lundi 3 juillet 2017

Les « fake news » de la zoothérapie (1)

Que ce soit en journalisme ou en science,
la fausseté et la fraude sont un fléau 
que chacun doit combattre le plus vigoureusement possible.



La promotion des bienfaits psychologiques et physiques des animaux s’appuie sur une quantité phénoménale d’études de recherche, notamment en psychologie. Les problèmes méthodologiques associés à cette recherche en croissance exponentielle sont par contre majeurs et persistants dans la durée.

H. Herzog (2016). Are the Results of Animal Therapy Studies Unreliable?
Most animal therapy studies do not have enough subjects to be valid.
Animals and Us. Psychology Today.

En 1984, dans un article de synthèse toujours d’actualité, les scientifiques américains, A.M. Beck et A.H. Katcher, avaient pourtant relevé les failles méthodologiques couramment identifiées dans ce domaine de recherche (1). Et bien qu'ils aient complètement démenti les thèses de la zoothérapie, cette « recherche » continue à ce jour avec exactement les mêmes lacunes.

Les problèmes méthodologiques les plus fréquents


Si plusieurs études de recherches sont publiées dans des revues scientifiques, à quelques rares exceptions près, les études en question, y compris celles du défunt pédopsychiatre, Boris Levinson, l’instigateur du phénomène actuel des animaux de compagnie, un homme obsédé dans ses écrits par la zoophilie et la sexualité des jeunes enfants, sont majoritairement des études de cas (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9) ; ces études dites « qualitatives » s’appuient exclusivement sur des témoignages de chercheurs ou de sujets d'étude.

Or, bien que ce type d'études soit important pour ouvrir des voies de recherches et identifier des phénomènes nouveaux, elles sont à ranger sur l’échelon le plus bas de l’échelle des critères de validité scientifique. En d’autres termes, ce type d’étude ne démontre absolument rien, cent témoignages n’ayant pas plus de valeur scientifique que mille, voire cent mille témoignages (10).

Pour valider une hypothèse correctement :
  • on doit recourir à des recherches dites « quantitatives » autorisant l’emploi de statistiques comme des études épidémiologiques de grande envergure ou des études comparatives entre un groupe témoin sans animaux et un groupe avec animaux, préférablement à l’insu (les sujets de l’étude ignorent les objectifs de l’étude) ; 
  • le nombre de sujets étudiés doit également être suffisamment élevé pour être significatif ; 
  • on doit par ailleurs suivre les sujets de l’étude pour vérifier si les effets observés sont durables ; 
  • pour assurer la neutralité de l’étude, l’élimination des conflits d’intérêts financiers et professionnels va de soi ; 
  • les chercheurs doivent posséder les compétences nécessaires ; 
  • enfin, on doit tenir compte des effets sur les animaux qui sont utilisés à cette fin, car il est communément admis que les animaux en profitent autant que les humains.
C’est grâce à une combinaison d’études de différents types, qualitatives et quantitatives, que les chercheurs réussissent à se prononcer sur un sujet avec un degré de certitude qui dépend directement de la qualité de ces études, et aussi, de leur nombre.

Or, en zoothérapie : 
  • les études quantitatives sont peu nombreuses ; 
  • le nombre de sujets étudiés est ridiculement bas ; 
  • il n'y a aucun suivi des résultats sur le long terme ; 
  • les groupes témoins sont absents ; 
  • la compétence des chercheurs laisse à désirer ; n'importe qui, de fait, avec un simple baccalauréat en psychologie ou un diplôme d'infirmière, par exemple, peut s'improviser « chercheur » avec les lacunes que cela présuppose ;
  • les données des études sont compilées par les propriétaires et les employés des centres de zoothérapie qui participent à cette recherche, avec les conflits d'intérêts que cela implique ; 
  • l'industrie mandate des mercenaires de la science pour rédiger de fausses études qu'elle publie dans ses propres revues scientifiques ;
  • enfin, les conséquences néfastes de cette industrie sur les animaux, la nature et la société en général, que nous avons documentées dans notre livre, Un vétérinaire en colère. Sur les chemins de la rédemption, sont totalement occultées. 


Comme le disent les scientifiques américains, Krugger et Serpell, « bien qu’impressionnantes par leur variété et leur étendue, aucune de ces théories n’a été testée adéquatement par des études quantitatives, et la plupart de celles qui l’ont été ont donné des résultats équivoques ou contradictoires » (11). Un constat corroboré en 2008 par les scientifiques Lilienfeld, Scott O. et Arkowitz, Hal (12), en 2010 par les scientifiques Anna Chur-Hansen, Cindy Stern et Helen Winefield (13) et en 2011 (14) et en 2016 par le scientifique, Harold Herzogqui constate ceci :

« L'existence d'un "effet animal" généralisé sur la santé physique et mentale de la population est une simple hypothèse sans aucun fondement [...] Bien que les médiats soient remplis d’articles vantant les bénéfices sur la santé des animaux, les études qui démontrent que les animaux n’ont aucun impact ou qu’ils ont des effets négatifs sur la santé mentale et physique du public font rarement les manchettes. (15) »


L’implication des psychologues


L'implication prépondérante des psychologues et des psychiatres soulève par ailleurs un sérieux problème de crédibilité et de compétence, car la psychologie en général ne suit pas les critères de scientificité. Selon Jacques Forget, vice-doyen à la recherche en sciences sociales à l’Université du Québec à Montréal :


