Raw milk is way tastier though. The clearest memory I have from visiting the UK at 9 y/o was the milk from the milk rounds being unreasonably delicious. Like so much better i wasn't sure it was milk.
It's obviously not the right choice to fulfill the nations milk needs, that's a public health disaster. But I wish it was available in limited, risk-minimized contexts like in most of Europe.
fossilesque@mander.xyz
on 22 Sep 22:26
nextcollapse
This wasn’t raw milk. It was still pasteurised. Just not homogenised.
Homogenisation mixes the fat in the milk more effectively so you don’t get separation in the milk which increases its shelf life. Your memories of the tasty milk were probably the creamy part at the top of unshaken pasteurised but not homogenised milk.
Ah, could be. There's non-homogenized milk that we get sometimes here but it's nowhere as good as I remember that UK milk being. Maybe it's just distant childhood memories being incorrect.
reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net
on 23 Sep 01:32
nextcollapse
Agreed people shouldn’t be drinking it, pasteurization makes it safe for everyone’s immune system. Especially important considering the state of most factory farms.
BUT you’re probably remembering right. I’ve had milk straight from the cow (and cream and buttermilk separated from a just milked cow, as well as butter churned from said cream). Buttermilk especially tastes like quite different from the stuff in the grocery store.
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
on 23 Sep 14:17
collapse
Also, milk just tastes different depending on the cows, and how they’re raised and fed. Most likely what you’re noticing there is the difference between grass-fed and corn-fed. Cows aren’t naturally adapted to eat corn; they grow better and healthier on grass, which is how they’re raised in the UK. Corn-feeding is a primarily North American practice because corn can be sold at below the cost of production in the US thanks to government subsidies in place since the Great Depression.
that’s because it hasn’t had cream removed and it’s not diluted, nothing to do with making it safe to drink.
takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 22 Sep 22:37
nextcollapse
But that’s ok, he realized this when being high on heroine.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
on 23 Sep 02:47
collapse
I wish he would just legalize that, it would probably be the least unhealthy of his policy changes lol. Might also open up the door to some more reasonable substances being legalized as well.
Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
on 22 Sep 23:53
nextcollapse
I hate the guy as much as anybody but it is a real study.
snooggums@piefed.world
on 23 Sep 00:25
nextcollapse
A real study funded by the agencies headed by RFK Jr finding vague correlation with taking pain medications worded consistently as 'may cause' and with caveats that women should consult their doctor.
This past spring RFK Jr said he would have an answer in September because he set up this study to conclude in August. This is absolute bullshit.
Easy to state but do you have any proof of the connection? I’ve seen refutations of the study claiming the connection was merely the previously understood connection between the age of the mother and autism risk, but that’s just random internet comments.
What you’re claiming is something much more sinister than a mere mistake.
snooggums@piefed.world
on 23 Sep 00:37
nextcollapse
I already mentioned the funding and how it conveniently has findings that are aligned with the answer that RFK Jr wanted in the time frame he was looking for. It doesn't even state causation, just a vague correlation which RFK Jr is exaggerating.
Some kind of connection between the authors of the study and RFK Jr. Lots of studies get lots of funding from lots of different places so the source of the funding is not exactly a smoking gun.
It was submitted in May so he may have been tipped off about it because that’s kind of his special autistic focus ironically.
The claim is direct funding from RFK Jr. And a deliberate end goal of the study for his purposes. Not that the study is good or bad but that it is a nefarious plot by RFK Jr.
I added it in to my previous response but I figure I’ll just do it as a reply. The study was submitted in May so he very well may have seen it come up in his autism alerts. I’m sure he has some kind of autism study feed.
Oh boy, I sure do love getting all of my comments downvoted by you cunts just because you don’t like what I had to say. That sure proves me wrong…
My mistake I thought it was a reply in the other comment thread.
The thing that makes it possibly a good study is that it was published in a good journal from a good school. It’s not Harry Wang’s Big Book of Science. You expect poorly done research in pay to play journals, but less so in biomedcentral.
I’m still mildly skeptical and have seen people make the claim that it was more likely the age of the mother which has been legitimately associated with higher risks of autism. It makes sense. But having now seen that they’re pushing this shit super hard I’m immediately on guard.
I hadn’t seen the Trump TV announcement of this dumb shit. This is something worthy of further study not a doctor’s recommendation.
