Oral sex is associated with reduced incidence of recurrent miscarriage

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?<p>Isn’t that a pretty weak p Value ?<p>I just read the abstract and might have mis-interpreted it. But on a first glance this looks like an April fools joke.

&gt; OR 95%CI 0.25-0.97<p>Talk about a weak result! They&#x27;re 95% confident that women with recurrent miscarriages are at least 3% less likely to perform oral sex.

While this is a very interesting finding, I suspect p-hacking. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Data_dredging" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Data_dredging</a><p>Imagine the awkwardness when someone tries to get funding to confirm.

And increases chance of oral cancer...

(Disclaimer: I&#x27;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&#x27;d share.)

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

Previously: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pubmed&#x2F;10706945" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pubmed&#x2F;10706945</a>

&gt; via seminal fluid to oral mucosa<p>To these people, &#x27;oral sex&#x27; seems to mean implicitly mean a female giving and a male receiving. Typical.

aren&#x27;t you supposed to reject p-values under 0.05?

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&#x27;t discuss something like this, I&#x27;m looking for a new forum.