 To my surprise, studies of the effects of pets on human health and well-being have evidently produced a mishmash of conflicting results. Some studies show pets lower your blood pressure. In fact, in some cases more than even drugs do. But other studies found no effect, or even that pet owners have higher blood pressure. Is having a pet increase your survival after heart attack? Or decrease your survival after heart attack? One area where there's a bit more consistency is children's health. The presence of furry pets in the home appears to cut the odds of acute respiratory illness in half and may even decrease the risk of getting the common cold. But which pets work better? Cats like my Charlotte, Emily, and Ralph, or dogs like my Lily? Published recently in the official journal The American Academy of Pediatrics, respiratory tract illnesses during the first year of life affect of dog and cat contacts. The first study that has evaluated the significance of pet contacts during childhood for the development of respiratory tract symptoms and infections, including ear infections. They found dog and cat contacts during early infancy may be associated with less illness in general and may have a protective effect on respiratory tract symptoms and infections. But as to which is better? In comparisons between cat and dog contacts, dog contacts showed a more significant protective role on respiratory infectious disease. Children having a dog at home were significantly healthier, headless, frequent ear infections, and tended to need fewer courses of antibiotics during the study period than children without dog contacts. Cat ownership seemed to also have an overall protective effect, although weaker than dog ownership on the infectious health of infants. Though when it comes to protecting children from tummy aches, both cats and dogs appeared equally effective in reducing the risks of gastroenteritis.