Slashdot Mirror
Cats Not Linked To Brain Cancer After All
sciencehabit writes with good news for cat owners everywhere. From the article: "Last year, cat owners got a scare when a team of French researchers reported a possible link between felines and brain cancer. Cat feces can harbor a single-celled parasite called Toxoplasma gondii, and the scientists found that nations with higher rates of human T. gondii infection also have higher incidences of brain cancer. A new study challenges those findings [paywalled after the first view]. Scientists examining a cohort of more than 600,000 British women found that cat owners were no more likely to develop brain cancer than their cat-free counterparts, despite their presumably greater risk of exposure to T. gondii."
The study in question mostly just found that T. gondii infection rates aren't correlated with cat ownership after all, but there's still no word on whether our friend the parasite causes cancer or not.
Catassing in now easier than ever before, now with 99% less brain cancer.
There might be *other* things in those nations which cause brain cancer, eg. a national addiction to eating garlic sausages in vinegar. Or something.
No sig today...
They are correlated to finding poop in boxes in your home.
A cat infected with toxoplasma gondii will excrete the parasite in the feces for some days (weeks) after first infection, and then will stop doing it forever.
Most toxoplasmosis infectiosn in humans are due to consuming uncooked meat or poorly washed vegetables.
Half of the world's human population carry a Toxoplasma infection. So better choose your bridge jump off point.
Don't you know how this works?
Step 1: Half-ass science
Step 2: Publish findings in Lady's Home Journal, Redbook Maxim or other reputable scientific journal.
Step 3: Ferment (see, it's not a mystery anymore).
Step 4: PROFIT/Urban Legend.
I'm still having my regular scheduled Cat Scans ....
"people who know nothing about science use statistics to do science"
i know that tests and hypothesis have to ignore certain facts, but people confuse hypothesis and conclusion all the time. law of big numbers is pretty cool things, but people love to use it without taking care of other important factors...
it's like buying 1,000,000 poker traffic on some provider and then sending it to a dating site... even though 1,000,000 is a big number, your conclusion would probably be bad. any internet marketer knows this and these "scientists" have no clue about it.
FAIL!
Then I'd suggest the headline should be Cats May Not Be Linked To Brain Cancer After All. For where the cats go, so goes toxoplasma and we should know well enough, unless we're Reader's Digest or Prevention magazine, not to jump to a conclusion that the study did not demonstrate.
I happened to be looking at this yesterday after hearing an NPR story. It turns out that T. gondii is actually a mind-altering parasite. It reproduces in the guts of rodents, and then in order to get back into its preferred cat hosts, has actually evolved to alter the brains of rodents to make them find the odor of cats sexually appealing. Yes, you heard that right.
It puts a whole new spin on all those Tom & Jerry cartoons, now doesn't it?
Of course your next question is if it does something similar to infected humans. Supposedly, it has been shown to cause a statistically significant increase in car accidents among the infected. Perhaps that study will be countered too though.
Imho, too much science these days is just vague statistical studies.
Where are the times when science was about actually discovering new things, where you could actually see the effect of it?
They didn't want their evil plot revealed. Probably they just did some genetic engineering on the virus to affect the researchers' judgement. There's plenty of evidence the cats have this capability. I used to find stray bird parts and decapitated rats disgusting. Now I consider them "cute".
Root is.
They are plotting to kill us after all.
At least half of the people who I know that own cats are men. Was there a reason for only selecting women? Or are they looking for cat ladies to research against? Inquiring minds want to know.
Tommy from "Trainspotting" died from Toxoplasmosis. "It's like an abcess in your brain." Pretty nasty. One of the greatest movies of all time though.
"Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well."
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Do you mean to tell me I killed Fluffy for nothing???
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
I guess they forgot to factor in the fact that higher infection rates might indicate worse healthcare, worse pollution levels, worse overall sanitation, a climate more friendly to pathogens, and a generally more cancer-inducing set of circumstances before they drew a line straight from cats to cancer. Wow, slashdot makes me feel like a better than average paid, professional, career scientist every day :-P
Do cats infected with the bug have a higher incidence of brain cancer? Seems like they would if it has that affect on humans.
