The Cat's owner must have sold exclusive rights to the footage after it went viral, it keeps getting pulled from youtube, so as of right now here's some active links:
the antiseptic enzyme is on their tongue. So no the "Effect wont happen when licking" as its already on their tongue. the link also said that yes they do have antiseptic tongues.
You clearly don't know what you are on about. ask a vet if they have antiseptic tongues and if its in the salvia or something that randomly happens if they lick a wound lol
and your the one insisting that its harmful when it isn't that's why I'm explaining that its actually not. Your going on like I'm saying its ok for a dog to lick a surgical scar. An open wound is much different to a cut or scrape .
It is potentially harmful. Trust me. Ask your GP, or even a vet, if you don't believe me or the links provided.
I'm not sure if you're insistent on continuing to argue because you think you might convert me into dogs licking my wounds, but I've already said, it's your call. OK :kitty:
This is from your own link !!!
Risks[edit]
As with the licking of wounds by people, wound licking by animals carries a risk of infection. Allowing pet cats to lick open wounds can cause cellulitis[52][53] and septicemia[54][55] due to bacterial infections. Licking of open wounds by dogs could transmit rabies if the dog is infected with rabies,[56] although this is said by the CDC to be rare.[57] Dog saliva has been reported to complicate the healing of ulcers.[58] Another issue is the possibility of an allergy to proteins in the saliva of pets, such as Fel d 1 in cat allergy and Can f 1 in dog allergy.[59] Cases of serious infection following the licking of wounds by pets include:
Dog
A diabetic man who was infected by Pasteurella dagmatis due to the licking of his injured toe by his dog, causing a spinal infection.[60]
A woman recovering from knee surgery suffered a persistent infection of the knee with Pasteurella after her dog licked a small wound on her toe.[61]
A dog lick to an Australian woman's minor burn caused septicemia and necrosis due to Capnocytophaga canimorsus infection, resulting in the loss of all her toes, fingers and a leg.[62][63]
C. canimorsus caused acute renal failure due to septicemia in a man whose open hand wound was licked by his dog.[64]
A 68 year old man died from septicemia and necrotizing fasciitis after a wound was licked by his dog.[65]
A patient with a perforated eardrum developed meningitis after his dog passed on a Pasteurella multocida infection by licking his ear.[66]
It is potentially harmful. Trust me. Ask your GP, or even a vet, if you don't believe me or the links provided.
I'm not sure if you're wildly and obsessively insistent on continuing to argue because you think you might convert me into dogs licking my wounds, but I've already said, it's your call. OK :kitty:
lol you are funny. no I'm just trying to show you, you are not right like you really really think you are. I work in a vets mate, so think they know a bit better about animals then a GP. Dogs are less susceptible to germs then humans. You didn't have to quote me in the first place but you keep on doing it!!!!!!!!!
it isn't harmful if enzymes are killing bacteria like a dogs salvia does, ask a ****ing GP that one. Bacteria can breed a lot more in a human mouth then a dogs.
lol you are funny. no I'm just trying to show you, you are not right like you really really think you are. I work in a vets mate, so think they know a bit better about animals the a GP.
No vet would countenance an animal licking a human wound
lol you are funny. no I'm just trying to show you, you are not right like you really really think you are. I work in a vets mate, so think they know a bit better about animals then a GP. Dogs are less susceptible to germs then humans. You didn't have to quote me in the first place but you keep on doing it!!!!!!!!!
it isn't harmful if enzymes are killing bacteria like a dogs salvia does, ask a ****ing GP that one. Bacteria can breed a lot more in a human mouth then a dogs.
I think the enzymes in dogs saliva is intended for dogs licking their own wounds, which is what animals do. They also lick all manner of other hygienic things, and that can be a problem if they lick human wounds.
You have to be bonkers to think letting a dog lick your wounds is a good idea.
I think the enzymes in dogs saliva is intended for dogs licking their own wounds, which is what animals do. They also lick all manner of other hygienic things, and that can be a problem if they lick human wounds.
You have to be bonkers to think letting a dog lick your wounds is a good idea.
a wound and a graze are different. A graze on the skin surface wouldn't be affected.
I haven't said that its a good idea just the person quoting me wont quit with banging on that they are right regarding it when there are thousands of links to say its not that harmful from vets and doctors.
I don't get the irony, because your thinking you know what your on about, when you don't. It has been scientifically proved that dog saliva has enzymes it in. But according to you the enzymes wont be there unless they are licking there own wounds when it is in the salvia 24/7. Like I have said, I wouldn't let a dog lick surgical wound. But no one will die or be harmed from a graze being licked.
