No, the post is claiming that because Tylenol was discovered after autism, it can’t be a cause of it. That’s flawed logic: it’s true that autism must also have some other cause, but it’s very possible in principle for things to have multiple causes, so the timeline argument proves nothing.
That’s not to say that Dipshit McBrainworm’s claim has any sort of merit whatsoever, mind you. It’s just that this argument is defective.
If there is a bump in cases of autism post-Tylenol, then it might be a cause, if there isn’t, it can’t be. That’s the reason for the timeline argument, that’s what it proves.
“Linked to” means “might cause in some cases”. If it’s “linked” then it should be at least correlated. The disconnect between the two shows that it isn’t.
The point is, the claim is that Tylenol is “linked to” autism.
This post is rebutting the claim that Tylenol “causes” autism.
Thats a classic straw man argument.
No, the post is claiming that because Tylenol was discovered after autism, it can’t be a cause of it. That’s flawed logic: it’s true that autism must also have some other cause, but it’s very possible in principle for things to have multiple causes, so the timeline argument proves nothing.
That’s not to say that Dipshit McBrainworm’s claim has any sort of merit whatsoever, mind you. It’s just that this argument is defective.
That’s what I said ?
If there is a bump in cases of autism post-Tylenol, then it might be a cause, if there isn’t, it can’t be. That’s the reason for the timeline argument, that’s what it proves.
“Linked to” means “might cause in some cases”. If it’s “linked” then it should be at least correlated. The disconnect between the two shows that it isn’t.