I didn’t say the study wasn’t “good” I said its not automatically 100% correct because it’s a study. I haven’t read it let me look at the first page so I can elaborate.
The study is fine. But its ethos is literally just correlation. The abstract:
Acetaminophen is the most commonly used over-the-counter pain and fever medication taken during pregnancy, with > 50% of pregnant women using acetaminophen worldwide. Numerous well-designed studies have indicated that pregnant mothers exposed to acetaminophen have children diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), including autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), at higher rates than children of pregnant mothers who were not exposed to acetaminophen.
This has zero cause effect relationship. Its literally the same issue with the vaccine correlation: medical care access.
bigbrowncommie69@hexbear.net
on 22 Sep 23:54
nextcollapse
Inhaling bottles of paracetamol so I get better at maths. Wish me luck chat
We identified 46 studies for inclusion in our analysis. Of these, 27 studies reported positive associations (significant links to NDDs), 9 showed null associations (no significant link), and 4 indicated negative associations (protective effects).
27+9+4 is 40 I think ? What happened to the 6 other papers ? I’m always confused by the whole “we ignored half of the studies and we won’t tell you why”, if they can also ignore some of the 46 studies they selected, what does the 46 number mean ?
“Our findings show that higher-quality studies are more likely to show a link between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and increased risks of autism and ADHD,”
The study was funded by the agencies RFK Jr heads. He said this spring that he would have an answer in September, which coincidentally is the month after this study that he wanted came out.
ook@discuss.tchncs.de
on 23 Sep 04:17
nextcollapse
I mean, it probably doesn’t but that explanation, “autism existed way before tylenol soit cannot cause it” is quite weak.
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
on 23 Sep 14:14
nextcollapse
Tylenol is a brand name for paracetomol (AKA acetominophen). It was first created in either 1878 or 1852 depending on which claims you believe about its discovery.
The claim that autism was differentiated from schizophrenia in 1911 is unsourced, and seems suspect given that Leo Kanner first described autism in 1943, but even if we accept it as true, it still puts the discovery of autism after the discovery of paracetomol.
RFK Jr is full of crap, and it doesn’t matter when autism was discovered, because it’s genetic and has probably been around as long as humans have, but trying to pull a gotcha like this is just going to make you look stupid.
squaresinger@lemmy.world
on 23 Sep 14:27
nextcollapse
People died already 10 000 years ago.
The Ford Model T was released in 1908.
Anyone trying to tell you that being run over by a car kills people is entirely full of crap.
There’s real arguments that can be used. No need to publish weak crap that’s easily refuted.
Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
on 23 Sep 18:07
collapse
Tylenol is a brand the drugs been around for a few hundred years.
redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Sep 04:15
nextcollapse
Tylenol was invented after autism was discovered. This is fucking stupid.
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
on 23 Sep 14:08
nextcollapse
Please don’t continue to share this “fact.” I know it sounds like a really good gotcha, but it’s not. Tylenol is just a brand name producer of the drug acetominophen, known in most of the rest of the world as paracetomol. It’s been around since at least 1878, and possibly earlier (there are claims it was produced in 1852). Autism was first described by Leo Kanner in 1943. Obviously, anyone sane knows that it’s been around a lot longer than that, probably as long as humans have been humans, but the people you’re trying to reach with this claim are obviously going to assert that it first appeared around the same time that it was first identified, or, at the very least, that it’s appearance likely aligns with the invention of paracetomol.
Quit being dumb. It didn’t enter widespread usage until the 1950s.
People from the 1800s and late 1900s had heroine cough syrup and cocaine Coca Cola. Paracetamol and phenacetin had extremely limited usage … something about destroying body organs.
Adding to that what @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works said: “links to” doesn’t mean “is exclusively caused by”.
That gotcha would only work if that was the claim.
So the argument reads a little like “People died before the Ford Model T entered the market, so obviously deaths aren’t caused by cars running over pedestrians.”
S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 23 Sep 13:46
nextcollapse
Autism was discovered 40 years before Tylenol was invented….
Autism existed before the drugs/things we think created it?
