Terry Holt • a day agoHold on, this is waiting to be approved by WESH. Inability to determine risk scientificallyIn Clifton’s analysis, he attempts to evaluate dog behavior based on breed, bite frequency, and “degree of relative risk.”Yet Clifton has shown numerous times in his report that he cannot identify a breed properly, or even spell breed names correctly.Both bite frequency and degree of relative risk are impossible to calculate. No one knows how often breeds bite since hundreds of bites go unreported. And to attempt to determine a “degree of relative risk,” Clifton would have to know every factor that contributed to every dog bite.Even the CDC concluded at the end of their own flawed study (see above) that there is no way to determine relative risk:There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.Merritt Clifton apparently does not understand the many factors that go into a reliable calculation of relative risk, nor does he wish to acknowledge that trained researchers realize that many, if not most, of those factors can never be known or calculated.Misapplied and misinterpreted dataClifton’s analysis section is full of faults and absurd assumptions.Of the breeds most often involved in incidents of sufficient severity to be listed, pit bull terriers are noteworthy for attacking adults almost as frequently as children. This is a very rare pattern . . . Pit bulls seem to differ behaviorally from other dogs in having far less inhibition about attacking people who are larger than they are.As discussed, Clifton has tallied less than two percent of all severe dog attacks. He clearly has no idea how frequently pit bulls—or any other type of dog, for that matter—bite.Furthermore, without knowing all bite factors, including the dog’s health, condition, sexual state, training, environment, and the behavior of the victim, there is no way Clifton could possibly conceive any possible pattern or difference as to who pit bulls attack.Since Clifton is tallying media articles, his conclusion seems to be more telling of media coverage of dog bites. If one was to assume that the media is more likely to publish a pit bull attack than an attack by another type of dog, and more likely to publish an attack on a child than an attack on an adult, it stands to reason that while media-reported pit bull attacks include both adults and children, media reports about other types of dogs’ attacks may only be considered newsworthy when a child is involved. Thus, it may appear that pit bulls are overrepresented in attacks on adults.Terry Holt • a day agoHold on, this is waiting to be approved by WESH. About 227,000 results (0.41 seconds)Showing results for debunking merritt cliftonSearch instead for debunking merrit cliftonSearch ResultsDebunking Merritt Clifton's "Statistics" - No Pit Bull BansJun 30, 2010 - Editor of Animal People, Merritt Clifton, in 2006 put out a statistical report called "Dog attack deaths and maimings, U.S. & Canada September ...KC DOG BLOG: Merrit Cliffton - Toellner Tells itFeb 8, 2014 - However, the factual accuracy of the statement has been debunked by ..... I've written a lot about the magazine's editor, Merrit Clifton, and how ...misinformation, deceit and attempts to mislead from Merritt ...Jul 24, 2013 - DNA Testing may debunk all dog bite studies that cover breed ... In the article, Clifton calls out Rhode Island (which has since passed it's law prohibiting laws targeting .... Merritt Clifton has been hatin' since the mid 90s.Merritt Clifton and Animal People Magazines Hidden AgendaMerritt Clifton and Animal People Magazines Hidden Agenda ... timers' in the animal welfare community, that his unbiased vision was truly debunked however.You Can't Fix Stupid: Debunking Dogsbite - Thank you ...Apr 21, 2009 - Debunking Dogsbite - Thank you KuttersKru! ... Also, note that other "studies" such as reports by Merritt Clifton should be discredited for lack of ...Lassie, Get Help: Temperament tests, dog bite stats and ...Aug 31, 2007 - Also -- because there seems to be a fair amount of interest -- here are links to two earlier posts debunking Merritt Clifton's list of dog bites.Clifton Study Debunked - APBT PeopleMerritt Clifton's study is a medley of newspaper articles from 1982 through 2007 that present a very biased and inaccurate overview of dog bites. It is more of an ...Are the "Nanny Dogs" a Myth? | of Pit Bulls and morons....Oct 28, 2011 - Merritt Clifton is a greedy unqualified (meaning ZERO credentials) ape who wrote that ... http://www.nopitbullbans.com/d....Debunking the stats - Castanet.net - Letters to the EditorApr 24, 2010 - Debunking the stats. To the editor: RE:How to lie with statistics. Merritt Clifton certainly knows a bit about lying with statistics. His study, which ...Good rebuttal to Merritt Clifton's Dog... - Save Lives - Pass ...Good rebuttal to Merritt Clifton's Dog Attack report which has been used ad nauseam to promote Breed ... http://www.nopitbullbans.com/d....Terry Holt • a day agoHold on, this is waiting to be approved by WESH. Fatality statistics regarding pit bull attacks are falseStatistics regarding pit bull fatalities and severe injury are true. It has been suggested that because the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) fatality data relies, in part, on newspaper articles, that the entire study is inaccurate. Pit bull advocates say that pit bull fatalities are more extensively reported by the media, therefore the CDC must have "miscounted" or "double counted" the number of pit bull fatalities. Considering the time spent developing the studies, it is safe to say that the authors were careful to count each event only once.Even the CDC has discredited the study. Quoted from them:A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years (Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998). It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic. Each year, 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs. These bites result in approximately 16 fatalities; about 0.0002 percent of the total number of people bitten. These relatively few fatalities offer the only available information about breeds involved in dog bites. There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.In addition, there are many dogs that the media has labeled as a "pit bull", but clearly weren't by any standard, as proven by understand-a-bull.com:Also, note that other "studies" such as reports by Merritt Clifton should be discredited for lack of proper information and general fact bungling
No comments:
Post a Comment