We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
So is it enough to explain what we opened with which is a fivefold increase in the prevalence of autism today? And I I think the answer is unquestionably no. that that's that's a much more confident thing that we can say um that there is uh essentially zero chance that maternal Tylenol use is the thing quote unquote the thing in quotes responsible for the rise in autism.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.