9 ms·

Oral sex is associated with reduced incidence of recurrent miscarriage

27 points by bitadder 8y ago

konschubert 8y ago
Isn’t that just a correlation that they discovered? Aren’t there thousands of hidden variables that could explain this correlation without a causal relationship? Isn’t that a pretty weak p Value ? I just read the abstract and might have mis-interpreted it. But on a first glance this looks like an April fools joke.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- tomp 8y ago
  Well this idea has been around for a while. I always foundit a bit iffy... like, human sperm is one of the most innocent things people get in their mouths/digestive tracts... so if that can influence your immune system (and making it less effective at that), what will eating some wild viruses-containing meat or bacteria-covered fruit do?!
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    We typically try it to render it inert by cooking and cutting out glands. See, sperm contains hormone-like peptides, evolved for humans to react to. You do not generally eat concentrated amounts thereof. (At least didn't...)
- the_fonz 8y ago
  I wonder about the causal link/s. Speculating, maybe less stressed/anxious/depressed and healthier people have more fun, better genes or have more resources to have better healthcare? Also, less stressed mothers seem inherently more likely to bring a child to term than a stressed mom-to-be because IIRC stress induces both labor or spontaneous abortion. Maybe there's a MHC or other immune component that leads to stronger attraction and/or healthier babies? There was a dating startup in the late 90's that promised to match people on MHC, but I'm not sure how far they got on that.... maybe AI/deep learning trained on a big enough SNPs samples and qualitative mutual attractiveness rating could tackle it these days.
- Not_a_pizza 8y ago
  There is some psychology to this. I mean someone that is already healthy is more likely to do a greater amount of sexual things. If you're sick you're not going to be as sexual. Also, being sickly more common or unwell should already put you on unsteady ground when carrying a baby. Additionally, a woman who has had more intimate exposure to her husband is probably less likely to have negative reactions to a fetus which they have created, judging from basic adaptive immunology.
salex89 8y ago
And increases chance of oral cancer...
- 1000units 8y ago
  Why is this downvoted? This is both absolutely true and incredibly important. It's literally a matter of life and death. edit: If you are downvoting this as an emotional reaction to something you haven't considered before, please consider calming down and examining the evidence with a rational mind. Your health and that of the people you love are at risk.
  - xutopia 8y ago
    If you are worried about it get the Gardasil vaccine. It is 600$ in my country and I got it out of pocket because I think it's a great idea for anyone mildly active sexually.
    - 1000units 8y ago
      I agree that everybody should be vaccinated, but Gardasil only immunizes against a few strains of cancer-inducing HPV.
    - astura 8y ago
      Gardasil is only effective if you haven't been exposed to HPV yet, so excellent for young people, less effective in preventing cancer for older people. It also doesn't prevent all strains of HPV.
      - 1000units 8y ago
        Vaccination is recommended before one's first sexual encounter, which happens at a very young age for many people. I was a goner before I even knew about it. I don't want other people to suffer the same fate. People should be making a bigger deal out of HPV, not dismissing it like elsewhere in this thread.
  - coldtea 8y ago
shereadsthenews 8y ago
Previously: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10706945 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10706945
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
aristophenes 8y ago
While this is a very interesting finding, I suspect p-hacking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging Imagine the awkwardness when someone tries to get funding to confirm.
- vbuwivbiu 8y ago
  doesn't matter - now that this has been reported it is fact
- bitadder 8y ago
  My friend and I were talking about the same thing. "association became weaker" with a p=.21
- whoisjuan 8y ago
  Data dredging is usually establishing a causation or pattern of two loosely correlated variables with no clear undesrstanding of why one have effects on the other. (correlation != causation). In this particular case they seem to have a clear hypothesis on why there could be a strong link between one and the other: > "Oral sex might induce maternal tolerance towards paternal antigens of the fetus". Anyway. This doesn't mean that this is a strong study. Just pointing out that at least they seem to have a theory on why oral sex can protect against miscarriages.
  - aristophenes 8y ago
    We don't know how many different things did they ask for on the survey? Maybe they had 100 different things that they were just spitballing might have some possible effect.
throwawaysex 8y ago
> via seminal fluid to oral mucosa To these people, 'oral sex' seems to mean implicitly mean a female giving and a male receiving. Typical.
- bitadder 8y ago
  Title of the paper should probably have specified
- throwawaystale 8y ago
  It's quite obvious that that's what they're referring to. Article titles necessarily require brevity. Anyway, flagged in 5, 4, 3, 2, ...
bitadder 8y ago
(Disclaimer: I'm not the author of this paper nor do I know them - I saw this on Twitter and found it an interesting if flawed read so I thought I'd share.)
cperciva 8y ago
> OR 95%CI 0.25-0.97 Talk about a weak result! They're 95% confident that women with recurrent miscarriages are at least 3% less likely to perform oral sex.
glitchc 8y ago
This is junk science. Can’t believe it made it past the review process.
notus 8y ago
aren't you supposed to reject p-values under 0.05?
1000units 8y ago
Why is this flagged? I feel HN has been deviating from its official charter in avoiding remotely controversial topics. This is a medical research article from a reputable journal. If we can't discuss something like this, I'm looking for a new forum.
- lenticular 8y ago
  It's obvious p-hacking. This study is crap.
  - 1000units 8y ago
    That's a convenient excuse. I suspect the real issue is people don't want to see scholarship on female microchimerism regardless of quality.

