Human Culture Shaped by Cat Parasite?

I saw a blurb somewhere on this the other day, and it kept nagging at the corner of my mind until I went and tracked down the story today. I'm curious if there is anything concrete to it, or if it is out in the realm of science fiction.



Half the world's population infected with a parasite that causes schizophrenia? That would explain alot, especially these days. There is another article on the same website that takes things even further, postulating that human history may have been shaped by interactions between such parasites and their human hosts.



I've often wondered if the alien invasion was internal, with the human race, rather than the earth, as host. Schistosomes and other weird worms with multiple life stages give me the creeps. Is this thing some kind of biological implant, a nanotech device from the ancient past? Worms and spiders and snails, inside!

Get me some Praziquantil, quick! For me and my cat.

Reminds me of everyone's favorite sexually transmitted disease: syphilis. I am totally ripping off my favorite movie of all time, "The Hunt for Red October," when I say:

Anyway, the idea that an alien invasion would be more subtle than a full invasion is at least as old as the X-Files. My take on it has always been that the only viable way to spread our genetic seed over the universe is in the form of specially crafted viruses. The end goal would be a forced million-year evolutionary cycle resulting in intelligent life similar to their human ancestors. In their minds would be mysterious arcane knowledge in the form of genetic memory; a mass delusion of a common history the evolved species never themselves experienced.

Jon

A whale, Seaman Beaumont, a whale. A marine mammal that knows a hell of a lot more about sonar, then you do. -Seaman Jones

[edit on 8.6.2006 by Voxel]

The only flaw with this idea is that half the world's population isn't infected with toxoplasma gondii. It seems that in several studies, only 30% of the population tested showed antibodies, which means they had AT ONE TIME been infected or were at that time infected. So if half of those testing positive for antibodies were infected, that's only 15% of the population.

Mariella

I didn't see a link or anything else but your word for the claim that the infection rate is only 15%. Maybe you could provide a little more background.

Perhaps this cat-borne mind alterning parasite answers a few mysteries...especially the question of who first came up with the concept of the 'cat-flap', and why we believe that 8 out of 10 cats are capable of expressing a preference in marketing surveys

First, I never said the infection rate was exactly 15%. I said that less than 30% of people tested showed antibodies, which means not all of them had an active infection, I just guesstimated with 15%. Either way, no where NEAR 50% of people have an active infection. Here are some sources:

www.cdc.gov...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
www.sma.org.sg...

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since several medical studies showed the same results, that is, roughly 15-20% infection rates rather than 50% as you suggested, it's actually 15-20%.

Mariella

Regardless of whether a person has an active infection or not, they could still have the cyst activity and be serving as a host for the organism. All I did was ask you to provide a link to back up your claim on infection rates, and I used the 15% figure you quoted without any substantiation on your part whatsoever.

If you look closely at my opening post you will see that I am not claiming the article as fact, but presenting the information for discussion and review.

I believe it may be in the medical establishment's vested interest to underreport these statistics so they can call these cysts cancerous and/or do more research at patient and taxpayer expense.

If you have a toxiplasmotic cyst, you will show an elevated eosinophil count. This is basic medicine. Come now, do some research before putting on your tinfoil hat.

Mariella

So again, we are back at the 30% number of those who may have been infected at one time. Throwing unsupported statistics around and talking down to other members is not the way to increase your credibility.

Even at a 30% rate of once and current infection, we are talking about roughly 2 billion people, and with concentrations specific to regions with high rates of feline domesticity, that could be a significant portion of a given culture, possibly enough, given the propensity of carriers to exhibit symptoms of schizophrenia, to sway cultural behavior norms significantly.

No, we are not at the 30% number. The CREDIBLE stats I provided show 15-20%. Also, I think it's hard to prove "regions of high feline domesticity" are a link, considering feral cats also spread this parasite. I highly doubt you could draw a conclusive link between cat owners and schizophrenia. Can you just admit that it was an interesting though that didn't work out in reality and take off your tinfoil hat? Not everything is a conspiracy, you know. Stuff like this is why very few people are taken seriously when they bring forward well supported conspiracies.

Mariella

In truth, it is blind allegiance to preformed opinions that is more of an impediment to the advancement of knowledge than any half-baked theory I could come up with on my own.



Remember, I am saying maybe, you are saying definitively not.

No where in those articles does it suggest that 50% of people in the world are infected, nor does it suggest that people who own cats or live near domestic cats are at a higher risk. What it DOES say, however, it that women of childbearing age show a higher prevalence, which can be explained easily: women who are pregnant or have just completed a pregnancy have a lapse in adaptive immunological cells. This is due to the fact that their bodies were compensating for the infants lack of adpative cells. This would most certainly allow a less common parasite to infect them. Again, though, the articles you present stated they tested positive serologically, which means antibodies, and suggests that they AT ONE TIME had an infection, not necessarily an active, current one. It could have been 5 years ago, and the parasite has since been flushed out, but they will always test positive on antibody tests. This is due to memory B cells.

Please, please PLEASE for the love of god and everything holy, read your own articles and do some research before suggesting doctors are purposely hiding the "real cause" of schizophrenia. You do that, and I will take a nicer tone with you. I'm just fed up with people who work themselves into a frenzy all because they don't understand the most basic of concepts regarding the "research" they found.

Mariella

Here is a question to clear something up.

What percentage of the population is believed to have schitzophrenia?

From www.schizophrenia.com :



www.schizophrenia.com...

Emphasis my own.

Mariella

I have seen this statement from you ad nauseum, and it does nothing to add to the content or correctness of your posts.

Go ahead, keep stroking yourself, and have a jolly good time at it.



The tone you take reflects much more on you than it does on me, and trying to blackmail me into retracting speculation by offering to take a nicer tone is par for your haughty course.

Careful reading will show this study focuses not only on schizophrenia, but neuroticism in general, something our good resident doctor may have failed to take into acount.

Saying a parasite is the cause of neurotocism, which is a general term for pretty much any emotional/personality effecting neurological condition, ranging from massive blunt trauma to genetic alterations, is the same as saying standing next to someone with the flu is the cause of all flu cases. It may cause a small portion, sure, but is most certainly not the most prevalent cause.

Mariella

Actually, the connection between cats and schizophrenia has been floating around for at least twenty years. I'm not sure, but I think Fuller Torrey first postulated this theory.

Schizovirus

Cats and Schizophrenia

Yes, the CONNECTION has, but Icarus' idea that areas with high "domestic cat" rations, has not, unfortunately.

The truth of the matter is, less than 1% of the population has schizophrenia, and more than 1% owns cats. It's much more likely that feral cats are carriers, I would imagine, anyways.

Mariella

I'm not sure how much human contact feral cats have, being feral and all, but cats that are adopted (or in my case, just took up residence) from who knows where, may be a factor.



This isn't my idea, it is my speculation based on the two articles I am attempting to discuss here.



Peace to you, Mariella, and my apologies for any affront to you from my comment about doctors hiding root causes of schizophrenia.