
The Relation of Toxoplasma Infection and Sexual Attraction to Fear, Danger, Pain - omnibrain
http://evp.sagepub.com/content/14/3/1474704916659746.abstract
======
ekianjo
The way the data was collected looks like junk in the first place:

> The subject also had to answer a question “Are you infected with Toxoplasma,
> the cat parasite that is dangerous especially to pregnant women?” by ticking
> one of the three suggested answers: “I do not know or am not sure, I was not
> laboratory tested,” “No (I was tested by a medical doctor and the blood test
> gave a negative result,” and “Yes (I was tested by a medical doctor and the
> blood test gave a positive result.” Implicitly, the first answer (“I do not
> know …”) was ticked.

Ideally you would medically test the patients and make sure they are unaware
for what they are tested. Asking them to answer such a question is going to
massively decrease whatever you can say about what's claimed.

~~~
throwanem
Read further; the subjects of this study were also examined and had labs drawn
which included a toxo test, and were issued unique codes which they provided
with their study responses:

> At the end of the questionnaire, the participants could provide their unique
> “guinea pig code.” Because of the rather sensitive sex- and health-related
> contents of this questionnaire, it was “signed” only by 8% of the
> responders. However, other questionnaires distributed in this community were
> signed by most of responders (Flegr & Hodny, 2016). These results showed
> that most of participants who were aware of their toxoplasmosis status (and
> nearly all male responders) had been tested for toxoplasmosis in our lab.

Unless I'm badly misreading the paper, they were therefore able to correlate
study responses with confirmed presence or absence of latent toxo, with a high
degree of specificity. It's odd that they would also include a question on the
same subject, and I'm not competent to evaluate their methods of statistical
analysis, but even the attempt to correlate study responses with laboratory
data puts them head and shoulders above pretty much anyone else I've seen
publish on this topic.

~~~
ekianjo
Let me quote that again:

> These results showed that most of participants who were aware of their
> toxoplasmosis status (and nearly all male responders) had been tested for
> toxoplasmosis in our lab.

So they only had a confirmation for the positive/negative cases, but they have
no way to confirm that the ones who say "not sure" were accurately reporting
their answers. That's a pretty big gap they use to draw conclusions.

~~~
wonkaWonka
I'm not sure you've correctly interpreted that quote.

    
    
      most of participants who were aware [...] 
      had been tested [...] in our lab.
    

This does not preclude any blood draws, in which the subject is tested, but
not informed of results and infection status.

They can test samples drawn expressly for the experiment, and not inform the
individual, and then still use the lab-verified determination of infection
status in the results. They can take blood, find out, and not tell the people
if they are infected, even if they didn't know, and let them stay infected
without knowing.

------
cm2012
Quick PSA: The number one method of infection for toxoplasmosis is foodborne
from undercooked meat (which is why France has a 90%+ infection rate). Most
people focus on cats.

While cats are a vector, this really only applies to cats allowed outdoors.
Indoor cats bear no risk of infection.

[http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/](http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/)

Edit: Mistake on France stat, actually 50% of pop.

~~~
Steuard
"No risk" seems a bit strong here. (Or maybe I'm just paranoid. But I was
definitely in charge of the litter box when my wife was pregnant).

Could an indoor cat who has at some point shared a litter box with an outdoor
cat have picked up spores (in the same way that a human might), for instance?
Or, my cats were rescued as young kittens after their (stray) mother died:
were they in the wild long enough to be exposed? (And how many cats adopted in
the US have similar histories that their owners might not even have heard
about?)

~~~
openasocket
I would never want to risk it because I've seen the damage it can do. My
family fosters kitten litters with a nearby animal shelter. It's normally fun
and rewarding work, but we once lost an entire litter to toxoplasmosis. It;s
generally harmless to people and cats, but in young kittens who don't have
very strong immune systems it becomes a degenerative neurological disease. The
vets initially thought it was rabies from the symptoms: lethargy progressing
to a loss of motor control. We had to clean the room we kept them in with
bleach, wash all the cushions and blankets thoroughly, throw out all the cat
toys...

I don't know what Toxo does to fetuses and infants, but based on what it does
to kittens I'm not keen on finding out.

