[holub008]

Seriously, has the bar sunk this low? I was certain the authors would express caution in interpreting causality, but alas: "Our results suggest that some sexually transmitted parasites, such as T. gondii, may produce changes in the appearance and behavior of the human host".

[folli]

T. gondii is not a sexually transmitted parasite. Or am I missing something?

[holub008]

I was directly quoting the article and am not a domain expert. It is interesting to see some commenters here state that it isn't an STD. It appears this is an open question.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/190/3/386/5905708 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24986706/

[lupire]

> may

That is expressing caution.

[holub008]

Perhaps it's because I don't frequent the literature, but I interpret that as "T Gondii. may [provided by our level of statistical certainty in MANCOVA] produce changes". Otherwise, what's the point of performing a statistical analysis? Moreover what's the value of any assertion if it can be guarded by an unbounded-uncertainty keyword "may".