I don't think you can demand sources if your own claims are not only unsourced but also some of them are demonstrably incorrect or misleading.
You talk about dog poop but then speak of "stomach ulcers and other poop hygiene releated diseases with "unknown sources"". The main cause of stomach ulcers (other than painkiller overuse) seems to be (certain strains of) heliobacter pylori:
The transmission route of heliobacter pylori is both fecal-oral AND oral-oral with the latter apparently being far more common. Heliobacter pylori is transmitted between humans and has been with humans since before humans first migrated from Africa. So "stomach ulcers" are neither a "poop hygiene related disease" nor have mostly "unknown sources".
Also no, "every municipality" does not "accept dog poop as "part of nature"". Numerous (if not all) US states and many (if not all) EU countries have "pooper scooper" laws that come with considerable fines for letting your dog poop in public and not cleaning up after them. In Italy there have even been cases of DNA testing being used to investigate abandoned dog poop.
Not only are your claims unsourced and don't stand up to scrutiny but some of them are completely incomprehensible:
> And nations that do not tolerate dogs are healthier.
What does that sentence even mean? I assume by "nation" you mean "country" but what do you mean by "not tolerating dogs" and what do you base the definition of "healthier" on?
So no, nobody owes you any sources. You have to back up your claims first.
You talk about dog poop but then speak of "stomach ulcers and other poop hygiene releated diseases with "unknown sources"". The main cause of stomach ulcers (other than painkiller overuse) seems to be (certain strains of) heliobacter pylori:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori
The transmission route of heliobacter pylori is both fecal-oral AND oral-oral with the latter apparently being far more common. Heliobacter pylori is transmitted between humans and has been with humans since before humans first migrated from Africa. So "stomach ulcers" are neither a "poop hygiene related disease" nor have mostly "unknown sources".
Also no, "every municipality" does not "accept dog poop as "part of nature"". Numerous (if not all) US states and many (if not all) EU countries have "pooper scooper" laws that come with considerable fines for letting your dog poop in public and not cleaning up after them. In Italy there have even been cases of DNA testing being used to investigate abandoned dog poop.
Not only are your claims unsourced and don't stand up to scrutiny but some of them are completely incomprehensible:
> And nations that do not tolerate dogs are healthier.
What does that sentence even mean? I assume by "nation" you mean "country" but what do you mean by "not tolerating dogs" and what do you base the definition of "healthier" on?
So no, nobody owes you any sources. You have to back up your claims first.