I don't normally reply like this but i'm not wasting time on composition.

I think you are forgetting that correlation does not imply causation.

Really? Then I think you didn't read or understand my previous reply.

or is it dangerous, misleading, and unscientific to say things that can’t be proven as if it’s fact?

What is dangerous, misleading and unscientific about alerting parents as soon as possible that screen time has been linked to atypical sensory processing, the most popularly known examples by a country mile being ADHD and autism? Have other studies shown screen time to be beneficial to young children? Who are you shilling for, Sesame Street? lol

I would argue that it's unethical not to inform parents using terminology that they are familiar with, even if it is not going to be accurate in each case.

As someone who has worked and continues to work with several doctors in a medical research environment

I was wondering when the appeal to authority would come. Your assurance, as an internet rando, is meaningless. You oughta know that already.

“Reading between the lines” in research has led to countless people being injured and killed

Except pop-sci magazines aren't research.

And finally, you're statements about research bias and the crap about Wakefield, Kennedy and troglodyte Rogan is false equivalence and obvious baiting. See sentence above. Unlike the situation you describe, you haven't called into question this research, only the article.

I guess we'll know eventually if we should've been warning people away from screen time for young kids a lot more forcefully.

The point in shitting on HP is to shit on HP. Not sure what other point you're looking for. Are you concerned that people are going to start feeling sympathetic?

"Brain melting" and "Without parents knowing" are the only two inherently scary things in that headline.

I have a brother multifunction laser printer scanner thing. It is a cheap piece of crap with flaky wireless.

Unlike the HP printers I've had or worked with, with the Brother I feel like I at least get what I pay for... but it's a pretty low bar.

I will happily upvote anything that rags on HP printers, I don't care how low effort it is. In fact, I would hate to think someone spent actual effort on anything HP related.

HP printers have been kicking puppies and insulting your mother for well over 20 years. Wait, they haven't? Well, after a certain point a company has burned so much good will by making marginal printers, less-than marginal drivers and artificially differentiating inks and toners to such a degree it's hard to see it as anything other than profiteering... pant pant ...that nobody cares if it's unfair or inaccurate.

Don't buy HP. Think of the puppies. Think of your mother, for God's sake!

Yep and there are also fairly cheap strictly photo printers (cheap compared to getting film developed, at least)

Did they intentionally chose a picture where she looks like she's morphing into Elon?

I mean, if you think that they aren't talking about ADHD and autism there, after reading the article and the study, well okay then.

The paper comes as close to saying 'direct link' as these papers ever do. It's quite difficult to prove a direct link and there are consequences for using that language inaccurately, when you're publishing in a respected journal (at least there is supposed to be)

Pop-sci articles are usually going to try to hook readers with their headlines. Not being beholden to the same standards, they are free to read between the lines, as it were. One could say that because it's not held to the same standard, it's BS but there's a lot of substance there to refute. It not an op-ed piece.

Its an important article that shouldn't be ignored (there are other sources if you don't like that author,) and if people want more details, they can get to the JAMA investigation from the link provided at the end.

What does the paragraph above the one you posted say? The paragraph under the header "Findings"

I'm sorry, was that a refutation?

This study found a link between screen time and autism by looking at TV exposure among very young children, nevermind phones and tablets.

https://www.earth.com/news/toddler-screen-time-linked-to-atypical-sensory-behaviors/

It makes sense in a way. How we process the world might be a bit messed up with we were exposed to lots of bright shapes and loud sounds doing impossible things before our senses were fully developed.

Belief in god or astrology is not anti-scientific, it is unscientific.

Anti-scientific is evangelizing that the belief in god or astrology is a replacement for science.