@honeyybomb@taradublinrocks Valid. Please answer the primary part of my comment though: if you care about research, why boost a 2017 brand tweet that's been overtaken by newer studies?
@honeyybomb@taradublinrocks You don’t have to agree, but a more productive use of time would be to fight MAGA on their research funding cuts. And if you care about research, why boost a 2017 brand tweet that’s been overtaken by newer studies? Post the 2024 data, not 2017 marketing.
@honeyybomb@taradublinrocks Research=good which is why we follow the newest, best research. A ‘19 press blurb & a ‘17 brand tweet dont reflect today’s evidence. The largest ‘24 sibling-comparison (2M+ births) finds no increased autism/ADHD risk, and WHO/ACOG (‘25) say there’s no proven link
@honeyybomb@taradublinrocks Research = good. But your collage is headlines and ‘may be linked’ press releases. Association ≠ causation. In the best-controlled data (e.g., 2024 sibling-comparison), the signal disappears. Study it, yes. Pretend it’s proven? No
@honeyybomb@taradublinrocks False equivalence. Cigarettes and cancer are backed by decades of overwhelming evidence. Tylenol/autism isn’t. The biggest, newest studies show no causal link. Investigating is fine, but pretending the science is settled is just bad faith
@SpiderD22U@jessrock22000@ETBrowning01@taradublinrocks There was no Harvard study. The claim came from Andrea Baccarelli in a lawsuit, and a judge tossed his testimony as unreliable. That’s the difference between us: I fact-check, you just repeat headlines
@honeyybomb@taradublinrocks Valid. Anyway, scientific data changes over time with research. Not sure you should hold an 8 year old tweet as the word of god unless you’re willing to stand 10 toes down on other scientific updates. The earth was originally claimed to be flat. Research updated that claim.