Recently, a group of Texas trauma care surgeons, physicians and nurses published a study concluding that pit bull attacks are more severe on average, cost more and have a higher risk for death than attacks by other breeds. The additional risk is completely avoidable and unacceptable. They conclude that legislators should protect their citizens from this unnecessary and unacceptable added risk.
Of course the pit bull apologists and the pit bull pushers came out in force attacking these professionals from all sides. Ledy's attack oozes condescension. You can easily envision the curl of her lip as you read her words belittling the work of these concerned surgeons, doctors and nurses who have seen and tried to sew up the bodies her beloved pitties tore apart.
She feels these professionals' work is so shoddy and their study is so small that it's not research at all; it is simply embarrassingly blatant propaganda. Ledy muses that these professionals were so incredibly incapable they probably didn't find the magnificent research conducted by the illustrious Dr. Victoria Voith that allowed the good doctor to conclude "animal shelter folks" can only correctly identify the heritage of mixed breed dogs 25% of the time! You know if Ledy Vankavage relies on it, Voith's study (download the first pdf entitled ACVB AVSAB Dog Breed Poster) must have been large and impeccably designed. It must be work that would put the good doctors and nurses to shame.
The total sample of dogs was 40. Dr. Voith doesn't offer how the dogs were chosen, only that the sample represents the dogs that could "be there" on a given day. From the very huge sample of 40, they "randomly" selected 20 dogs.
Of the dogs selected, only 16 had been identified by breed mix by shelters when they were adopted. So, only 16 of the 40 dogs could be used (40%) to come up with their statement.
11 of the 20 dogs were less than 6 months old when the unknown rescue or shelter workers attempted to identify the heritage of the dog. Uncharacteristically, half these shelter dogs were adopted as puppies making Voith's "study" particularly useless to criticize the University Hospital study because presumably none of the attacking dogs were puppies under 6 months old when identified. (This can be verified because the researchers do have this information.)
The dogs in Voith's study had been identified up to 11.5 years prior to the "study" by unknown shelters, rescue groups, foster housing, animal control and other agencies. Because of this study's "design," we know nothing of the actual experience, training or education any of these anonymous people had or even if the owner's recollection of the assigned breeds is correct. Ledy wants to compare the expertise of unknown shelter workers trying to promote puppies to the expertise of AC officers, LE officers and veterinarians tasked with investigating a serious injury or death.
The Mars test used only has an 84% accuracy in first generation crossbred dogs. None of the dogs were identified as being a first generation cross, so there is no guarantee of accuracy for the test whatsoever and, because of this "study's" design, no way to verify whether the genetic test is correct. So we don't know if those Tibetian terriers, black russian terriers, and Nova Scotia duck-tolling retrievers get around as much as they seem to judging from these 20 dogs.
This is the kind of "study" Ledy uses to bash doctors and nurses who were motivated by what they see in the trauma room. This is the kind of "study" that Ledy uses to expose these professionals' "embarrassingly blatant propaganda."
I am still trying to imagine how Ledy envisions the conversation where doctors and nurses decided to propagandize:
Dr. to nurse during surgery: "Hey, if you're not busy for the next few months, would you be interested in concocting some propaganda to destroy the reputation of pit bulls?"
Nurse: Why do you want to do that?
Doctor: Just 'cuz.
Nurse: Sounds fun!