27 points by bitadder 8y ago

Isn’t that just a correlation that they discovered? Aren’t there thousands of hidden variables that could explain this correlation without a causal relationship? Isn’t that a pretty weak p Value ? I just read the abstract and might have mis-interpreted it. But on a first glance this looks like an April fools joke.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tomp 8y ago
Well this idea has been around for a while. I always foundit a bit iffy... like, human sperm is one of the most innocent things people get in their mouths/digestive tracts... so if that can influence your immune system (and making it less effective at that), what will eating some wild viruses-containing meat or bacteria-covered fruit do?!
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  We typically try it to render it inert by cooking and cutting out glands. See, sperm contains hormone-like peptides, evolved for humans to react to. You do not generally eat concentrated amounts thereof. (At least didn't...)
the_fonz 8y ago
I wonder about the causal link/s. Speculating, maybe less stressed/anxious/depressed and healthier people have more fun, better genes or have more resources to have better healthcare? Also, less stressed mothers seem inherently more likely to bring a child to term than a stressed mom-to-be because IIRC stress induces both labor or spontaneous abortion. Maybe there's a MHC or other immune component that leads to stronger attraction and/or healthier babies? There was a dating startup in the late 90's that promised to match people on MHC, but I'm not sure how far they got on that.... maybe AI/deep learning trained on a big enough SNPs samples and qualitative mutual attractiveness rating could tackle it these days.
Not_a_pizza 8y ago
There is some psychology to this. I mean someone that is already healthy is more likely to do a greater amount of sexual things. If you're sick you're not going to be as sexual. Also, being sickly more common or unwell should already put you on unsteady ground when carrying a baby. Additionally, a woman who has had more intimate exposure to her husband is probably less likely to have negative reactions to a fetus which they have created, judging from basic adaptive immunology.

salex89 8y ago

And increases chance of oral cancer...

1000units 8y ago
Why is this downvoted? This is both absolutely true and incredibly important. It's literally a matter of life and death. edit: If you are downvoting this as an emotional reaction to something you haven't considered before, please consider calming down and examining the evidence with a rational mind. Your health and that of the people you love are at risk.
- xutopia 8y ago
  If you are worried about it get the Gardasil vaccine. It is 600$ in my country and I got it out of pocket because I think it's a great idea for anyone mildly active sexually.
  - 1000units 8y ago
    I agree that everybody should be vaccinated, but Gardasil only immunizes against a few strains of cancer-inducing HPV.
  - astura 8y ago
    Gardasil is only effective if you haven't been exposed to HPV yet, so excellent for young people, less effective in preventing cancer for older people. It also doesn't prevent all strains of HPV.
    - 1000units 8y ago
      Vaccination is recommended before one's first sexual encounter, which happens at a very young age for many people. I was a goner before I even knew about it. I don't want other people to suffer the same fate. People should be making a bigger deal out of HPV, not dismissing it like elsewhere in this thread.
- coldtea 8y ago

shereadsthenews 8y ago

Previously: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10706945 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10706945

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

aristophenes 8y ago

While this is a very interesting finding, I suspect p-hacking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging Imagine the awkwardness when someone tries to get funding to confirm.

vbuwivbiu 8y ago
doesn't matter - now that this has been reported it is fact
bitadder 8y ago
My friend and I were talking about the same thing. "association became weaker" with a p=.21
whoisjuan 8y ago
Data dredging is usually establishing a causation or pattern of two loosely correlated variables with no clear undesrstanding of why one have effects on the other. (correlation != causation). In this particular case they seem to have a clear hypothesis on why there could be a strong link between one and the other: > "Oral sex might induce maternal tolerance towards paternal antigens of the fetus". Anyway. This doesn't mean that this is a strong study. Just pointing out that at least they seem to have a theory on why oral sex can protect against miscarriages.
- aristophenes 8y ago
  We don't know how many different things did they ask for on the survey? Maybe they had 100 different things that they were just spitballing might have some possible effect.

throwawaysex 8y ago

> via seminal fluid to oral mucosa To these people, 'oral sex' seems to mean implicitly mean a female giving and a male receiving. Typical.

bitadder 8y ago
Title of the paper should probably have specified
throwawaystale 8y ago
It's quite obvious that that's what they're referring to. Article titles necessarily require brevity. Anyway, flagged in 5, 4, 3, 2, ...

bitadder 8y ago

(Disclaimer: I'm not the author of this paper nor do I know them - I saw this on Twitter and found it an interesting if flawed read so I thought I'd share.)

cperciva 8y ago

> OR 95%CI 0.25-0.97 Talk about a weak result! They're 95% confident that women with recurrent miscarriages are at least 3% less likely to perform oral sex.

glitchc 8y ago

This is junk science. Can’t believe it made it past the review process.

notus 8y ago

aren't you supposed to reject p-values under 0.05?

1000units 8y ago

Why is this flagged? I feel HN has been deviating from its official charter in avoiding remotely controversial topics. This is a medical research article from a reputable journal. If we can't discuss something like this, I'm looking for a new forum.

lenticular 8y ago
It's obvious p-hacking. This study is crap.
- 1000units 8y ago
  That's a convenient excuse. I suspect the real issue is people don't want to see scholarship on female microchimerism regardless of quality.