7 comments

[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 27.6 ms ] thread
correlation ≠ causation
Isn’t it better to be on the safe side though?
Living a life of being on the safe side of every potential risk is madness. People are terrible at risk assessment, they worry about crime when it's going down and they don't live in a high-crime area anyway. When they have kids they are suspicious of rasty strangers but never worry about the nice uncle who visits all the time.
No. If I was going to avoid cats then I wouldn’t have got kittens last year.
No. I like cats and having them around is a joy.

If you want to minimize health risks avoid driving, bad food and drugs including alcohol and nicotine. Those will get you, not the absolutely minuscule risk of living with a pet.

It could just as easily be explained as those who are prone to schizophrenia like cats. I'm not sure why these kind of articles exist and people give them any credence whatsoever. This is typical media fud. While it is an interesting data point for people doing actual research it is useless information to convey to the masses as it provides no actionable data.

Science communicators have turned into fud communicators. They're ill equipped to be actual scientists and they're not good enough to actually get a job in any kind of media industry so they fell into this niche that really didn't need filled.

Back in 2018 CW had a comedy series with a song in each episode -- and one of the songs ran through all the cons of getting a cat. Towards the end of that song, one of the last lyrics is "There's a lot of evidence that / Organisms in cat poop make you crazy."

"Yes we read that article in the Atlantic," sings the chorus of puppet cats. "And then we peed on the Atlantic."

But in the comments on the video on YouTube, someone points out that cats kept indoors (which is always recommended for their safety) are unlikely to ever come in contact with the parasite.

https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/toxoplasmosis_ca...