Tylenol Class action suit - exposure in utero may have caused autism in people

[Torn Mind]

Tylenol Autism Lawsuit

Tylenol autism lawsuits are being filed nationwide with a new Tylenol Autism class action lawsuit - technically an MDL, as we explain below - now certified in federal court. But, as we discuss ...

www.lawsuit-information-center.com

 

[AdamK47]

May have caused.

There's no concrete proof as to what exactly causes autism.

 

[Torn Mind]

May have caused.

There's no concrete proof as to what exactly causes autism.

There may be multiple ways to "cause" neurological issues, and acetomenophen just happens to be a possible way of doing it.

"May" has a few senses, one being of some degree of probability while another sense is one of simple being possible with no implied indication of concrete probability.

It's not a double-blind level of certainty but it is not pure conjecture. It's enough for at least some professionals to issue a warning.

Tylenol During Pregnancy and Autism

New scientific research has found acetaminophen during pregnancy may lead to higher rates of autism, ADHD and other neurologic disorders.

www.birthinjuryhelpcenter.org

.

Yale researchers warn against use of Tylenol by pregnant women

A research team including two Yale researchers have cautioned pregnant women against the use of the common pain reliever acetaminophen, brand name Tylenol. They cited […]

yaledailynews.com

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

'Our lawyers are handling .... '

Classic extended commercial lead in ....

lawsuit information center
birthinjuryhelpcenter


Super ultra neutral sources.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

"The medication paracetamol (INN) (/ˌpærəˈsiːtəmɒl/ or /ˌpærəˈsɛtəmɒl/), also known as acetaminophen (USAN) /əˌsiːtəˈmɪnəfɪn/ (listen), is sold around the world under a number of different brand names. Common brand names include Tylenol, Excedrin, Calpol, and Panadol."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paracetamol_brand_names

So, why target only Tylenol?

 

[mikeymikec]

Who hasn't taken paracetamol during pregnancy?

 

[Muse]

l take as little as possible in terms of pills from pharma, which is rarely anything other than nothing. I figure any of that has side effects. If I have issues I look for other ways of dealing with them than taking medications.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I figure any of that has side effects.

I know, Muse. You've got to look after your pregnancies!

/s

 

[Muse]

I know, Muse. You've got to look after your pregnancies!

/s

No, I figure that any pharma has side effects. They study that stuff but they never get the whole picture. Your body, absent strange foreign substances invented in labs, has its ways of adjusting. Add something new, something that evolution hasn't yet responded to, and your body is less prepared to adjust. It's common sense.

I have taken almost no tylenol in my life.

 

[Brainonska511]

No, I figure that any pharma has side effects. They study that stuff but they never get the whole picture. Your body, absent strange foreign substances invented in labs, has its ways of adjusting. Add something new, something that evolution hasn't yet responded to, and your body is less prepared to adjust. It's common sense.

No, it's not "common sense."

They actually study pharmaceutical products in clinical trials, and look at both objective and subjective endpoints. Regulators and companies than review this data and decide if the benefits of that therapy for a specific condition outweigh the risks of using that therapy.

 

[TheVrolok]

A lot of people take Tylenol during pregnancy, a lot of people have autism. Shrug.

No solid data for causation to my knowledge. Last reviewed the literature about 2 years ago.

 

[Captante]

Acetaminophen has actually been found to have some rather odd and unexpected side effects including increased "risk-taking" behavior particularly in men AND despite how long it's been around/in common use:

Per the FDA:

"According to its FDA labeling, acetaminophen's exact mechanism of action has not been fully established"

"The exact mechanism of action of this drug is not fully understood at this time"

*(translation: We don't really know how it works.)

 

[pmv]

Acetaminophen has actually been found to have some rather odd and unexpected side effects including increased "risk-taking" behavior particularly in men AND despite how long it's been around/in common use:

Per the FDA:

"According to its FDA labeling, acetaminophen's exact mechanism of action has not been fully established"

"The exact mechanism of action of this drug is not fully understood at this time"

*(translation: We don't really know how it works.)

