
Oral sex is associated with reduced incidence of recurrent miscarriage - bitadder
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165037818302183
======
konschubert
Isn’t that just a correlation that they discovered? Aren’t there thousands of
hidden variables that could explain this correlation without a causal
relationship?

Isn’t that a pretty weak p Value ?

I just read the abstract and might have mis-interpreted it. But on a first
glance this looks like an April fools joke.

~~~
tomp
Well this idea has been around for a while. I always foundit a bit iffy...
like, human sperm is one of the most innocent things people get in their
mouths/digestive tracts... so if _that_ can influence your immune system (and
making it _less_ effective at that), what will eating some wild viruses-
containing meat or bacteria-covered fruit do?!

~~~
AstralStorm
We typically try it to render it inert by cooking and cutting out glands.

See, sperm contains hormone-like peptides, _evolved for humans to react to_.
You do not generally eat concentrated amounts thereof. (At least didn't...)

------
cperciva
> OR 95%CI 0.25-0.97

Talk about a weak result! They're 95% confident that women with recurrent
miscarriages are at least 3% less likely to perform oral sex.

------
aristophenes
While this is a very interesting finding, I suspect p-hacking.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging)

Imagine the awkwardness when someone tries to get funding to confirm.

~~~
whoisjuan
Data dredging is usually establishing a causation or pattern of two loosely
correlated variables with no clear undesrstanding of why one have effects on
the other. (correlation != causation).

In this particular case they seem to have a clear hypothesis on why there
could be a strong link between one and the other: > "Oral sex might induce
maternal tolerance towards paternal antigens of the fetus".

Anyway. This doesn't mean that this is a strong study. Just pointing out that
at least they seem to have a theory on why oral sex can protect against
miscarriages.

~~~
aristophenes
We don't know how many different things did they ask for on the survey? Maybe
they had 100 different things that they were just spitballing might have some
possible effect.

------
salex89
And increases chance of oral cancer...

~~~
1000units
Why is this downvoted? This is both absolutely true and incredibly important.
It's literally a matter of life and death.

 _edit: If you are downvoting this as an emotional reaction to something you
haven 't considered before, please consider calming down and examining the
evidence with a rational mind. Your health and that of the people you love are
at risk._

~~~
coldtea
First, hardly a matter of "life and death". It merely increases still very
small odds.

Second, it's not oral sex that increases the odds, it's papillomavirus, which
can be transmitted through oral sex (but also through other means of sex,
including kissing).

You could have oral sex with someone that doesn't have the papillomavirus as
often as you want, and you wouldn't get cancer from. In fact even sticking to
a single oral partner (e.g. your spouse) reduces the (already small) odds
heavily, even if you're not sure whether they have HPV or not.

~~~
1000units
This is an overly simplistic, optimistic view of disease. Method of exposure
matters significantly. Note how heterosexual couples virtually never have to
worry about HIV, for example, if you're unfamiliar with this concept.

~~~
coldtea
> _Note how heterosexual couples virtually never have to worry about HIV, for
> example, if you 're unfamiliar with this concept._

Yeah, that's not how HIV (or heterosexual couples) work...

~~~
1000units
I'm sorry, I do not understand what you're trying to imply.

------
bitadder
(Disclaimer: I'm not the author of this paper nor do I know them - I saw this
on Twitter and found it an interesting if flawed read so I thought I'd share.)

------
glitchc
This is junk science. Can’t believe it made it past the review process.

------
shereadsthenews
Previously:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10706945](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10706945)

------
throwawaysex
> via seminal fluid to oral mucosa

To these people, 'oral sex' seems to mean implicitly mean a female giving and
a male receiving. Typical.

~~~
bitadder
Title of the paper should probably have specified

------
notus
aren't you supposed to reject p-values under 0.05?

------
1000units
Why is this flagged? I feel HN has been deviating from its official charter in
avoiding remotely controversial topics. This is a medical research article
from a reputable journal. If we can't discuss something like this, I'm looking
for a new forum.

~~~
lenticular
It's obvious p-hacking. This study is crap.

~~~
1000units
That's a convenient excuse. I suspect the real issue is people don't want to
see scholarship on female microchimerism regardless of quality.

