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.