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
on 23 Sep 14:09
collapse
Copy and pasting from my other reply to this claim:
Please don’t continue to share this “fact.” I know it sounds like a really good gotcha, but it’s not. Tylenol is just a brand name producer of the drug acetominophen, known in most of the rest of the world as paracetomol. It’s been around since at least 1878, and possibly earlier (there are claims it was produced in 1852). Autism was first described by Leo Kanner in 1943. Obviously, anyone sane knows that it’s been around a lot longer than that, probably as long as humans have been humans, but the people you’re trying to reach with this claim are obviously going to assert that it first appeared around the same time that it was first identified, or, at the very least, that it’s appearance likely aligns with the invention of paracetomol.
squaresinger@lemmy.world
on 23 Sep 14:24
nextcollapse
Adding to that: “links to” doesn’t mean “is exclusively caused by”.
That gotcha would only work if that was the claim.
So the argument reads a little like “People died before the Ford Model T entered the market, so obviously deaths aren’t caused by cars running over pedestrians.”
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
on 23 Sep 14:43
collapse
Yeah, they could just as easily pivot to “Well, sure, autism was around before that, but it didn’t happen nearly as often.” Kind of like cancer and modern carcinogens. It’s just a foolish line of argument that makes us look stupid.
And it’s completely unnecessary. The evidence that autism is genetic is overwhelming. Anyone who is going to listen to facts already has the facts right there, and anyone else isn’t worth trying to convince.
Yeah, they could just as easily pivot to “Well, sure, autism was around before that, but it didn’t happen nearly as often.”
In fact, that was their actual argument. This is what Trump said:
First, effective immediately, the FDA will be notifying physicians that the use of, well, let’s see how we say that. Acetaminophen. Acetaminophen. Is that okay? Which is basically, commonly known as Tylenol. Can be associated with a very increased risk of autism. So taking Tylenol is not good. I’ll say it, it’s not good.
Within the rest of the rest of the speech you can clearly see where Trump goes off script and does his regular monkey-in-a-suit act, and he says stupid shit as always, but that up there is the core claim: “Can be associated with a very increased level of autism.”
That’s a claim that’s totally not affected by the “but autism existed before Tylenol” argument.
The whole argument is a strawman, nothing else. And that’s really infuriating because there are ample real arguments for this point. It’s not hard to argue that Tylenol has no link to Autism. But making up a strawman argument and butchering to even tear that strawman down is ridiculous.
Edit: It makes me think that this meme wasn’t actually created by anyone who is against Trump. It feels so incredibly dumb and easy to disprove that it probably was created by a magat to make fun of everyone who doesn’t worship Trump.
threaded - newest
This guy literally had part of his brain eaten by worms.
That should eternally preclude you from giving health advice.
“People shouldn’t take medical advice from me”
theguardian.com/…/rfk-jr-kennedy-senate-house-hea…
He’s a real life zombie eating brains of gullible people.
Brain worms he got from eating roadkill.
Didn’t he just claim that in a divorce court to explain neurological issues?
Raw milk is way tastier though. The clearest memory I have from visiting the UK at 9 y/o was the milk from the milk rounds being unreasonably delicious. Like so much better i wasn't sure it was milk.
It's obviously not the right choice to fulfill the nations milk needs, that's a public health disaster. But I wish it was available in limited, risk-minimized contexts like in most of Europe.
UK/EU dairy shreds my insides.
That's another side effect of acetaminophen.
/s
Don’t give them more stupid ideas…
This wasn’t raw milk. It was still pasteurised. Just not homogenised.
Homogenisation mixes the fat in the milk more effectively so you don’t get separation in the milk which increases its shelf life. Your memories of the tasty milk were probably the creamy part at the top of unshaken pasteurised but not homogenised milk.
Ah, could be. There's non-homogenized milk that we get sometimes here but it's nowhere as good as I remember that UK milk being. Maybe it's just distant childhood memories being incorrect.
Agreed people shouldn’t be drinking it, pasteurization makes it safe for everyone’s immune system. Especially important considering the state of most factory farms.
BUT you’re probably remembering right. I’ve had milk straight from the cow (and cream and buttermilk separated from a just milked cow, as well as butter churned from said cream). Buttermilk especially tastes like quite different from the stuff in the grocery store.
Also, milk just tastes different depending on the cows, and how they’re raised and fed. Most likely what you’re noticing there is the difference between grass-fed and corn-fed. Cows aren’t naturally adapted to eat corn; they grow better and healthier on grass, which is how they’re raised in the UK. Corn-feeding is a primarily North American practice because corn can be sold at below the cost of production in the US thanks to government subsidies in place since the Great Depression.
That milk is still pasteurised, it’s not raw.
that’s because it hasn’t had cream removed and it’s not diluted, nothing to do with making it safe to drink.