Ha ha, yup! You mean to tell me you haven't seen the dog snogging threads? They're one of my DS 'speciality subjects' and draw me in with a mixture of horror, amusement and astonishment every time.
Never seen anyone talking about letting dogs lick their open wounds though. That is a new one on me I have to say.
I don't get the irony, because your thinking you know what your on about, when you don't. It has been scientifically proved that dog saliva has enzymes it in. But according to you the enzymes wont be there unless they are licking there own wounds when it is in the salvia 24/7. Like I have said, I wouldn't let a dog lick surgical wound. But no one will die or be harmed from a graze being licked.
Hey, you were the one who gave a link which said this:-
Risks[edit]
As with the licking of wounds by people, wound licking by animals carries a risk of infection. Allowing pet cats to lick open wounds can cause cellulitis[52][53] and septicemia[54][55] due to bacterial infections. Licking of open wounds by dogs could transmit rabies if the dog is infected with rabies,[56] although this is said by the CDC to be rare.[57] Dog saliva has been reported to complicate the healing of ulcers.[58] Another issue is the possibility of an allergy to proteins in the saliva of pets, such as Fel d 1 in cat allergy and Can f 1 in dog allergy.[59] Cases of serious infection following the licking of wounds by pets include:
Dog
A diabetic man who was infected by Pasteurella dagmatis due to the licking of his injured toe by his dog, causing a spinal infection.[60]
A woman recovering from knee surgery suffered a persistent infection of the knee with Pasteurella after her dog licked a small wound on her toe.[61]
A dog lick to an Australian woman's minor burn caused septicemia and necrosis due to Capnocytophaga canimorsus infection, resulting in the loss of all her toes, fingers and a leg.[62][63]
C. canimorsus caused acute renal failure due to septicemia in a man whose open hand wound was licked by his dog.[64]
A 68 year old man died from septicemia and necrotizing fasciitis after a wound was licked by his dog.[65]
A patient with a perforated eardrum developed meningitis after his dog passed on a Pasteurella multocida infection by licking his ear.[66]
I didn't quote that, you did.
Still if you want to rubbish your own evidence, that again is your call lol
I don't like being licked by dogs anyway and I certainly would NOT !!! under any circumstances let an animal lick a graze or open wound. That's not to say I dislike dogs, I do and cats, but they are animals when all is said and done.
Having seen this video on the news it didn't look right.......it looked like there was a Director filming it
Starting by following the dog......before there was any indication of what it was up to .........then the camera angles following the action from one side of the car then around the back and other side......
Having seen this video on the news it didn't look right.......it looked like there was a Director filming it
Starting by following the dog......before there was any indication of what it was up to .........then the camera angles following the action from one side of the car then around the back and other side......
Eh? It was security camera footage from either side of the driveway, if you watch the timestamp you can see the footage was put together (by the homeowner) to show the sequence of events, not in actual time synch (ie, the dog appearing is when the boy is stopping alongside the front wheel of the car) - it escaped when their neighbour was getting their car out.
Watch the timestamp, at approx 4:51 is when the boy stops at the front wing, then the footage cuts to a few seconds earlier on the dog's side - it's again at approx 4:51 when the dog clocks the boy at the cars front wing.
The timestamp would be accurate - it's generated by the single cctv controller for all the associated feeds.
If you only saw it on the news, it may have been re-edited further.
Having seen this video on the news it didn't look right.......it looked like there was a Director filming it
Starting by following the dog......before there was any indication of what it was up to .........then the camera angles following the action from one side of the car then around the back and other side......
So I assume you think that all the follow up footage showing the boys stitches, bandages and the interviews with the family are also fake?
I couldn't open the original link so I've just seen a 20 second video on the news which looked scripted
I suppose if it's been spliced together from several minutes of CCTV then that would explain why it looks scripted......
In effect the editing produced a story
The links I've posted on this page are still active, see my post above for a copy of the original clip. The editing doesn't produce a story in it - the only event that matters is the single unbroken sequence in which the dog appears from the rear of the car, grabs the boy and starts pulling him down - then the cat launches itself at the dog.
Including the intercuts of the other side of the car just serves to show it was unprovoked (the dog was unaware of the boy - you can see he notices him and sets off)
Fyi..."blue cheese" is a popular strain of cannabis at the moment in the UK. That might help explain a few of the more remarkable posts in this thread.
Having seen this video on the news it didn't look right.......it looked like there was a Director filming it
Starting by following the dog......before there was any indication of what it was up to .........then the camera angles following the action from one side of the car then around the back and other side......