Isn't that true of a large number of medical drugs? Most of them seem to be a bit 'suck it and see'. "We've given this to a lot of people and most of them seem to report it makes them feel better, though we don't really understand the mechanism".

 

[pmv]

Imagine if programming worked like that? "If I arbitrarily double the value of these variables in the code just here, the end-results seem to come out more correct (though once in a blue-moon the computer shuts down at random, but that only happens very very occasionally and we can live with that). So, though we aren't sure why it works or what exactly is actually going on, or why the results were coming out wrong in the first place, I guess we'll call that bug fixed"

 

[pmv]

Seems like it highlights how much better off one is if one knows who to sue. When bad things happen to you but you don't know what caused it you are just left with the consequences.

There really is a massive benefit if you can work out who to blame for things. This is why it's so important that we have science to rationally understand the world - understanding is the first step on the road to blaming, and concequently, suing.

 

[Captante]

understanding is the first step on the road to blaming, and concequently, suing

Absolutely! It's the 'murican way!

 

[Muse]

No, it's not "common sense."

They actually study pharmaceutical products in clinical trials, and look at both objective and subjective endpoints. Regulators and companies than review this data and decide if the benefits of that therapy for a specific condition outweigh the risks of using that therapy.

Common knowledge, however what they come up with especially in terms of the "risks of using that therapy" is in some degree conjecture. They don't know the whole picture, they don't (can't) know the cumulative detriment of a lab concocted substance in conjunction with myriad other factors. They don't (really can't) test for the full spectrum of possibilities. They talk a better game than they play. Then they sell it to you as safe, but they are lying through their teeth much of the time. Think of the many substances they've discovered many years later were not good for you in the way they previously purported. Aspirin for one... there are many others. I could dredge up a list simply enough, but won't bother ATM. I prefer to stay away from pharma. I'm not religious about it, I'm not superstitious. I'm fortunate I'm healthy enough physically and mentally to be fine with my attitude.

Edit: Here you go:

Google Search

And here's an eye-opener:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

Now, I have gotten every covid-19 vaccination I could as fast as I could because the scale was very likely tipped in favor of it being beneficial. That had my full attention (from my perspective) all along. I have always gotten my flu vaccinations, never refused a vaccination, never regretted getting one. But pills? I take supplements, likely more than I need, but those are in the nature of things you get from good nutrition but maybe don't get enough of without supplementation. That's way different from pharma, in particular Rx pharma.

 

[Muse]

Absolutely! It's the 'murican way!

"I know it's not your fault, but I blame you!"

 

[Torn Mind]

Absolutely! It's the 'murican way!

Don't worry, anti-suers already have gotten their wish via arbitration agreements. No need to get riled up by a class action...when the company can simply file a motion for arbitration and end it in an arbitration hearing. Your washer, fridge, dryer probably have something like that already.

Just that it's not exactly possible to draft a mandatory arbitration agreement for food or pills (yet)...thus class actions can still function in those domains. Although, General Mills did try to bind people who liked their products on Facebook to an arbitration agreement. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-case-against-mandatory-consumer-arbitration-clauses/

Arbitration is a form "Alternative Dispute Resolution".

 

[Torn Mind]

'Our lawyers are handling .... '

Classic extended commercial lead in ....

lawsuit information center
birthinjuryhelpcenter


Super ultra neutral sources.

I was initially looking at a different page on the same site on how to deal with GEICO; their experience is no from my personal experience in terms of GEICO habitually shorting people in claims. Miller is rather unusually transparent and willing to give out information online on matters of car accidents, malpractice, etc.

Injury claims like these are usually contingency fee first as well; showing your ignorance or perhaps you never got into a car accident in your life.

If you had read the article, there was no expectation of being able to prevail in suits against acetaminophen even recently.

 

[Torn Mind]

Common knowledge, however what they come up with especially in terms of the "risks of using that therapy" is in some degree conjecture. They don't know the whole picture, they don't (can't) know the cumulative detriment of a lab concocted substance in conjunction with myriad other factors. The don't (really can't) test for the full spectrum of possibilities. They talk a better game than they play. Then they sell it to you as safe, but they are lying through their teeth much of the time. Think of the many substances they've discovered many years later were not good for you in the way they previously purported. Aspirin for one... there are many others. I could dredge up a list simply enough, but won't bother ATM. I prefer to stay away from pharma. I'm not religious about it, I'm not superstitious. I'm fortunate I'm healthy enough physically and mentally to be fine with my attitude.

