I don't see that as the point being made here. It's not saying that all breeds are equally dangerous. i.e. a bite from a large dog is the same as a bite from a small dog. It's not even suggesting that.
It is addressing the *likelihood* of attacks, etc based on consideration of multiple variables including breed.
Not the same things.
I also think the authors didn't try very hard on the breed id issue because they preferred not to know because it doesn't fit their preferred agenda. But the truth is, they really don't have much in the way of ameliorating their co-occurring factors. Don't leave infants, disabled or elderly people alone with large dogs. Who the hell doesn't know that already?
Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs
Bini, John K. MD; Cohn, Stephen M. MD; Acosta, Shirley M. RN, BSN; McFarland, Marilyn J. RN, MS; Muir, Mark T. MD; Michalek, Joel E. PhD; for the TRISAT Clinical Trials Group
Abstract Objective: Maiming and death due to dog bites are uncommon but preventable tragedies. We postulated that patients admitted to a level I trauma center with dog bites would have severe injuries and that the gravest injuries would be those caused by pit bulls. I also don't think the authors worked hard enough to obtain breed ID from the industries that keep the best and most accurate records; medical, legal and insurance companies.
Design: We reviewed the medical records of patients admitted to our level I trauma center with dog bites during a 15-year period. We determined the demographic characteristics of the patients, their outcomes, and the breed and characteristics of the dogs that caused the injuries.
Results: Our Trauma and Emergency Surgery Services treated 228 patients with dog bite injuries; for 82 of those patients, the breed of dog involved was recorded (29 were injured by pit bulls). Compared with attacks by other breeds of dogs, attacks by pit bulls were associated with a higher median Injury Severity Scale score (4 vs. 1; P = 0.002), a higher risk of an admission Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or lower (17.2% vs. 0%; P = 0.006), higher median hospital charges ($10,500 vs. $7200; P = 0.003), and a higher risk of death (10.3% vs. 0%; P = 0.041).
Conclusions: Attacks by pit bulls are associated with higher morbidity rates, higher hospital charges, and a higher risk of death than are attacks by other breeds of dogs. Strict regulation of pit bulls may substantially reduce the US mortality rates related to dog bites.
http://journals.lww.com/annalsofsurgery/Abstract/2011/04000/Mortality,_Mauling,_and_Maiming_by_Vicious_Dogs.23.aspx
The study implies, but does not state, that all breeds are equally dangerous by stating that breed is not a “factor” but “potentially controllable” factors have something to do with DBRF. The entire basis of the study is flawed. They take observations like “number of people attacked when alone” and imply that it is a potentially controllable factor which is false and irrelevant. So it’s a puppet show - “Don’t control the pits population (ban then) because breed isn’t a factor! Ban “controllable factors” like being killed by a pit when you are alone, being too young old or disabled to fight off a pit attack.” That’s one slimy, manipulative study you got there.