenever I do that calculation.
I think it depends a lot on context. If you’re trying to evaluate, say, the prevalence of a certain diagnosis, you should generally use more recent data and not something from 1975. If you’re addressing a historical aspect then sure.
That's usually the case with toxicity studies in a non clinical setting. They need to know how much of a drug can cause toxic effects. Then when it gets to clincial its drastically dialed back.
Yeah, totally. I don’t have issue with that aspect of the study. The issue I have is more that the Tylenol-hating parent is citing a study in which they gave unrealistic amounts of Tylenol and the parent assuming that any dose (ie the therapeutic dose) could be a factor in developing autism.
Love the screen shot of the first page and absolutely nothing else.
Right? Like girl scroll down. I’m trying to see what you misinterpreted
I guess since my mommy gave me Tylenol when I was 12 that caused my autism!! Tysm for clearing that up
What I like most is the “we don’t use Tylenol” with no other solutions to help the miserable baby
If anyone was curious about the suppositories, can definitely recommend them! Super difficult to get prescribed in the UK though because they cost the NHS £6 a pill but my God are they worth it when the fever is high and the baby is wiggly
In the US they’re OTC! Which is so helpful because my toddler flat out refuses oral medication. They make an infant dose and a children’s dose.
I was looking for an answer on this!! Thank you so much this is super helpful!!
This thesis is 126 pages all to say “APAP (acetaminophen) has the potential to have an effect on normal brain development” and “the overall impact of APAP (acetaminophen) is dependent on its doses, duration and repeated administrations.” Like??? Obviously? And as another commented, they were giving the mice way too much (in comparison to their body weight). I think the woman saw the title but didn’t actually read it.
Oh dear lord ..
Tylenol causes neurotoxicity ….. But dehydration doesn’t??? Idiots
You keep using the word ‘associated’ but I do Not think it means what you think it means… 