- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Letter from FDA to physicians on acetaminophen use
Posted on 9/24/25 at 12:41 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Posted on 9/24/25 at 12:41 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Good lord....
So now you are telling me I'm about to be spammed by stupid, white women repeating the following phrase in their signatures. Great.
"Correlation does not imply causation"
So now you are telling me I'm about to be spammed by stupid, white women repeating the following phrase in their signatures. Great.
"Correlation does not imply causation"
0
Posted on 9/24/25 at 12:43 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Soooo, The fda not coming out and saying there is absolute no evidence and no way Tylenol has any effect on the fetus means trump was..wrong?
Interesting take
Interesting take
Posted on 9/24/25 at 12:43 pm to onmymedicalgrind
I wish you could share the info you want without being a jack wagon.
It makes it hard to keep reading.
I mean that as a compliment in case your first instinct is to be snarky.
There’s a bunch here that are willing to “listen”. But…
It makes it hard to keep reading.
I mean that as a compliment in case your first instinct is to be snarky.
There’s a bunch here that are willing to “listen”. But…
Posted on 9/24/25 at 12:43 pm to SallysHuman
There are a bunch of full on retards in this thread. Not you Sallyshuman!
Y'all are acting like it was stated at the press conf. that "tylenol causes autism and we have the evidence to prove it". The explicitly said that out of an abundance or caution to not be taking tylenol because it MIGHT hurt the child.
But the left hates Trump so much they pretend that Trump admin. called for an all out ban on Tylenol.
Y'all are acting like it was stated at the press conf. that "tylenol causes autism and we have the evidence to prove it". The explicitly said that out of an abundance or caution to not be taking tylenol because it MIGHT hurt the child.
But the left hates Trump so much they pretend that Trump admin. called for an all out ban on Tylenol.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 12:47 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
It isn't a bad thing that this information and these changes have garnered so much attention.
I see what you mean about attention, but with medicine it often cuts the other way. e.g. look at statins - a couple of sensational headlines about muscle aches led thousands of people to quit them, even though studies were showing the side effects were usually mild and rare. Result was more heart attacks and strokes in people who could’ve been protected. That’s why safety updates usually go through the boring FDA/doctor channel - so patients don’t get scared off by headlines and end up worse off.
This post was edited on 9/24/25 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 9/24/25 at 12:47 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Not you Sallyshuman!
Thank you!
quote:
There are a bunch of full on retards in this thread.
I think they just have TDS... and the ones that don't haven't considered that the Trump's part in the presser might have been over the top ON PURPOSE to drive this into the news and social media sphere to heighten awareness.
I've had since yesterday to think on it, and I truly believe the end result- everyone talking- was the goal Trump set out to achieve.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 12:48 pm to TigerDoc
I won't dispute any of that, but it's interesting that you chose Vioxx as an example considering that Celebrex remains on the market, has the same MOA, and better PK/PD. Further, it was a head-to-head safety study vs. naproxen where the CV risk data were not disclosed. It remains an ethics case-study for clinical trials routinely used in bioethics courses today. PMC
Posted on 9/24/25 at 12:53 pm to SallysHuman
(no message)
Posted on 9/24/25 at 12:56 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
a causal relationship has not been established and there are contrary studies in the scientific literature
That's the thing about metadata studies and why I view just about all of them with a skeptical lens.
Take a hypothesis, find sources, throw out ones that don't agree with your hypothesis, publish findings.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 12:57 pm to Wildcat1996
Oh nice - yeah, really good classic med-ethics case. You’re right it showed how trial design and disclosure matter as much as the drug itself, but pulling Vioxx didn’t mean all COX-2s were unsafe - Celebrex stayed because more transparent studies showed a different risk/benefit. That’s how drug safety actually works. There's not one big verdict, but constant re-evaluation as new data come in. For non-med-folk, the point is medicine does self-correct, sometimes painfully, but it happens. Which is why splashy political announcements feel off. The real safety process is slower, quieter, and ultimately more reliable.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 12:58 pm to TigerDoc
First of all, thank you for understanding my point and debating the merits are lack thereof of yesterday's style of presser. Truly.
I don't remember any outrage when Benadryl made the news cycle for a correlation in regular usage and increased dementia risk.
I'm not of age or circumstance to be concerned with statins yet- and without looking them up, my impression was that there was debate by medical professionals both for and against their usage.
Also- you have to have a prescription for statins, which is a little different than easily obtainable otc pain relievers.
One thing I've noticed about tylenol is that it is hard to find any OTC that aren't 500mg- that might be another cause for concern as there aren't as readily available lower dosages like there is with, say, aspirin.
