Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Crooks, Liars, Thieves, Cowards, and Pit Nutters AKA CDC

Oh how the pit nutters love to quote the CDC report. Wonder if they ever took the time to look up the authors of this report to see just what their motives are to oppose BSL. Many decisions have been made based on this biased report. Their names are in red since they have blood on their hands from opposing BSL.

Jeffery Sacks obviously feels that death by dog attacks are no big deal and therefore doesn't need to be considered when it comes to BSL. Tell that to the families that have lost their loved ones to an attack. "A dog of any breed can become dangerous when bred or trained to be aggressive," Dr. Jeffrey Sacks, epidemiologist for the CDC, said. "Fatal attacks represent only a very small proportion of dog bite injuries and shouldn't be the primary factor driving public policy regarding dangerous dogs." Who really gives a damn about a chihuahua attack that requires a couple of stitches? And why doesn't he look at the severity of attacks? This guy is a joke.

Leslie Sinclair, DVM
In 1997, after an article titled, "Playing with pets can be doggone dangerous" appeared in the AAP News (American Academy of Pediatrics),1 Sinclair felt "compelled" to share her veterinary advice with the pediatrics community. In her argument of the old English sheepdog, Sinclair fails to point out that only one fatal sheepdog attack had been recorded in the HSUS registry of fatal attacks prior to 1997, versus 76 recorded fatal pit bull attacks in just a 20-year time span.

"The article was incorrect in asserting that there are "nonaggressive breeds" such as the old English sheepdog. According to the HSUS Dog Bite-Related Fatality Database, even this lovable breed of dog has been implicated in the death of a 7-year-old child."
In 1999, one year before the release of the CDC report, Sinclair is quoted in the article, "The Canine Companion, Breed Bans: Is There Another Way?" Sinclair states: "Pigeonholing a certain breed as dangerous and then banning it doesn't get rid of the problem." She adds the classic, "The Doberman pinscher was the "scary"2 dog of the 1970s, the Pit Bull in the 1980s..." Once again, Sinclair neglects to cite the differences in the number of deaths attributed to each breed.

Julie Gilchrist, MD
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/nov00/s111500c.asp
http://www.cdc.gov/employment/pdf/job_profile_pediatricians.pdf That simple realization brought Julie Gilchrist, a pediatrician specializing in sports medicine, to CDC a decade ago.
Since when are dog bites part of sports medicine. Where's her credentials on dog bites? I couldn't find any.

“If anyone says one dog is more likely to kill — unless there’s a study out there that I haven’t seen — that’s not based on scientific data,” said Julie Gilchrist, a doctor at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who researches dog bites.
Obviously records from animal control and thousands of media reports aren't considered to be enough to instigate a scientific study. The CDC report did state (I haven't re-read it lately) that they were unable to determine if reproductive status has an impact on dog attacks due to a lack of record keeping. Animal control agencies don't keep information of reproductive status on dogs. So using Gilchrist's logic of no scientific data, where does Karen Delise fit in with her myth? And one also has to question the fact that if the CDC could not find this information, how did Delise come up with it?


Gail Golab
"Dr. Gail Golab, director of animal welfare for the American Veterinarian Medical Association, called Mr. Rodriguez irresponsible for not confining his dog properly. But she said breed-specific laws are a "knee-jerk" reaction by lawmakers who don't address the real issue."
"...Dr. Golab said dog-bite statistics that suggest pit bulls bite most often are not necessarily accurate. They are hard to properly formulate, she said, because it's hard for some people to identify what breed bit them and the only bites that typically get recorded are ones reported in the media, to lawyers, or police."

As a seasoned veterinarian and PhD, Golab voices a striking distortion of the truth regarding how dog bites are recorded for statistical purposes. Dog bites are recorded by animal control officials, these same officials determine the breed of the offending dog, not the media, not the person bitten and not lawyers.

Randall Lockwood, PhD
Finally, on the day the CDC report was released, Lockwood calls the fatal dog attack problem a "people problem." Ironically, Lockwood's extensive past research about pit bulls was used to uphold the Denver pit bull ban. His research addresses the following genetic traits in pit bulls: Non-display of rising level of aggression and “surprise attacks”, higher tolerance to pain, tenacity in attacks, and leakage of human-aggressive pit bulls into the general population.

PG 135 of the Lockwood study:

"In the Lockwood & Lindy survey (1987), 42.7% of the Pit Bull attacks involved animals that were chained, fenced or inside prior to the incident. Another 14% involved the dogs jumping or breaking chains. For bites involving other breeds 26.7% were similiarly restrained but only 1% involved breaking restraint."

This man also likes to tell the story about his being "surprised" that a pit bull tried to attack him.

I don't know about you but I would say these folks are full of shit.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gilcrist is an idiot. She knows nothing about dog bites and therefore subject to being influenced by the others.

And Sacks, how many have to die before he considers it significant enough to consider that fact? Typical pit nutter he is because he is willing to overlook the closed caskets.

cravendesires said...

don't forget cowards, which i think best describes lockwood. he buckled under the pressure and threats of the pit bull machine.

HonestyHelps said...

Thanks, Craven, I changed it.