 2012 (UTC)  Summary:    First part  I suggest a better introduction to it, such as the one I have suggested here today should replace the present one. We only have to go back to the birth of modern zootherapy in the 60 's (Boris levinson). It could be said that pets have always been around but since Levinson's claims they have never been as popular. We can then state all the claims that are being made.  Second part  To be fair, it should be allowed the same amount of space as the first part. it should be clearly stated what's wrong with the first part: - the poor quality of the references used to substantiate these claims  - the mediocre quality of the studies used to substantiate these claims - the promotion by various interest groups who are often the authors of these claims  - each claim should be then criticized - the toll on animals should also be spelled out as they are the innocent victims of this pseudoscience - as a conclusion it should be stated why it is also bad for people  Fair enough ?  15:05, 2 May