Also, eat mor chik'n
Wait, you mean I CAN'T haz brain cancer??
Glad that's out of the way; though toxoplasmosis and schizophrenia don't seem too appealing either.
I may be blind to the more profound, esoteric aspects of the cat, but I do marvel at what high prices some will pay for a haughty ball of animated fur.
My suggestions to curb this perilous market are as follows, but first and foremost, it could become unlawful to possess an unshaven cat. This would discourage the majority of prospective cat ownership, as no healthy person wants a five pound worm with claws and fangs.
Exchanges, or replacement-cats would be comprised of internal motors, synthetic fur shells with a stuffable, washable center into which they could be figuratively "fed", and an exit module by which they could also be un-fed.
Some form of appropriately colored reusable putty would be included in the exchange. This putty would serve two purposes:
1.) To supplement food, thus saving money and resources and one's nose.
2.) To be placed into a litter-box for a genuine looking effect.
For the lower-maintenance, upgrade model, a wireless link would be installed. Through a very cute web interface, owners could enter credit-card numbers and refill codes to control the figurative health of the cat. It would bloat or compress upon signals received in accordance with funds transferred or not transferred. The cat would in extreme situations of over or underfunding, either gently explode or implode, but show only trivial, charming contractions under normal circumstances. There would of course, be settings, such as adjustable mewing, retractable thorns to cut one's self on or destroy furniture with, etc.
Those are my suggestions.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
The original story was written by a dog.
What would be funny is to see what other scientific articles cited this one...
The Science News Cycle:
* Your Research : Conclusion: A is correlated with B (=0.56), given C, assuming D and under E conditions.
* University PR Office: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Scientists Find Potential Link Between A and B (Under certain conditions)
* News Wire Organizations: A causes B, say Scientists.
* The Internets: Scientists out to kill us again
* Cable News: A causes B all the time (we saw it on a blog). What will this mean for Obama?
* Local Eyewitless News: A: KILLER AMONG US? More at 11.
* Your Grandma wearing a tinfoil hat with antennae: "I'm wearing this to ward off A"
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
I get all my science reporting from Mozzie on "White Collar".
Title says it all.
Mr. Boots says "meh"...
Common sense says something about the statistical factors affecting a condition that affects less than 0.1% of people, after much larger factors like income, gender, other sources of cancer have been factored out? Common sense has enough trouble factors that contribute to 10% of an every day effect, I don't think common sense really has much application here. You have to do the actual math here and see what the data says, not wing it with common sense.
And while the original paper may still be faulty, it is not obvious junk science. Even right in the abstract they acknowledge that this is only a correlation and not necessarily causative. They said this might suggest some one should actually test toxoplasma directly to see if it can cause cancer, not that it definitively causes cancer.
I dont know what it is with people who believe in some random study performed now a days. Most studies are just done to get cash flow. You can make good money off doing "studies" and many people do. You can prove or disprove virtually anything if you really want to. Very very little real science and fact and study go into almost all studies anymore.
People will believe anything you tell them if you put it in a magazine article or preface it with "Studies show" because they are ignorant and stupid creatures.
> but there's still no word on whether our friend the parasite causes cancer or not.
Which creature is being referred to here?
You really must read other works by Irvine Welsh; Filth, Ecstasy, Marabou Stork Nightmares, Acid House. All fantastic and wickedly insane novels. It's like an abscess in your fiction, but a worthy one.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
OK, am I crazy here, or is anyone else surprised by the fact that they only surveyed cat owners who were female?
Yeah, yeah, I get it - the crazy cat lady/spinster jokes, but really, 600,000 owners and all of them female? What if the cancer developed differently in men, and they missed it?
The toxoplasma only adversely affects men, and the study is only tracking women.
What, as opposed to a US study: "God did it, now what's the question?"