Edit: Here you go:

Google Search

And here's an eye-opener:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

Now, I have gotten every covid-19 vaccination I could as fast as I could because the scale was very likely tipped in favor of it being beneficial. That had my full attention (from my perspective) all along. I have always gotten my flu vaccinations, never refused a vaccination, never regretted getting one. But pills? I take supplements, likely more than I need, but those are in the nature of things you get from good nutrition but maybe don't get enough of without supplementation. That's way different from pharma, in particular Rx pharma.

One of the earlier examples is thalidomide. It took about 60 years to discover the mechanism and cause. https://www.dana-farber.org/newsroo...munity was slow,was officially banned in 1961.
Since 60 years have passed, plenty of the potential victims themselves have passed on along with their parents. A suit would be very likely be barred by statute of limitations as well.


I suspect is that there is an off-the-record understanding of the full scope of the drugs that are not presented in official lists.

One, Potassium administration is a great way to create a medical crisis and then justify ending someone with plenty of runway left.

Two, Zoloft and Respiradl in conjunction made for a great subjugation tool for those who don't need depression treatment. The individual gets bricked into a dull state of mind and a bloated stomach area might occur as well. When the professional administering the drug is under no threat of investigation or liability, such as a state guardianship arrangement, they can prescribe whatever they want at will because Mr. State's social worker department won't make a complaint or cease the very activity that is a cash cow. Social Security is "yours" unless the state determines "you" are a vegetable in need of a guardian; then it becomes the local state's asset. The state will always value seizing property first, then life, and lastly liberty.

 

[Muse]

One of the earlier examples is thalidomide. It took about 60 years to discover the mechanism and cause. https://www.dana-farber.org/newsroom/news-releases/2018/after-60-years--scientists-uncover-how-thalidomide-produced-birth-defects/#:~:text=The medical community was slow,was officially banned in 1961.
Since 60 years have passed, plenty of the potential victims themselves have passed on along with their parents. A suit would be very likely be barred by statute of limitations as well.


I suspect is that there is an off-the-record understanding of the full scope of the drugs that are not presented in official lists.

One, Potassium administration is a great way to create a medical crisis and then justify ending someone with plenty of runway left.

Two, Zoloft and Respiradl in conjunction made for a great subjugation tool for those who don't need depression treatment. The individual gets bricked into a dull state of mind and a bloated stomach area might occur as well. When the professional administering the drug is under no threat of investigation or liability, such as a state guardianship arrangement, they can prescribe whatever they want at will because Mr. State's social worker department won't make a complaint or cease the very activity that is a cash cow. Social Security is "yours" unless the state determines "you" are a vegetable in need of a guardian; then it becomes the local state's asset. The state will always value seizing property first, then life, and lastly liberty.

Movie I highly recommend is 55 Steps, about the mental patient and lawyer (who I have met) who took on the institutions in California and created via lawsuit a precedent that allows patients to refuse medications that can really mess them up. That patient eventually died early due to the abuse she suffered via forced injections, regardless of her wishes, before the successful lawsuit.

This movie focus on one such biography of Eleanor Riese 1987, in Riese v. St. Mary's Hospital and Medical Center, the California State Court of Appeals which she won and helped 100s of thousands of patients their rights to be treated better by doctors in United States

Some great reviews:
J H 3 years ago

Thank you Amazon Prime for making "55 Steps" available. The lead actresses are two of the best working actresses on our planet - this was a real treat. I'm so very picky when I see movies in theaters anymore - and I see a lot of movies. I just hate feeling like I'm wasting my money. I'm the same way with streaming and I feel like this is one of the gems. Worth more than I paid for it. The story is wonderful and the entire film is most entertaining, smart, and very funny. I was inspired and also very gratified given the subject matter. My goodness, everyone did a splendid job. Everyone on the film worked their patooties off and it shows! Thank you!

