You're viewing a single thread.
58
comments
The article itself is over a decade old and based on questionable data gathering and a faulty analysis processes. If you read the article they published they essentially didn't find anything, determined without providing evidence that other factors couldn't be a determining factor, and then data-dredging when they could find anything statistically significant to match their hypothesis.
SkeptVet article explaining the findings in detail.
Basically it was just shitty science.
I mean my dog could be an exception but she shits always in the direction we walk. No exceptions.
I guess you could say the study was dogshit.
You've viewed 58 comments.