It is concerning that such nonsense is being printed because it assumes a reading public that cannot detect logical errors and is ignorant of the scientific method (anecdotes prove nothing).
The newspaper article contains some obvious examples of post hoc ergo propter hoc errors:
The study cited cases where a woman died of septic shock and renal failure after her cat, with whom she slept, licked open sores on her feet and toes. In another case, a 44-year-old man died of infection after his German shepherd puppy licked open abrasions on his hands.
Most people know that human saliva is much more germy than dog saliva. Would these claims have been made if human saliva contacted the wounds? Offering such anecdotes should instantly discredit the article for properly educated readers, and we have to get education out of the government’s control before it gets even worse.
Oh, remember that band, Three Dog Night?
