If you look at the abstract, all of the correlations actually show that having a cat does predict mental illness at all ages considered. But the effect sizes are relatively low (albeit consistent with the more direct studies looking at people actually infected with toxoplasma rather than people who might be infected), so with a few hundred or thousand people, it technically doesn't satisfy p<0.05. Nevertheless, this is further evidence for toxoplasma having bad effects.
This seems to be a trend with toxo papers - take a too-small sample, do no power or Bayesian analysis, find all bad correlations, but declare evidence of safety anyway.
Yes, frequentist inference only allows you to reject the null hypothesis (cats do not cause mental illness), but not to accept it if you fail to reject [1].
The abstract as written is simply wrong from a statistical point of view:
our study strongly indicates that cat ownership in pregnancy or early childhood does not confer an increased risk of later adolescent PEs [2]
If you instead adopt Bayesian reasoning, then the direction of the measured effect is weak evidence that cats cause illness later in life. Either way you cut it, the study author's interpretation fails to coincide with the actual data they collected.
That's how you get published! To get in Nature, you need to demonstrate a shocking, novel result. Small sample size really helps.
Edit: Source: Neuroscientist, multi-term dean, honorary doctor, and I would keep going but it would end up personally identifiable. Let's just say I have this on extremely good authority. There's a reason why "Most science research findings are false. " https://qz.com/530064/most-science-research-findings-are-fal...
The jump from "we could not detect a difference" to "there is no difference" is so frustrating. (And this is a mistake the authors make in this case, not just the journalists.)
They did say "no evidence of a link" in the title and abstract, though the conclusion at the end of the abstract unfortunately says the study strongly suggests there is no link. Given the quoted odds ratios are > 1, this is a strange statement to make.
I think for most people in the world, pork products are more likely to be a source of the parasite than cats though. And there's quite a few people who eat pork even outside the US.
Obviously you didn't read the article. The humans that come in contact with cats have altered minds; they sponsored the article, with no direct links to the original feline overlords.
Is there a simple, accurate and cost efficient test for toxoplasma? I got a cat 2 years ago... it never leaves the apartment on the 7th floor and never comes in contact with other cats. However it is a rescue cat so could have been infected before adoption.
Your pet is not even remotely close to the cats risk group.
Only the 0,7% on average of the cats drop oocysts in its faeces and it still will take 1 to 5 days for this oocysts to activate and be able to transmite the disease. If you clean daily the litter box of your cat with gloves and you are not pregnant or inmunocompromised the problem is greatly minimized.
There are serological antibody tests for T. gondii, but they appear to vary widely in accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, ppv, &c). I have no idea what they cost.
I would speculate that having a dog would be a better after the fact indicator of mental illness considering their more frequent use in animal assisted therapy.
I feel people who own pets don't see things from a pet's perspective. But that's probably just me. Having someone love you based on sort of sort weird stockholm-syndrome based relationship is weird. The cat comment, as much as it's a joke I have seen most folks around me who own cats have this need for constant drama. And Goodness, no matter how much the cats randomly lashes out at these owners, the owners still love em, where's the bloody logic in that? I guess everyone on here is a S&M lover. But anecdotal evidence doesn't count for much haha
I found my cat outside in the dead of winter, she came inside voluntarily, I got her fixed, and I keep her fed. I nursed her back to health when something bit open her leg while she was outside. She goes out pretty much every day and is waiting for me at the door when I get home. I mean, the alternative is the cat being a stray or being put down in a shelter, are either of those better?
I don't have to go home every day to my wife, but I still choose to. I don't think that's "Stockholm Syndrome", just a good situation that I want to continue.
If a cat is "randomly lashing out" at their owners, then yeah, that's a pretty good sign that the owners don't see things from the cat's perspective.
Cat social behavior has its own internal consistency though. Usually the problem starts when people expect cats to behave like dogs. They don't have the same motivations as dogs at all.
Learn cat body language, and understand that cats see us as big, weird, slightly dumb, hairless cats that belong to the same "cat colony" as them, and nothing a cat does will seem "random" anymore.
With all due respect, I will never understand how that statement differs from trying to understand the ways of an abusive ex and trying to thread carefully based on it? pretty sure the abusive nature comes from somewhere and then for some darn reason I'm walking on egg shells when I could pretty much invest my time in a more nicer manner. Unless you think that putting up with complete crap is something people ought to aspire to do (don't mean to come up as an asshole, but seriously mate?)
