66
Cat Ownership "Linked" to Schizophrenia
(hexbear.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2026
66 points (98.5% liked)
neurodiverse
1976 readers
19 users here now
What is Neurodivergence?
It's ADHD, Autism, OCD, schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, bi-polar, aspd, etc etc etc etc
“neurologically atypical patterns of thought or behavior”
So, it’s very broad, if you feel like it describes you then it does as far as we're concerned
Rules
1.) ableist language=post or comment will probably get removed (enforced case by case, some comments will be removed and restored due to complex situations). repeated use of ableist language=banned from comm and possibly site depending on severity. properly tagged posts with CW can use them for the purposes of discussing them
2.) always assume good faith when dealing with a fellow nd comrade especially due to lack of social awareness being a common symptom of neurodivergence
2.5) right to disengage is rigidly enforced. violations will get you purged from the comm. see rule 3 for explanation on appeals
3.) no talking over nd comrades about things you haven't personally experienced as a neurotypical chapo, you will be purged. If you're ND it is absolutely fine to give your own perspective if it conflicts with another's, but do so with empathy and the intention to learn about each other, not prove who's experience is valid. Appeal process is like appealing in user union but you dm the nd comrade you talked over with your appeal (so make it a good one) and then dm the mods with screenshot proof that you resolved it. fake screenies will get you banned from the site, we will confirm with the comrade you dm'd.
3.5) everyone has their own lived experiences, and to invalidate them is to post cringe. comments will be removed on a case by case basis depending on determined level of awareness and faith
4.) Interest Policing will not be tolerated in any form. Support your comrades in their joy!
Further rules to be added/ rules to be changed based on community input
RULES NOTE: For this community more than most we understand that the clarity and understandability of these rules is very important for allowing folks to feel comfortable, to that end please don't be afraid to be outspoken about amendments and addendums to these rules, as well as any we may have missed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Let's say they have a bunch of "credible" reports of people with disorders eating cat shit, how do you then get to the conclusion that the cat is to blame and not the disorder?
It sounds like sloppy science and as they hint at in their conclusion "Correlation does not imply causation".
I mean it sounds like ok science. "We maybe found a correlation but it's pretty weak so we can't be sure" is a valid result that can/should be published. It's not going to win any awards but it's something that other researchers might want to know. Might as well get it on the record just in case.
The problem is "science journalism" that likes to dig up mundane things like this and turn it into clickbait.
It’s not just science journalism. If a certain stakeholder wants a fake result to become public knowledge they pay for a study too small for a likely significant outcome, then they pay for fake journals to either publish: “possible connection between X and Y” or “no proven connection between X and Y” (whatever result suits them) and then wait for actual science journals and regular news if it’s clickbait enough to publish the same story.
Toxoplasma gondii is a fuck, 410,757,864,530 TENDER LYMPH NODES
I'm guessing they were working off the hypothesis that toxoplasmosis can trigger emergent schizophrenia symptoms, but that link seems sketchy at best. I'm not even sure how in the hell you'd set up a study around proving/disproving that.
unethically
Literally if u ever look at old timey discoveries it'll be like: Some dude in 1930, "We force fed 500 children cat feces for science!"
No wonder all those kids were scowling and smoking cigarettes in the old pictures
Well if you do some kind of fucked up intervention you could prove a direct causal link, but I doubt it would be sufficient to rule out emergent symptoms. The subjects would likely react differently to laboratory conditions (perhaps weakening the immune system?). So you would only be testing a narrow hypothesis of how the parasite effects the subject. You would also neglect to find a baseline of how much contamination you could expect in the dwelling. So you could have a diet soda situation if you had 100x more exposure than is reasonable there is a risk but its not relevant
I believe a larger longitudinal non-intervening observation is both ethical and useful for establishing context.