2

An article in the National Geographic here talks of the dangers of dog licks.

On the other hand, this NYT article states that dog owners tend to live longer and healthier than non-pet owners.

Is it dangerous to get licked frequently by a pet dog? Is it really necessary to wash your hands every time after touching a pet (as the CDC recommends) to forestall potential danger?

LN6595
  • 121
  • 4
  • 2
    Can you quote the specific claim that you want evaluated? Right now, I don't totally understand what this question is asking. The National Geographic article starts with a specific example of a woman who was infected by a bacterium that apparently is commonly found in dog saliva, but not commonly found on humans. It says that she had burned her foot and the dog licked the wound. – paradisi Dec 11 '18 at 05:30
  • 1
    As far as I can see, the article doesn't say that it is "dangerous" for most people to get licked by a pet dog: it says " dogs and their full-face slobber-fests [are] **usually not harmful** — as long as your immune system is strong and you don’t have any wounds on your face or mouth that would let bacteria into your bloodstream." Based on that, I don't see a contradiction between the Nat Geo article and the NYT article. – paradisi Dec 11 '18 at 05:30
  • 2
    The CDC recommendation has a clear theoretical basis--hand-washing is a method that is generally used to control exposure to pathogens. Are you trying to find out if the CDC recommendations are based on any empirical studies about a potential relationship between handwashing frequency and the health of dog-owners? – paradisi Dec 11 '18 at 05:34
  • 1
    @sumelic *I don't see a contradiction between the Nat Geo article and the NYT article* Especially not since the NG one is about measurable bacterial infection and the NYT one is about vague statistical (not causal) correlations. –  Dec 11 '18 at 09:41
  • [Welcome to Skeptics!](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/welcome-to-new-users) The claim here is unclear. – Oddthinking Dec 11 '18 at 12:53
  • One could argue that the presence of a dog in the household is beneficial to health, consistent with the hygiene hypothesis. – Daniel R Hicks Dec 11 '18 at 13:09
  • @DanielRHicks: One could make lots of arguments all day: dog walking promotes cardio exercise, petting dogs promotes certain hormones, being very sick/disabled/single/poor/living in a city/etc are confounding factors with dog ownership, dogs emit magic rays that make you healthy and happy. Without references, they are just conjectures. Without a clear claim, there's no question to answer. – Oddthinking Dec 12 '18 at 00:42
  • @Oddthinking - The hygiene hypothesis is a real thing (at least as real as any "hypothesis" can be). You can easily find dozens of scholarly articles on the topic. It is believed to be a factor in polio infections, and it has been suggested as a factor in MS. Definitely a factor in some allergies. Basically, exposure to "benign" pathogens (such as a dog might drag in) confers immunity to similar pathogens which are less benign. – Daniel R Hicks Dec 12 '18 at 00:51
  • That is a far cry from showing that a dog in a household is beneficial to health. – Oddthinking Dec 12 '18 at 00:56

0 Answers0