Well now I'm confused. My cats have never done anything that could be likened to an abusive partner.
I respect my cats as individuals with their own needs and desires and they respect me back. We're like roommates.
If you had a roommate that didn't speak English as their first language, would you make an effort to understand them so you could get along? Or would you scream or try to hit them or spray water in their face (as a lot of people do to cats) anytime he did something you didn't like? And if you did, and he reacted violently in turn, would you really be surprised?
The question is why would you want to be stuck with someone who doesn't speak your language and gets pissed off at everything you do because they see you as dumb by default and their culture is the stark opposite of yours?
I kind of feel like we're speaking past each other here. I'm not sure what sort of dysfunctional cat/owner relationships you've observed to make you so vehemently opposed to the idea that they can be mutually beneficial.
I assure you, my cats actively enjoy and seek out my company, attention, and affection, and I likewise enjoy and seek out theirs.
When I get home, my cats run to greet me, with the straight upraised tail (with slightly curled tip) that indicates "friendly excitement." They sniff me and rub themselves against me with the full length of their bodies, which is a common greeting ritual for cats that belong to the same colony. They come and sit next to me on the couch, and when they want privacy, they will go and sleep somewhere else.
If they seek out my attention, and I don't have time or the desire then to give it them, a few firm setting them on the ground or shifting them out of the way, and they'll settle and not bother me (unless something is genuinely wrong and I haven't noticed, like the water dish being empty/dirty).
When I seek out their attention, if they don't feel like giving it right then, they indicate so through body language or even just leaving, and I respect their desires and don't force myself on them (unless it's in the case of something for their health, like giving them medication or taking them to the vet).
They can't speak English, though they understand a handful of words, such as their names, "treat", "dinner", "come here", "no", "gentle", and "please" as well as tone of voice. I can't speak Cat, but I understand a handful of words via body language and tone of voice when they meow.
I don't ever get angry at my cats for being cats, though occasionally I do get frustrated. And in return, though they sometimes get frustrated when I am failing to understand one of their requests, they don't get angry and lash out either.
I think we communicate fairly well for beings of two completely different species, and find each other's company mutually agreeable.
Don't bother, it's obvious they're not a pet owner and don't understand the sort of companionship one can have with pets.
When I first got my cat (for mousing) I was shocked at how quickly I grew attached to her. I had her about a week and she found a way out of the house, I searched and searched and searched and was about to let her go emotionally when I found her, and I was extremely happy.
And I had only had the cat a month, and no I didn't live by myself either.
You could use the same logic this person is using to describe a parents relationship with their child as well. It's just someone's opinion who has never owned a pet.
Shitty people make shitty pet owners, and blame it on the pet because they're shitty. The fact that cats and most other animals are slightly less tolerant of shitty behavior than dogs does not mean that cats are bad, it means that the owners are bad. The fact that dogs tolerate shit owners means they are going above and beyond the call of duty.
Do not get any pet if you are not going to respect them or learn about their needs.
I don't have a pet precisely because I try to see things from its (theoretic) perspective. I love cats, and would have one in an instant if I were home more. But as it stands, the poor thing would just be locked in a boring house by itself all day. Still occasionally thinking of getting a young sibling-pair; I used to have a couple who annoyed the crap out of each other all day, which seemed to work well for keeping them entertained.
My experience with cat people is that they are all over the map in terms of personality. Given that >30% of households have one[1], that's what one would expect, I think.
And if your cat genuinely randomly attacks people, that's likely a sign that something is very wrong. The cat likely was abused when young, is currently abused/neglected, or is in pain. There are some breeds that are moodier than others, and if they aren't taught that human skin doesn't resist claws as well as their fur, they'll scratch when telling you they don't want attention. But that's different.
> I have seen most folks around me who own cats have this need for constant drama
I actually consider cat owners as the inverse; they want the love and attention and cuddles and purrs, when it's convenient for them ( after a hard day at work etc ) but otherwise they can chuck the cat outside and foist the 'dramas' onto their neighbours.
It's possibly the lowest-responsibilty-for-owner pet possible but does require a total indifference to one's neighbours.
This seems to be a trend with toxo papers - take a too-small sample, do no power or Bayesian analysis, find all bad correlations, but declare evidence of safety anyway.