I understand your passion here, but it’s a little misguided.
The goal of this study is not to try to determine a singular cause for autism. That’s some outside political bullshit that’s relevant in a broad sense, but not the stated purpose of this study.
They set out to look at a potential link between Tylenol and ADHD, so they look at studies involving Tylenol and ADHD. It’s pretty straightforward. P-Hacking would be selecting only studies that did show a positive correlation between Tylenol use and ADHD.
Your climate change metaphor is just wildly off base, I don’t know what to say here honestly.
As others here have pointed out, the study is mildly flawed but the real issue is that the inconclusive results are being wildly misrepresented.












Of course! It’s always refreshing to engage with someone with good intentions.
So, this would only be a misrepresentation if the authors were claiming to look for causes of Autism.
Good science is based on testing a hypothesis. ‘What causes X’ is not a testable hypothesis, it’s too broad, the variables aren’t defined. ‘Does Y effect X?’ is a testable hypothesis, and a solid basis for initial research.
The question of ‘what causes autism’ is a huge one that can’t be answered by a single study. Each potential factor needs to be evaluated on its own merit, and this study does exactly that (with admittedly questionable results).
However, something like the recent HHS report is exactly the place where it’s wildly irresponsible to present only one potential hypothesis as a ‘cause’. That’s where we would expect a high level view of a range of established factors (since obviously there is no one ‘cause’).