Well here is the most of the studies cover... I think they are completely out of their mind. They studies that they show are salmonella counts with canidates having reptiles and amphibians, and then ones without reptiles in the home.
Copied from
http://www.cdc.gov/enterics/publications/348-merminj.pdf"Reptile and amphibian contact was associated both
with infection with serogroup B or D Salmonella (multivariable odds ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval
[CI], 1.1–2.2; P ! .009) and with infection with non–serogroup B or D Salmonella (OR, 4.2; CI, 1.8–9.7; P !
.001). The population attributable fraction for reptile or amphibian contact was 6% for all sporadic Salmonella
infections and 11% among persons !21 years old. These data suggest that reptile and amphibian exposure is
associated with ?74,000 Salmonella infections annually in the United States."
I'm sorry to say and you can debate this or not... I claim total INACCURATE and absurd to say the least.
There is too many variables to account for to come to this. Yes they have, or have had contact with reptiles. The only way I could see this is if the reptile group, was in a sterile room, without moving air to be completely opposite to the other group being studied. just because they own or had contact with reptiles and amphibians DOES NOT mean that it was the reptiles fault. I dont agree with the studies, because they absolutley can not find out that humans contracted salmonella from the reptile unless they test the actual reptile.
its late so i might wake up and realize what i just wrote didn't make sense.
