Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 78 posts

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#21

Post by eurasiantiger »

rini17 wrote: post #15
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #5

Now I need Progressive to pay for a round of pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine for me.

Latent toxoplasmosis is literally insidious, hidden inside body fat cells where antibiotics won't reach and only occasionally it gets out to infect more cells. So one round is not enough, you have to take antibiotics for years until all the infected cells die.

Hmm. I wonder if there is an antibiotic prodrug that would mimic glucose enough for it to be recognised by beta cells, get metabolised and release the antibiotic payload inside a fat cell.

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#22

Post by nerdponx »

rini17 wrote: post #15
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #5

Now I need Progressive to pay for a round of pyrimethamine and sulfadiazine for me.

Latent toxoplasmosis is literally insidious, hidden inside body fat cells where antibiotics won't reach and only occasionally it gets out to infect more cells. So one round is not enough, you have to take antibiotics for years until all the infected cells die.

Is this accepted convention?

It sounds a lot like the explanation for chronic Lyme disease (except with nerve tissue and not fat cells), which is apparently still quite controversial despite having lots of anecdotal evidence to support it.

Also if the parasite is hiding in your fat cells, does that also mean that you can't detect it in a blood test?

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#23

Post by bmeski »

whateveracct wrote: post #20
bmeski wrote: post #3

So cat people can’t drive well? We’ve always known this.

what exactly constitutes a "cat person" exactly? the dichotomy between "dog people" and "cat people" had always been interesting and telling to me. dog people will go as far as blame you for their "reactive" dog who can "tell when your nervous around him." not-cat people mostly don't like cats because..the cats are "rude" to them? In a way, these are similar experiences. You are behaving in a way the animal doesn't l…

I don’t even know haha. All the cat people in my life are vastly different drivers. The joke appeared instantly and I had to pull the trigger.

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#24

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

Pyramus wrote: post #8
throwthere wrote: post #2

As interesting as this is, it's kind of got my spidy-sense tingling. How many non-significant outcomes did test and not publish before seeing traffic accidents? The perfect dose-dependence gives more credence (increasing odds ratio at increasing titers), although the sample size is small.

Yes, the dose-response is the interesting bit, and strong indication for causation. Not an expert so don't know how well we understand the mechanism of action, which is crucial.

The paper states high up that it's been well studied that Toxoplasmosis infection increases reaction time - this study was basically just showing that that laboratory-viewed metric has real-world consequences.

As far as mechanism of action, T. gondii infects both neurons in the brain and glial cells.

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#25

Post by gruez »

whateveracct wrote: post #20
bmeski wrote: post #3

So cat people can’t drive well? We’ve always known this.

what exactly constitutes a "cat person" exactly? the dichotomy between "dog people" and "cat people" had always been interesting and telling to me. dog people will go as far as blame you for their "reactive" dog who can "tell when your nervous around him." not-cat people mostly don't like cats because..the cats are "rude" to them? In a way, these are similar experiences. You are behaving in a way the animal doesn't l…

>what exactly constitutes a "cat person" exactly?

>the dichotomy between "dog people" and "cat people" had always been interesting and telling to me.

I think by "cat person" he meant less "I like cats", and more "cat lady"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis#Society_and_cult...

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#26

Post by rini17 »

nerdponx wrote: post #22
rini17 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Latent toxoplasmosis is literally insidious, hidden inside body fat cells where antibiotics won't reach and only occasionally it gets out to infect more cells. So one round is not enough, you have to take antibiotics for years until all the infected cells die.

Is this accepted convention? It sounds a lot like the explanation for chronic Lyme disease (except with nerve tissue and not fat cells), which is apparently still quite controversial despite having lots of anecdotal evidence to support it. Also if the parasite is hiding in your fat cells, does that also mean that you can't detect it in a blood test?

Hmm it is possible I confused it with chlamydia. In any case, if it affects behavior, there should be some chemical markers too.

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#27

Post by kodah »

whateveracct wrote: post #20
bmeski wrote: post #3

So cat people can’t drive well? We’ve always known this.

what exactly constitutes a "cat person" exactly? the dichotomy between "dog people" and "cat people" had always been interesting and telling to me. dog people will go as far as blame you for their "reactive" dog who can "tell when your nervous around him." not-cat people mostly don't like cats because..the cats are "rude" to them? In a way, these are similar experiences. You are behaving in a way the animal doesn't l…

The joke to me seemed to be poking fun at correlation and causation.

In a literal sense, people get pets for different reasons. A lot of people get cats because they're more independent where dog owners cite "having a companion" because dogs have a closer relationship to humans through domestication.

Animals are still animals, domesticated or not. They'll get fearful or angry based on correlation of past experience just like you and I will. The only difference is that they can't explain themselves like you and I can. Anecdotally, I know my dog is terrified of fireworks, but I also know she's not gun-shy. I also know she doesn't like full face masks (like motorcycle helmets), and that she's ready to defend the house if there's a knock at the door. All of which sound relatively terrifying to the average person when she reacts to them, however, when she is actually confronted with the person on the other side of the door, the person behind the mask, or seeing the fireworks that go "bang" she'll flop on her back and ask for belly rubs.

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#28

Post by kodah »

jpxw wrote: post #19
kennywinker wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: if my reply hadn’t been there when you arrived would you have been entertained? If so - what was entertaining about the comment

It was a glib little quip, as you mentioned. That was the entertaining part. Edit: I’ve just noticed a particularly vile and undeserved comment in reply to you, and to some extent feel responsibility, as it’s part of a comment chain I created. I hope the mods will take action and ban whoever made this comment, although by the looks it’s a burner account. It’s quite jarring to see something like that on HN.

Use the flag feature. If enough people flag it the comment disappears. That's what I did, downvote and flag all comments that don't meet the guidelines for participating in HN.

Re: Increased risk of traffic accidents in subjects with latent toxoplasmosis (2002)

#30

Post by petre »

kodah wrote: post #27
whateveracct wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what exactly constitutes a "cat person" exactly? the dichotomy between "dog people" and "cat people" had always been interesting and telling to me. dog people will go as far as blame you for their "reactive" dog who can "tell when your nervous around him." not-cat people mostly don't like cats because..the cats are "rude" to them? In a way, these are similar experiences. You are behaving in a way the animal doesn't l…

The joke to me seemed to be poking fun at correlation and causation. In a literal sense, people get pets for different reasons. A lot of people get cats because they're more independent where dog owners cite "having a companion" because dogs have a closer relationship to humans through domestication. Animals are still animals, domesticated or not. They'll get fearful or angry based on correlation of past experience j…

People who want an independent dog should get a Husky or a Fox Terrier.
Post reply on HN