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?

closed as unclear what you're asking by Oddthinking Dec 11 '18 at 12:49

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 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. – sumelic Dec 11 '18 at 5:30
  • 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. – sumelic Dec 11 '18 at 5:30
  • 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? – sumelic Dec 11 '18 at 5:34
  • 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. – Jan Doggen Dec 11 '18 at 9:41
  • Welcome to Skeptics! The claim here is unclear. – Oddthinking Dec 11 '18 at 12:53

Browse other questions tagged .