Binaifer Karanjia
3 years ago
A touching relationship between lawyer and opinionated client with superbly written dialogues. Wished it could go on and on. Learnt a lot about respect for all humans and the ability of Reise to rise above her disabilities and enjoy her worldly existence. A must see for anywho has a heart!!

Niranjana Koodavalli
a year ago

Great Subject to make a movie. A subject which created positive hope and brought about changes in the way a mental patient is treated by medical professionals. Strong performances, great acting. Must watch if you like positivity.

Ravindra Hemmanur
2 years ago
Words fail me. This is a wonderful and must watch movie to understand the Human Rights, in particular that of the ailing with regard to the treatment administered to them. The movie prompts me to strongly advocate for legalizing the euthanasia. Everyone involved in making this film deserves acclamation.

Vasanth Kumar Chittajallu
a year ago

Good movie. Yesterday only I saw the movie. It tells you about the rights of a patient to deny the treatment offered by the clinicians. As a Doctor sometimes I feel patients cannot decide what is good for them, but this case proves that the patient's have got every right to decide about the treatment offered to them.

 

[pmv]

No, it's not "common sense."

They actually study pharmaceutical products in clinical trials, and look at both objective and subjective endpoints. Regulators and companies than review this data and decide if the benefits of that therapy for a specific condition outweigh the risks of using that therapy.

Well, they do, but the track-record is far from perfect.

For example, I knew several people who got addicted to psychiatric medication that was prescribed with the belief that it, unlike earlier drugs, was 'non-addictive'. They ended up on it for decades and ultimately had a hell of a struggle getting themselves off of it (Diazapam, IIRC).

Plus there have been studies recently that claim to find that anti-cholinergic drugs in general noticeably increase your risk of getting dementia in old age, if you take them long term, particularly in your 50s. The clinical trials presumably didn't pick that up because they weren't sufficiently long term (couldn't be, really).

Our research

Alzheimer’s Society is the UK’s leading care and research charity for people with dementia. Research will beat dementia.

www.alzheimers.org.uk

I've refused prescriptions of drugs in the past because of the suspicion that they would in the end do more harm than good.

In one case the prescribing professional rather missed the point by insisting if he prescribed something 'wrongly' he cold face serious consequences so therefore it had to be safe. Couldn't be bothered to explain that it doesn't work like that if something is prescribed according to guidelines at the time, but much later turns out to have harmful effects that nobody realised. Then I'd be the one left with the consequences, not him.

There in fact seem to have been an increasing number of studies finding that paracetamol is worse for you than previously thought.

I know the problem with this line of reasoning is it can and is employed by anti-vaxxers, but I don't see any way round the problem. Ultimately there's no perfect knowledge and nobody is infallible.

 

[Captante]

I was initially looking at a different page on the same site on how to deal with GEICO.

Let me save you some time.... any time you are in any situation where it's in an insurance companies best interests to screw you over on a major claim (and when is it not?) if you don't "lawyer up" prior to even speaking with an agent you're a sucker and you're gonna be getting "pwned".

 

[pmv]

One of the earlier examples is thalidomide. It took about 60 years to discover the mechanism and cause. https://www.dana-farber.org/newsroom/news-releases/2018/after-60-years--scientists-uncover-how-thalidomide-produced-birth-defects/#:~:text=The medical community was slow,was officially banned in 1961.
Since 60 years have passed, plenty of the potential victims themselves have passed on along with their parents. A suit would be very likely be barred by statute of limitations as well.

I understand that Thalidomide was the defining moment of the FDA. Unlike regulators in many European countries, they held off on allowing it to be licensed.
Thus avoiding the awful results it led to elsewhere.

Furthermore, I've heard it's now been found to be a potential treatment for leprosy.

That's another peculiar thing about pharmacuticals - drugs that get developed for one purpose turn out to be better used for something else entirely. I don't have a huge amount of confidence in the whole sector.

The difficult issue with vaccines, compared to most pharmacuticals, is that they aren't purely for the benefit of the person taking them, there's an element of collective benefit involved, that massively complicates the moral calculus around the issue.