this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2026
460 points (100.0% liked)

World News

52022 readers
2711 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Acetaminophen use during pregnancy is not likely to raise the risk of having a child with autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability, according to a new study published Friday.

Researchers across Europe reexamined evidence from multiple studies investigating the link between these conditions and the use of paracetamol — called acetaminophen in the United States — and found that these purported associations fell apart after controlling for confounding factors.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The rate of autism diagnosis is a product of the actual rate of occurrence of autism times the probability of diagnosis if someone has it. The probability of diagnosis (whether correct, false positive or false negative) depends on professionals' and clients' awareness of the condition. That has changed significantly over those 70 years, and because of that, it's very hard to assess whether the prevalence of the underlying condition has changed or not. It's also devilishly hard to determine whether ASD is being over-diagnosed now, or was massively under-diagnosed before.

And sugar doesn't really act like alcohol (for example, all the systemic damage caused by acetaldehyde when alcohol is metabolized doesn't happen with sugar), and fetal alcohol syndrome presents very differently than ASD.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

and because of that, it’s very hard to assess whether the prevalence of the underlying condition has changed or not.

Yes, and that's the reason I wrote "if", because IDK if it is actually the case although it may seem so.
From the presentation "sugar is a poison" by Robert Lustig he demonstrates ways sugar is similar to alcohol, and also has a level of dependency when abused that is similar although weaker than alcohol.

Just because there are differences doesn't mean there aren't also similarities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
AFAIK it is much wider accepted today that sugar is harmful than it was in 2001 when he first made the presentation.
I have never seen anything to refute what Lustig suggested almost 25 years ago.

Child care professionals have widely warned against sugar as a behavior altering substance for children, warning it can make children behave like they have ADHD. These warnings have existed at least since the 70's that I know of, but AFAIK without any studies to either confirm or deny these claims. Despite the suspicion has existed for more than half a century now.

So we do have warnings from professionals that have indications it could be harmful during pregnancy too.
I have no idea why I'm downvoted for suggesting that?
I'm not claiming it is factually a problem during pregnancy, I'm just pointing out something that could be an issue, and AFAIK not very well researched.
If sugar is as harmful as many suggest, it is quite important knowledge we should have.
Everything in good measure is a good rule of thumb, but we don't really know what a good measure of sugar is.
But we do know it is harmful, and at a minimum can cause diabetes and heart disease.
But AFAIK we don't even have safety margins on sugar to avoid even those very widespread and well known problems.