this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
839 points (98.6% liked)

Science Memes

16854 readers
753 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 92 points 3 days ago (4 children)

This guy literally had part of his brain eaten by worms.

That should eternally preclude you from giving health advice.

[–] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago

Brain worms he got from eating roadkill.

[–] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago

Didn't he just claim that in a divorce court to explain neurological issues?

[–] 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago

He's a real life zombie eating brains of gullible people.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago
[–] Qwel@sopuli.xyz 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Hey so, is this a normal thing in meta analyses ?

We identified 46 studies for inclusion in our analysis. Of these, 27 studies reported positive associations (significant links to NDDs), 9 showed null associations (no significant link), and 4 indicated negative associations (protective effects).

27+9+4 is 40 I think ? What happened to the 6 other papers ? I'm always confused by the whole "we ignored half of the studies and we won't tell you why", if they can also ignore some of the 46 studies they selected, what does the 46 number mean ?

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They just ditched the studies they didn't like.

https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2025/mount-sinai-study-supports-evidence-that-prenatal-acetaminophen-use-may-be-linked-to-increased-risk-of-autism-and-adhd

“Our findings show that higher-quality studies are more likely to show a link between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and increased risks of autism and ADHD,”

The study was funded by the agencies RFK Jr heads. He said this spring that he would have an answer in September, which coincidentally is the month after this study that he wanted came out.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 days ago

we think the studies that confirm our bias are higher quality

What a fucking joke

[–] takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

But that's ok, he realized this when being high on heroine.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I wish he would just legalize that, it would probably be the least unhealthy of his policy changes lol. Might also open up the door to some more reasonable substances being legalized as well.

Breaking news

Random person (me) links Republican Party of the USA to idiocy!

[–] redsand@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago

Kenvue lawyers right now 🫡😂🤣🤑🥳

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Sighance more like

[–] S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

~~Autism was discovered 40 years before Tylenol was invented..~~.

Autism existed before the drugs/things we think created it?

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Copy and pasting from my other reply to this claim:

Please don’t continue to share this “fact.” I know it sounds like a really good gotcha, but it’s not. Tylenol is just a brand name producer of the drug acetominophen, known in most of the rest of the world as paracetomol. It’s been around since at least 1878, and possibly earlier (there are claims it was produced in 1852). Autism was first described by Leo Kanner in 1943. Obviously, anyone sane knows that it’s been around a lot longer than that, probably as long as humans have been humans, but the people you’re trying to reach with this claim are obviously going to assert that it first appeared around the same time that it was first identified, or, at the very least, that it’s appearance likely aligns with the invention of paracetomol.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Adding to that: "links to" doesn't mean "is exclusively caused by".

That gotcha would only work if that was the claim.

So the argument reads a little like "People died before the Ford Model T entered the market, so obviously deaths aren't caused by cars running over pedestrians."

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, they could just as easily pivot to "Well, sure, autism was around before that, but it didn't happen nearly as often." Kind of like cancer and modern carcinogens. It's just a foolish line of argument that makes us look stupid.

And it's completely unnecessary. The evidence that autism is genetic is overwhelming. Anyone who is going to listen to facts already has the facts right there, and anyone else isn't worth trying to convince.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yeah, they could just as easily pivot to “Well, sure, autism was around before that, but it didn’t happen nearly as often.”

In fact, that was their actual argument. This is what Trump said:

First, effective immediately, the FDA will be notifying physicians that the use of, well, let’s see how we say that. Acetaminophen. Acetaminophen. Is that okay? Which is basically, commonly known as Tylenol. Can be associated with a very increased risk of autism. So taking Tylenol is not good. I’ll say it, it’s not good.

Within the rest of the rest of the speech you can clearly see where Trump goes off script and does his regular monkey-in-a-suit act, and he says stupid shit as always, but that up there is the core claim: "Can be associated with a very increased level of autism."

That's a claim that's totally not affected by the "but autism existed before Tylenol" argument.

The whole argument is a strawman, nothing else. And that's really infuriating because there are ample real arguments for this point. It's not hard to argue that Tylenol has no link to Autism. But making up a strawman argument and butchering to even tear that strawman down is ridiculous.

Edit: It makes me think that this meme wasn't actually created by anyone who is against Trump. It feels so incredibly dumb and easy to disprove that it probably was created by a magat to make fun of everyone who doesn't worship Trump.

[–] S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago

Fair enough I edited my post.

load more comments
view more: next ›