i just wanna add 2 things that i got from the article sbs posted a while back. I'm sure the internet pit experts already know this due to there vast knowledge of the subject, but just so everybody else will know as well.
1... Our search strategy involved scanning
the text of newspapers and periodicals for certain words
and word combinations likely to represent human DBRF
followed by a review of articles containing those terms.
2.. Numerator data may be biased for 4
reasons. First, the human DBRF reported here are likely
underestimated; prior work suggests the approach
we used identifies only 74% of actual cases.1,2 Second,
to the extent that attacks by 1 breed are more newsworthy
than those by other breeds, our methods may
have resulted in differential ascertainment of fatalities
by breed. Third, because identification of a dog’s breed
may be subjective (even experts may disagree on the
breed of a particular dog), DBRF may be differentially
ascribed to breeds with a reputation for aggression.
Fourth, it is not clear how to count attacks by crossbred
dogs. Ignoring these data underestimates breed
involvement (29% of attacking dogs were crossbred
dogs), whereas including them permits a single dog to
be counted more than once.
those where copy and pasted directly from the article