~~~
woliveirajr
Serious neurological problems or abortion in fetus. In adults is generally
harmless, except some cases with loss of vision and so on.

------
throwanem
I'm glad this made the front page, but I'm not really sure how. I know why I
voted for it; it's rare to see any research worth taking seriously that has to
do with latent toxoplasmosis in humans. I'm curious why anyone else did.

~~~
wodencafe
I've owned cats for awhile, and the idea of a cat parasite controlling or
influencing my behavior (and the behavior of others) is both fascinating and
frightening.

Plus, parasites are generally a bad thing, and there is not enough awareness
about Toxoplasmosis.

~~~
manarth
> _" parasites are generally a bad thing"_

There's some evidence to suggest parasitic infection can prevent or reduce
some diseases, such as asthma or Crohn's disease.

One study published in an ATS journal concluded: _" Parasite infections do not
in general protect against asthma, but infection with hookworm may reduce the
risk of this disease"_ [1]

[1]
[http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/rccm.200603-331O...](http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/rccm.200603-331OC#.V7sSRI7UWfg)

~~~
throwanem
I mean great, but you still have hookworm. It may well be worthwhile to
identify and isolate what about having hookworm might be preventative for
asthma and develop it into a therapy, but that's not quite the same thing.

------
some_furry
What's especially interesting is that the described behavior in infected mice
sounds like a fetish humans have called vorarephilia, and after reading this
paper I wonder if the folks with that sort of fantasy are infected with
Toxoplasma?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorarephilia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorarephilia)

~~~
throwanem
Hey, we all love Tay, but you don't want to take everything you read at face
value, you know.

~~~
some_furry
Huh? I actually read the paper before I wrote that comment. :P

While the authors claim a link between taxoplasma and fetishism, they don't
elaborate on which fetishes.

I haven't reviewed the supplemental data yet. Maybe vore's in there?

~~~
throwanem
> they don't elaborate on which fetishes

"However, they expressed higher attraction to bondage, violence, zoophilia,
fetishism, and, in men, also to masochism, and raping and being raped.
Generally, infected subjects expressed higher attraction to nonconventional
sexual practices, especially the BDSM-related practices, but they also
reported to perform such activities less often than the Toxoplasma-free
subjects."

I lurk @SwiftOnSecurity, and I seem to recall seeing you active there, so my
surmise was that you'd followed the link from
[https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/76772242342469222...](https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/767722423424692228)
\- a reasonable guess, I think, albeit an erroneous one.

~~~
some_furry
See? They list "fetishism" there. They don't go any more specific though.

For comparsion: I'd consider zoophilia an orientation (that I do not share),
not a fetish.

> I lurk @SwiftOnSecurity, and I seem to recall seeing you active there

I'm @SoatokDhole and I sent SOS the link to this HN thread :3

~~~
throwanem
I know who you are, but I didn't know you'd tipped Tay. Nicely done!

------
billwilliams
So uh, no actual experiment here. Even with the methods they're using we're
not really getting causality. Seems like they're just saying cat people (or
raw meat eaters) are more into BDSM.

------
JulianMorrison
If it makes people kinky, I applaud it. Bravo, Toxoplasma, nice work.

~~~
taneq
But it makes people less kinky even though it makes them enjoy being
submissive in bed more.

~~~
throwanem
That's not exactly what the study is saying, which seems rather to be that it
makes people more kinky, but less likely to try to seek out partners
interested in the same things they are.

That, along with the fact that the authors don't merely infer or assume latent
toxo in their subjects but have actually observed it, is one of the reasons I
find this study interesting. That it should make people less likely to seek
out outré sexual adventure seems strongly counter-intuitive in light of the
increased risk-taking behavior generally supposed to correlate with the
infection, and that is at the very least curious.

~~~
Zarkonnen
Yes! I was confused by this, too. Everything else I've read about toxoplasma
has stated that in humans, it increases risky (or risky-feeling) behaviour
like motorcycling or sky diving.

But an infection that makes people more sexually submissive - that reads like
the plot of a really silly piece of sci-fi porn.

~~~
throwanem
Or a subplot in a Peter Watts novel. Guy goes all kinds of places.

