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.
Additionally, the XI study mentions that all cord blood samples contained detectable levels of acetammenophen, but they don't actually report how those levels differed across the tertiles, either averages or thresholds. So, we have no idea how much acetaminophen we're actually talking about here.
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.
So, they then just divided the participants into three groups or tertiles based on the concentration of acetaminophen that was detected in the samples of umbilical cord blood. So then you could compare the risk in the first to the second and the first to the third tertiles respectively. So again this might eliminate the issue of recall bias um which of course is a real issue as well where you have to ask a woman after she has the baby you know how much Tylenol did you take during your pregnancy when etc. Um, but again it still has a pretty big issue which is acetaminophen does not stick around very long in the blood. Um, and therefore we don't really know how much the acetaminophen levels identified in cord blood at the time of delivery really tell us anything about the amount of acetaminophen that the woman took during pregnancy.