AuDHD

Last on my various ADHD rambles today, just a single post. Anyone wanting to know more about ADHD (not necessarily management but what it is), should take the time to watch this video series. The *single* best and most detailed explanation ever. youtube.com/playlist?list=…

@dobssi 🤣 aged well that one

🤔

@dobssi Oh god that lunatic is still peddling his wares?

This scare story is doing the rounds. I asked Claude Opus 4.6 to analyze it. TLDR its nonsense. Otherwise, link and explanation within.... dobssi.github.io/Statistics/Deb…

@taipan168 If your coat is "crushed" by a small suitcase I worry about the comfort level of your coat beforehand.

Nice idea Mary. Now explain how it would work at airports with aerobridges.

@Hound_Dog1956 @TheWapplehouse x.com/AkiyoshiKitaoka ?

@TheWapplehouse You know the Japanese optical illusion professor on here? Having trouble pulling his name up but he has the best posts of anyone on this app.

As a kid every Christmas I’d ask for optical illusion and Magic Eye books. Couldn’t get enough of stuff like this.

So confounders are not important to take into account in observational studies? For example, consider the Swedish nationwide cohort study of acetaminophen and autism published in 2024 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38592388/), which contains 2.5m children born between 1995-2019 with followup through 2021. Below is a table of clinical characteristics of those children exposed to acetaminophen while in the womb or not. Are you telling me that you would simply compare the raw autism rate between the two groups (0.7% vs. 0.4%) to assess whether acetaminophen was significantly associated with autism, and a potential causative factor, while ignoring the confounding factors? Which are extensive, but that women whose children were exposed to acetaminophen in the womb had: More infection (6.7% vs. 4.4%) More chronic pain (1.7% vs. 0.8%) More asthma (1.4% vs. 0.8%) More rheumatoid arthritis (0.7% vs. 0.1%) More migranes (0.4% vs. 0.2%) More fever (0.4% vs. 0.2%) Higher use of: Opioids (15% vs. 2.4%) Antimigrane medication (2.5% vs. 0.7%) More antidepressants (5.7% vs. 3.1%) More pscholeptic medications (4.0% vs. 1.0%) More antiseizure medications (1.0% vs. 0.4%) A higher % with >10 health care visits year before pregnancy (1.9% vs. 0.7%) Do you REALLY think that someone who suggests that these confounders need to be taken into account has "conclusions shaped by politics not science", and the person who simply compares the raw rates, ignoring these massive imbalances, and declares acetaminophen use linked with autism is the one following science and not politics? I sure hope that is not what you are saying, and not what you think.

...would you be surprised to hear this person meets the criteria for an autism diagnosis? Even though this could equally be the description almost of a sullen, gaming, teenager?

If I said there was a person who did the following: - didn't make eye contact when talking to you - had relatively few friends, and didn't seek to make them - repeats certain words heavily - doesnt usually start conversations - had a particular special interest above all others

To those who think autism has increased significantly (by which I mean, the numbers affected have increased significantly), I ask - what do you think of when you think of autism? I suspect that the perception is vastly different from the actual (and the diagnostic criteria).

Autism hasn’t suddenly skyrocketed. The numbers look bigger today because our definitions and awareness have changed. In the 1940s, autism was first described as its own condition. Through the 50s and 60s it was often misdiagnosed as childhood schizophrenia. In the 80s it finally became its own diagnosis. In the 90s, the definition widened to include Asperger’s and related conditions. By 2013, everything was brought together under Autism Spectrum Disorder. Today we know autism is a natural brain difference with genetic roots. More people are identified now not because autism is new, but because the medical community has gotten better at recognizing and diagnosing it. That’s why what happened today is so damaging. Trump stood on a national stage and treated autism like a tragedy instead of a spectrum. He ignored the diversity of autistic lives. He recycled long-debunked myths about vaccines and medicine. He gave mothers a reason to blame themselves. He confused weak correlations with causes. He spread fear about treating common conditions during pregnancy. He erased autistic voices. And he politicized autism in a way that disrespected the people actually living it. By doing this, he mocked decades of progress in understanding and acceptance for people with neurodivergence. I am so frustrated by what I saw today. My heart aches for every advocate who has fought for awareness, dignity, and inclusion only to watch their work undermined in a single speech. You deserve so much more. We all do.

The announcement on autism was the greatest display of ignorance, unfounded blather, dangerous advice, recycled old nonsense and outright malpractice advice since Trump recommended bleach for Covid. A total laughingstock and embarrassment.

@gadboit @DrNeilStone Occam's razor applies here. Definition of "autism" changed (substantially) in the early 1990s. And awareness is hugely different now than 40 years ago. Everything points to an increase in recognition and diagnosis, not an increase in actual prevalence.

@gadboit @DrNeilStone There's a search going on in the states (and indeed everywhere to an extent) for a "smoking gun" cause that in all probability doesn't even exist.

@gadboit @DrNeilStone Incidentally, we broadly already know at least some of the causes of autism. We know it's highly heritable, and so genetics plays a very significant role. There's also an increasing body of evidence (albeit early) that suggests folate absorption plays a role.

Tylenol has been around since the 1950s. Autism has been going up since the 1980s Why would it only be "causing autism" now?

@MAbsoud 🎯 Especially when this guilt and fear arises from poorly assessed information that doesn't actually show what "some" say it does.

@Jean__Fisch @FDA @DGlaucomflecken And let's not forget the distress this will all cause to parents of autistic children and the additional guilt this will load onto them (when, believe me, parenting an autistic child is already loaded with guilt). Shameful behaviour IMO.

@OmicronData @FDA @DGlaucomflecken Yes, how can an expecting parent not go "oh, this is the terrible drug that could give autism to my child" and, understandably, will put off to use it and take the fever or pain "on the chin" (believing they are doing it for the good of their child)

FWIW, here is the updated advise from @FDA to physicians after the big press conference on links between autism and Tylenol (Paracetamol) - no causal link has been established / it's ongoing research - Be prudent but Tylenol remains the pain relief drug of choice during pregnancy

@Jean__Fisch Not a bad analogy TBF Jean, with the exception that the two systems are far more intertwined and aren't really seperate in health. Tangent admittedly but the psychological causes of pain is a fascinating topic.

@OmicronData This is terra incognita for me, alas ... and I can only imagine how difficult this subject must be to study as it combines "hardware" and "software" elements of our bodies (apologies for the IT comparison for lack of better words on my side ...)

I.e. by virtue of having an autistic child, you are predisposed, on average, to take more painkillers*anyway*, prior to having that child. This would explain why sibling studies (i e. Where this uncontrolled confounder is effectively controlled), shows no such correlation.

@Jean__Fisch @FDA @DGlaucomflecken Even if the risk found was true, it's still terrible public health. *All* drugs have risks. The question is the risk less than the risk of non-intervention, and is it less than other options. In this case the answer is a resounding yes to Tylenol

@Jean__Fisch @FDA They need to be incredibly careful. The risks of either non-treatment for things such as fever, or diversion to other drugs (mainly NSAIDs) are far higher than any theoretical unproven risk of Tylenol. @DGlaucomflecken is absolutely right that this advice will kill people.