I think that’s a reasonable question, regardless of the intended original meaning. I honestly think it’d make a good (and fundable) study.
Basically, look at the income skew in the disease population controlling for pet ownership. If high income cat owners are more likely positive, then we’re likely looking at a medical access question and the overall national health impact estimate should be adjusted accordingly.
I thought it’s compared to not having a cat, not compared to having a dog.
The headline wasn’t “those who grew up with cats more likely than those who grew up with dogs…”
I think that’s a reasonable question, regardless of the intended original meaning. I honestly think it’d make a good (and fundable) study.
Basically, look at the income skew in the disease population controlling for pet ownership. If high income cat owners are more likely positive, then we’re likely looking at a medical access question and the overall national health impact estimate should be adjusted accordingly.