Err..two cameras...and editing...Unless you think this is a conspiracy video uploaded by the cat lovers society
edit..Oops...just seen your next post and the explanatory replies..ignore conspiracy comment
The way that dog stalks then attacks the boy is 100% prey drive. Even the way he takes the boy out by his leg is typical canine predator action. A dog will take down a prey animal in exactly the same way. Disable at the first opportunity by damaging the legs.
He wasn't just out to bite that kid. He was out to kill.
Fyi..."blue cheese" is a popular strain of cannabis at the moment in the UK. That might help explain a few of the more remarkable posts in this thread.
Comments
Original CCTV clip only:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKF3U9UWrBI
ABC News with clip and family + Cat at home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSG_wBiTEE8
Today show (US Morning TV) clip + interview with family & Cat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw9AwaJaVGU
It is potentially harmful. Trust me. Ask your GP, or even a vet, if you don't believe me or the links provided.
I'm not sure if you're insistent on continuing to argue because you think you might convert me into dogs licking my wounds, but I've already said, it's your call. OK :kitty:
This is from your own link !!!
lol you are funny. no I'm just trying to show you, you are not right like you really really think you are. I work in a vets mate, so think they know a bit better about animals then a GP. Dogs are less susceptible to germs then humans. You didn't have to quote me in the first place but you keep on doing it!!!!!!!!!
it isn't harmful if enzymes are killing bacteria like a dogs salvia does, ask a ****ing GP that one. Bacteria can breed a lot more in a human mouth then a dogs.
No vet would countenance an animal licking a human wound
they would tell you its not harmful. Are you slow? do you research first.
This thread anyone is about the beautiful boy getting saved by his loving cat. Not whether I'm right or you are.
Oh the irony
This has come up before and it never fails to amaze me those who seem to think it's in anyway normal. I mean come on now.
I think the enzymes in dogs saliva is intended for dogs licking their own wounds, which is what animals do. They also lick all manner of other hygienic things, and that can be a problem if they lick human wounds.
You have to be bonkers to think letting a dog lick your wounds is a good idea.
a wound and a graze are different. A graze on the skin surface wouldn't be affected.
I haven't said that its a good idea just the person quoting me wont quit with banging on that they are right regarding it when there are thousands of links to say its not that harmful from vets and doctors.
I don't get the irony, because your thinking you know what your on about, when you don't. It has been scientifically proved that dog saliva has enzymes it in. But according to you the enzymes wont be there unless they are licking there own wounds when it is in the salvia 24/7. Like I have said, I wouldn't let a dog lick surgical wound. But no one will die or be harmed from a graze being licked.
ha! Has it really?
Ha ha, yup! You mean to tell me you haven't seen the dog snogging threads? They're one of my DS 'speciality subjects' and draw me in with a mixture of horror, amusement and astonishment every time.
Never seen anyone talking about letting dogs lick their open wounds though. That is a new one on me I have to say.
Hey, you were the one who gave a link which said this:-
I didn't quote that, you did.
Still if you want to rubbish your own evidence, that again is your call lol
Nurses can carry a small dog under their arm and have it lick the infected wounds of everyone on the ward.
Starting by following the dog......before there was any indication of what it was up to .........then the camera angles following the action from one side of the car then around the back and other side......
Eh? It was security camera footage from either side of the driveway, if you watch the timestamp you can see the footage was put together (by the homeowner) to show the sequence of events, not in actual time synch (ie, the dog appearing is when the boy is stopping alongside the front wheel of the car) - it escaped when their neighbour was getting their car out.
The video keeps getting pulled, but the links in my post above are still active -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKF3U9UWrBI
Watch the timestamp, at approx 4:51 is when the boy stops at the front wing, then the footage cuts to a few seconds earlier on the dog's side - it's again at approx 4:51 when the dog clocks the boy at the cars front wing.
The timestamp would be accurate - it's generated by the single cctv controller for all the associated feeds.
If you only saw it on the news, it may have been re-edited further.
So I assume you think that all the follow up footage showing the boys stitches, bandages and the interviews with the family are also fake?
I suppose if it's been spliced together from several minutes of CCTV then that would explain why it looks scripted......
In effect the editing produced a story
The links I've posted on this page are still active, see my post above for a copy of the original clip. The editing doesn't produce a story in it - the only event that matters is the single unbroken sequence in which the dog appears from the rear of the car, grabs the boy and starts pulling him down - then the cat launches itself at the dog.
Including the intercuts of the other side of the car just serves to show it was unprovoked (the dog was unaware of the boy - you can see he notices him and sets off)
Err..two cameras...and editing...Unless you think this is a conspiracy video uploaded by the cat lovers society
edit..Oops...just seen your next post and the explanatory replies..ignore conspiracy comment
He wasn't just out to bite that kid. He was out to kill.
Frightening.