Maryland DHMH, NY Health Department, Yale & CDC
They did a study- yes, another one- to see if pet owners had a higher risk of getting ticks on them and contracting Lyme disease.
Well, YES! Of course they do.
That is well established in the literature (and understood amongst the public in general) and totally Ancient News! How much did THIS study cost tax-payers? What did it do to improve the inadequate tests that are still missing 75% or more of people who are infected, or to find a CURE?
With all the massive reporting problems we've experienced over the last three decades, wouldn't those employees- OUR government employees- time be better spent COUNTING CASES like they are suppose to be doing?
And again, how many people should it take to do a lame and unneeded study? It took SEVEN people from the Maryland DHMH, NY DOH, CDC and Yale School of Public Health to do this one study. UGH!
QUOTE- "Pet-owning households had 1.83 times the risk (95% CI = 1.53, 2.20) of finding ticks crawling on and 1.49 times the risk (95% CI = 1.20, 1.84) of finding ticks attached to household members compared to households without pets."
Read it and weep, while more and more people are becoming sick and are suffering...
Zoonoses Public Health. 2017 Jun 19. doi: 10.1111/zph.12369. [Epub ahead of print]
Jones EH1, Hinckley AF2, Hook SA2, Meek JI3, Backenson B4, Kugeler KJ2, Feldman KA1.
1
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, MD, USA.
2
Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
3
Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
4
New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY, USA.
We examined whether pet ownership increased the risk for tick encounters and tickborne disease among residents of three Lyme disease-endemic states as a nested cohort within a randomized controlled trial.
Information about pet ownership, use of tick control for pets, property characteristics, tick encounters and human tickborne disease were captured through surveys, and associations were assessed using univariate and multivariable analyses.
Pet-owning households had 1.83 times the risk (95% CI = 1.53, 2.20) of finding ticks crawling on and 1.49 times the risk (95% CI = 1.20, 1.84) of finding ticks attached to household members compared to households without pets.
This large evaluation of pet ownership, human tick encounters and tickborne diseases shows that pet owners, whether of cats or dogs, are at increased risk of encountering ticks and suggests that pet owners are at an increased risk of developing tickborne disease.
Pet owners should be made aware of this risk and be reminded to conduct daily tick checks of all household members, including the pets, and to consult their veterinarian regarding effective tick control products.
© 2017 Blackwell Verlag GmbH.
Link to abstract here
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28631423
Four Selected Documentation Examples
Study 1978 (Steere)- "Compared to 64 of their neighbors, significantly more patients had cats and farm animals, and had noted ticks on their pets and tick bites on themselves." Source
Study 1994 Data- "Pet owners may be at increased risk of Lyme disease (Schwartz et al., 1994) and RMSF (Demma et al., 2006) because of ticks that have fallen from domesticated animals or household pets." Source
Study 1988-1991- "An interaction between pet ownership and rural residence was observed in that rural residents were only at an elevated risk if they owned pets." Source
Study 2013- "In peri-urban green spaces, tick-biting risk for dogs may be high and here was shown to be related primarily to exposure frequency. While tick-biting is of direct veterinary importance for dogs, dogs also represent useful sentinels for human tick-exposure." Source
Their LAST study that failed to show anything positive or new...
QUOTE- "Used as recommended, acaricide barrier sprays do not significantly reduce the household risk of tick exposure or incidence of tick-borne disease."
And 13 people's time (government time) were wasted here...
J Infect Dis. 2016 Jul 15;214(2):182-8. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiv775. Epub 2016 Jan 5.
Hinckley AF1, Meek JI2, Ray JA2, Niesobecki SA2, Connally NP3, Feldman KA4, Jones EH4, Backenson PB5, White JL5, Lukacik G5, Kay AB1, Miranda WP5, Mead PS1.
1
Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado.
2
Connecticut Emerging Infections Program, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven.
3
Western Connecticut State University, Danbury.
4
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore.
5
New York State Department of Health, Albany.
Link Here- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26740276
Lucy Barnes