People often take 2 tylenol at a time... every four to six hours is 4000-6000mg in a 24hr period. That's not good for non gestational usage, much less while pregnant.
quote:
That’s why safety updates usually go through the boring FDA/doctor channel - so patients don’t get scared off by headlines and end up worse off.
I don't remember any outrage when Benadryl made the news cycle for a correlation in regular usage and increased dementia risk.
quote:
I see what you mean about attention, but with medicine it often cuts the other way. e.g. look at statins - a couple of sensational headlines about muscle aches led thousands of people to quit them, even though studies were showing the side effects were usually mild and rare.
I'm not of age or circumstance to be concerned with statins yet- and without looking them up, my impression was that there was debate by medical professionals both for and against their usage.
Also- you have to have a prescription for statins, which is a little different than easily obtainable otc pain relievers.
One thing I've noticed about tylenol is that it is hard to find any OTC that aren't 500mg- that might be another cause for concern as there aren't as readily available lower dosages like there is with, say, aspirin.
People often take 2 tylenol at a time... every four to six hours is 4000-6000mg in a 24hr period. That's not good for non gestational usage, much less while pregnant.
This post was edited on 9/24/25 at 1:08 pm
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:01 pm to LSUTANGERINE
So, you're saying that the Dean of the Harvard School of Public health is wrong, and you're right?
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:05 pm to LSUTANGERINE
You have questionable reading comprehension
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:11 pm to SallysHuman
Fair point - statins and Tylenol aren’t the same. Statins are prescription-only, while Tylenol is otc, and the 500mg tablets do make it easy for people to overshoot the daily safe limit, which is why overdose is a leading cause of liver failure. That said, those risks are well known and built into current dosing guidance. What’s new and much shakier are the claims about autism, which aren’t backed by the same weight of evidence. Lumping proven overdose risks together with unproven neurological ones in a high-profile announcement doesn’t make people safer - it just stirs confusion.
I would love it if Trump did a 45 minute presser on safe med use. It wouldn't get much covered unless he was causing controversy, though, which is part of the reason we get this instead.
I would love it if Trump did a 45 minute presser on safe med use. It wouldn't get much covered unless he was causing controversy, though, which is part of the reason we get this instead.
This post was edited on 9/24/25 at 1:17 pm
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:15 pm to roadGator
quote:
I wish you could share the info you want without being a jack wagon.
It makes it hard to keep reading.
That applies to about 99% of the posters on this board.
If it weren't for "jack wagons", this board wouldn't see any traffic.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:20 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
while Tylenol is otc, and the 500mg tablets do make it easy for people to overshoot the daily safe limit, which is why overdose is a leading cause of liver failure.
Yes! Tylenol used to be, in the 90s, readily available at 325mg... you'd take one or two every 4-6hrs. People were used to that.
For whatever reason- the standard is 500mg now- and while you may feel the dose instructions are clear, people tend to do what they've always done which would be to take one or two ever 4-6hrs.
90s Tylenol, a 24hr period of use would range from 1,300-3,900mg. Today's Tylenol range is 2,000-6,000mg per 24hr period.
That's a huge difference and yes, the bottle says no more than what, 4,000mg per 24hr- but people don't tend to read the bottle after they've developed a habit of usage.
Tylenol mixed with prescription pain relievers is maxed out at 325mg... for safety sake. But OTC contains- if I mathed it right- 53.8% more acetaminophen per pill.
Why?
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:25 pm to Bob Sacamano 89
quote:
Soooo, The fda not coming out and saying there is absolute no evidence and no way Tylenol has any effect on the fetus means trump was..
It means they purposely left out more rigorous research that showed no causation.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:26 pm to SallysHuman
That sort of thinking is how medical safety experts should think - package instructions aren't the end-all be all. people are creatures of habit and prior use patterns should be considered in things like this.
I actually have no idea on these specifics, but whatever the correct answer is would make a helluva boring press conference.
I actually have no idea on these specifics, but whatever the correct answer is would make a helluva boring press conference.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:26 pm to Mid Iowa Tiger
This is the pivot. The reflex was that Trump must be a liar, and all of the demons in the media followed suit. But when studies from Harvard and others started popping up on social media, and folks began to realize that Tylenol already issues a warning for pregnant and nursing women on the bottle, they pivoted to pissing on the way Trump delivered the press conference.
Never mind half the media is on a crusade right now to get make pregnant woman think acetaminophen is of zero risk - which does a ton more harm than anything Trump said.
Its so goddamned stupid.
Never mind half the media is on a crusade right now to get make pregnant woman think acetaminophen is of zero risk - which does a ton more harm than anything Trump said.
Its so goddamned stupid.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:27 pm to LSUTANGERINE
not just no causation, no association.
Page 4 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News