I understand you have no response and I accept your concession.

> And yet because the research isn’t reliable enough you think we should just ignore it?

These specific reports from dogsbite.org are full of poor extremely methodology, unfounded assumptions and intentionally unaccounted for variables, and for those reasons it should absolutely be ignored, yes.

The goal of the authors was not to determine what breed of dog is responsible for the most fatalities, it was to prove that pitbulls are the breed of dog responsible for the most fatalities. They aren't starting from a null hypothesis in order to find out something they don't know. They're starting with the 'truth' and trying to find reasons that support that truth. If it doesn't support it, its not valid and the experiment fails. This makes their reports scientifically useless.

The lack of reputable research into this topic does not make dogsbite.org's methodology any less flawed or their reports any more accurate. They're full of poor methodology, unfounded assumptions and unaccounted for variables making them scientifically useless.

Those statistics are BS. They come from a group called dogsbite.org which is a lobbying group with the stated agenda of eradicating pit bulls specifically. It's a bit like citing a study written by the KKK when discussing what races of people are more violent. They're not a exactly a neutral, objective or even remotely scientific source for anything. Their reports have substantial and intentional problems with their methodology and are little more than misinformation.