But that’s ok, he realized this when being high on heroine.
I wish he would just legalize that, it would probably be the least unhealthy of his policy changes lol. Might also open up the door to some more reasonable substances being legalized as well.
I hate the guy as much as anybody but it is a real study.
hsph.harvard.edu/…/using-acetaminophen-during-pre…
A real study funded by the agencies headed by RFK Jr finding vague correlation with taking pain medications worded consistently as 'may cause' and with caveats that women should consult their doctor.
This past spring RFK Jr said he would have an answer in September because he set up this study to conclude in August. This is absolute bullshit.
Easy to state but do you have any proof of the connection? I’ve seen refutations of the study claiming the connection was merely the previously understood connection between the age of the mother and autism risk, but that’s just random internet comments.
What you’re claiming is something much more sinister than a mere mistake.
I already mentioned the funding and how it conveniently has findings that are aligned with the answer that RFK Jr wanted in the time frame he was looking for. It doesn't even state causation, just a vague correlation which RFK Jr is exaggerating.
What other evidence do you want?
Some kind of connection between the authors of the study and RFK Jr. Lots of studies get lots of funding from lots of different places so the source of the funding is not exactly a smoking gun.
It was submitted in May so he may have been tipped off about it because that’s kind of his special autistic focus ironically.
Submitted the month after he announced he would have an answer in September.
RFK Jr said he wouldn't undermine vaccines during his confirmation hearing and then did exactly that ever since. He lies about everything.
Why are you still giving these lying fucks any benefit of the doubt?
Sorry about asking for fucking proof of your claims. I guess we just rely on vibes to judge truthiness.
How about the results section in abstract of the paper, which mentions “association” six times and “cause” zero times.
The claim is direct funding from RFK Jr. And a deliberate end goal of the study for his purposes. Not that the study is good or bad but that it is a nefarious plot by RFK Jr.
Yes and there are also “real studies” that say smoking is healthy.
Just because there’s words formatted a certain way in a PDF doesn’t mean it has any merit.
I added it in to my previous response but I figure I’ll just do it as a reply. The study was submitted in May so he very well may have seen it come up in his autism alerts. I’m sure he has some kind of autism study feed.
Oh boy, I sure do love getting all of my comments downvoted by you cunts just because you don’t like what I had to say. That sure proves me wrong…
Can you elaborate on the first paragraph? How is that significant? It seems to agree with what I said.
My mistake I thought it was a reply in the other comment thread.
The thing that makes it possibly a good study is that it was published in a good journal from a good school. It’s not Harry Wang’s Big Book of Science. You expect poorly done research in pay to play journals, but less so in biomedcentral.
I’m still mildly skeptical and have seen people make the claim that it was more likely the age of the mother which has been legitimately associated with higher risks of autism. It makes sense. But having now seen that they’re pushing this shit super hard I’m immediately on guard.
I hadn’t seen the Trump TV announcement of this dumb shit. This is something worthy of further study not a doctor’s recommendation.
I didn’t say the study wasn’t “good” I said its not automatically 100% correct because it’s a study. I haven’t read it let me look at the first page so I can elaborate.
The study is fine. But its ethos is literally just correlation. The abstract:
This has zero cause effect relationship. Its literally the same issue with the vaccine correlation: medical care access.
Inhaling bottles of paracetamol so I get better at maths. Wish me luck chat
Hey so, is this a normal thing in meta analyses ?
27+9+4 is 40 I think ? What happened to the 6 other papers ? I’m always confused by the whole “we ignored half of the studies and we won’t tell you why”, if they can also ignore some of the 46 studies they selected, what does the 46 number mean ?
They just ditched the studies they didn't like.
https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2025/mount-sinai-study-supports-evidence-that-prenatal-acetaminophen-use-may-be-linked-to-increased-risk-of-autism-and-adhd
The study was funded by the agencies RFK Jr heads. He said this spring that he would have an answer in September, which coincidentally is the month after this study that he wanted came out.
What a fucking joke
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/166f9711-1f53-4e8a-9cbc-483cba1a00bc.png">
I mean, it probably doesn’t but that explanation, “autism existed way before tylenol soit cannot cause it” is quite weak.
Tylenol is a brand name for paracetomol (AKA acetominophen). It was first created in either 1878 or 1852 depending on which claims you believe about its discovery.
