Did you actually read any responses?

Do you really think anyone here DOESN'T know that all the bacteria exists already? We're not talking about us, we're talking about what the AR groups are going to rush to the media to twist up to throw at the public.

Salmonella exists EVERYWHERE. Yet when a report that salmonella is "insert product, place, critter, whatever" there's a huge amount of fuss that it's dangerous, 'think of the CHILDREN!' and the public thinks that the product/place/whatever is MORE dangerous than before. You're talking about E coli, which is a form of bacteria that has put numerous people in hospital and killed folks. It doesn't matter that 99% of E coli is perfectly harmless. It's the title in the news. It's the public perception that a SCIENTIFIC paper proved that nasty slimy snakes carry E coli and will make everyone sick and remember all those turtles that made everyone sick and won't anyone think of the CHILDREN?

Somehow you think that because studies exist that say cats have nasty mouths that it means that you can do another study proving how filthy snake mouths are and it won't affect snakes because.... what? Because the 30 million fuzzy kitty lovers/owners will also love snakes so much that they'll equate a snake's dirty mouth with their fuzzy lovey cutey kitty?

Since other studies already exist, why add to them? Since vets(good herp vets) culture mouth swabs to check for infection/issues.. I'd think that they know approximately what's okay to be in there, what's not okay and how amounts of each should be found. Otherwise, they're staring into a microscope at confusion and throwing a dart at a board as to what they should treat, right?

Next up, you'll be convinced us about how we should totally pair up with HSUS/PETA because they could tons of good because they save pets.