The claim that autism was differentiated from schizophrenia in 1911 is unsourced, and seems suspect given that Leo Kanner first described autism in 1943, but even if we accept it as true, it still puts the discovery of autism after the discovery of paracetomol.
RFK Jr is full of crap, and it doesn’t matter when autism was discovered, because it’s genetic and has probably been around as long as humans have, but trying to pull a gotcha like this is just going to make you look stupid.
People died already 10 000 years ago.
The Ford Model T was released in 1908.
Anyone trying to tell you that being run over by a car kills people is entirely full of crap.
There’s real arguments that can be used. No need to publish weak crap that’s easily refuted.
Tylenol is a brand the drugs been around for a few hundred years.
Kenvue lawyers right now 🫡😂🤣🤑🥳
Tylenol was invented after autism was discovered. This is fucking stupid.
Please don’t continue to share this “fact.” I know it sounds like a really good gotcha, but it’s not. Tylenol is just a brand name producer of the drug acetominophen, known in most of the rest of the world as paracetomol. It’s been around since at least 1878, and possibly earlier (there are claims it was produced in 1852). Autism was first described by Leo Kanner in 1943. Obviously, anyone sane knows that it’s been around a lot longer than that, probably as long as humans have been humans, but the people you’re trying to reach with this claim are obviously going to assert that it first appeared around the same time that it was first identified, or, at the very least, that it’s appearance likely aligns with the invention of paracetomol.
Quit being dumb. It didn’t enter widespread usage until the 1950s.
People from the 1800s and late 1900s had heroine cough syrup and cocaine Coca Cola. Paracetamol and phenacetin had extremely limited usage … something about destroying body organs.
Bots are gonna bot.
Adding to that what @Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works said: “links to” doesn’t mean “is exclusively caused by”.
That gotcha would only work if that was the claim.
So the argument reads a little like “People died before the Ford Model T entered the market, so obviously deaths aren’t caused by cars running over pedestrians.”
Argue with the drug makers, not me. Trump is stupid, RFK is totally fucking stupid.
npr.org/…/trump-vaccines-tylenol-autism-acetamino…
Sighance more like
Autism was discovered 40 years before Tylenol was invented….Autism existed before the drugs/things we think created it?
Copy and pasting from my other reply to this claim:
Please don’t continue to share this “fact.” I know it sounds like a really good gotcha, but it’s not. Tylenol is just a brand name producer of the drug acetominophen, known in most of the rest of the world as paracetomol. It’s been around since at least 1878, and possibly earlier (there are claims it was produced in 1852). Autism was first described by Leo Kanner in 1943. Obviously, anyone sane knows that it’s been around a lot longer than that, probably as long as humans have been humans, but the people you’re trying to reach with this claim are obviously going to assert that it first appeared around the same time that it was first identified, or, at the very least, that it’s appearance likely aligns with the invention of paracetomol.
Adding to that: “links to” doesn’t mean “is exclusively caused by”.
That gotcha would only work if that was the claim.
So the argument reads a little like “People died before the Ford Model T entered the market, so obviously deaths aren’t caused by cars running over pedestrians.”
Yeah, they could just as easily pivot to “Well, sure, autism was around before that, but it didn’t happen nearly as often.” Kind of like cancer and modern carcinogens. It’s just a foolish line of argument that makes us look stupid.
And it’s completely unnecessary. The evidence that autism is genetic is overwhelming. Anyone who is going to listen to facts already has the facts right there, and anyone else isn’t worth trying to convince.
In fact, that was their actual argument. This is what Trump said:
Within the rest of the rest of the speech you can clearly see where Trump goes off script and does his regular monkey-in-a-suit act, and he says stupid shit as always, but that up there is the core claim: “Can be associated with a very increased level of autism.”
That’s a claim that’s totally not affected by the “but autism existed before Tylenol” argument.
The whole argument is a strawman, nothing else. And that’s really infuriating because there are ample real arguments for this point. It’s not hard to argue that Tylenol has no link to Autism. But making up a strawman argument and butchering to even tear that strawman down is ridiculous.
Edit: It makes me think that this meme wasn’t actually created by anyone who is against Trump. It feels so incredibly dumb and easy to disprove that it probably was created by a magat to make fun of everyone who doesn’t worship Trump.
Fair enough I edited my post.
Breaking news
Random person (me) links Republican Party of the USA to idiocy!
Forgot brain worms.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ee7da732-57a3-4f65-a059-7fd45ea4f60b.jpeg">