« Une psychologie qui se prétend scientifique devrait utiliser une méthode de recherche scientifique. Toutefois, dans bien des cas, on préfère s'appuyer sur l'autorité. [...] De plus en psychologie professionnelle, c'est la recherche qualitative qui est souvent privilégiée ; [...] Pourtant, et en dépit de son intérêt, l'estimation qualitative ne peut remplacer la recherche quantitative, basée sur des données probantes et reposant sur de nombreuses expériences ou études. (16) » 

Ainsi, la promotion de la zoothérapie s'appuie exclusivement sur l'autorité des chercheurs et des agents sociaux qui en tirent profit comme les fabricants d’aliments pour animaux, les vétérinaires, les psychologues, les médiats de masse et certains propriétaires, qui se complaisent dans les « fake news » de la zoothérapie.


Le mot « escroquerie » est sans doute un peu fort, mais disons que la méthode soulève une forte suspicion de non-neutralité, voire de malfaisance, du même ordre que celle soulevée par de plus en plus de monde, notamment dans les domaines de l'information et de la recherche pharmaceutique et médicale (17)(18)(19)(20).


Références


1. A.M Beck et A.H. Katcher (1984). A new look at pet-facilitated therapy. Journal of the American Veterinary Association; vol. 184, no 4.

2. Boris Levinson (1962). The dog as a co-therapist. Mental hygiene, vol. 46, p. 59-65.

3. Boris Levinson (1964). Pets: a special technique in psychotherapy. Mental hygiene, vol. 48, p. 242-248.

4. Boris Levinson (1965). The veterinarian and Mental hygiène. Mental Hygiene, vol. 49, p. 320-323.

5. Boris Levinson (1965). Pet psychotherapy: use of household pets in the treatment of behaviour disorders in childhood. Psychological reports, vol. 17, p. 695-608.

6. Boris Levinson (1974). Psychology of pet ownership. Proceedings of the National Conference on the Ecology of the Surplus Dog and cat. Chicago, Ill. : Conference, p. 18-31.

7. Boris Levinson (1978). Pets and personality development. Psychological reports, vol. 42, p.1031-1038.

8. Boris Levinson (1980). Pets, Child development, and mental Illness. Journal of the American Veterinary Association, vol.157, n11, p. 1759-1766.

9. Boris Levinson (1997). Pet Oriented Child Psychotherapy. 2e ed. Springfield : Charles C. Thomas.

10. Evaluating Quality of the Evidence. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 3e éd. 2000-2002, XIXVIII.

11. Kruger, K.A. & J.A. Serpell (2008). Animal-Assisted Interventions in Mental Health: Definitions and Theoretical Foundations. In: Fine, A.H. (Ed.) Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice, 2nd Edition. New York: Academic Press; p. 21-38.


13. Anna Chur-Hansen, Cindy Stern et Helen Winefield (2010) « Gaps in the évidence about companion animals and human health: some suggestions for progress. » International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare; vol. 8, no 3, p. 140–146.

14. Harold Herzog (2011) The Impact of Pets on Human Health and Psychological Well-Being: Fact, Fiction, or Hypothesis?  Current Directions in Psychological Science 20: p. 236.


16. Jacques Forget (2009). La psychologie est-elle une vraie science ? Conférence présentée par Les sceptiques du Québec.

17. David Michaels (2008). Doubt is Their Product. How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens your Health. Oxford University Press.

18. Bruce Patsy (2006) « Recent trials in hypertension: Compelling science or commercial speech? » Journal of the American Medical Association.

19. P. Kassirer (2005) On the Take: How Medicines Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger your Health. New York: Oxford University Press.

20. S. Rampton et J. Stauber (2001). Trust us, Were experts! How Industry Manipulates Science, and Gambles with your future. New York : Center for media and democracy.






mardi 13 juin 2017

Pit Bull Advocacy, a Cabal of Propaganda and Intimidation

Charles Danten 



A

ll dogs are potential biters, but some like the pit bull are much more dangerous than others. Is it right to ban them? Without a doubt. Not to do so would be a crime. Will anti-pit bull bylaws solve the problem of biting dogs? Of course not; it will even continue to worsen as long as the root problems remain unsolved.

Lawyer Marie Goldwater in full action

The Facts


For the last 40 years or so all serious epidemiological studies - i.e. those that are not made by vets or sponsored by humanitarian societies and pro-pit bull associations  - are unanimous: in North America, the majority of dog bites requiring hospitalization or resulting in death are inflicted by pit bull type dogs. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Here are the conclusions of two of these studies that all point in the same direction:

In their study, Mortality, mauling, and maiming by vicious dogs, published in 2011 in Annals of surgery, John K. Bini and his fellow surgeons state the following: “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.” (11)

Surgeons, Michael S. Golinko, Brian Arslanian, and Joseph K. Williams, authors of the most recent of these studies, conducted in October 2016 and published in Clinical Pediatrics, write the following in their conclusion: “Pit bull bites were implicated in half of all surgeries performed and pit bulls are over 2.5 times as likely to bite in multiple anatomic locations as compared to other breeds.” (12)


What is a Pit Bull?


“Pit bull” is a generic term for a large number of mixed breeds created by the U.S. Marines during the Second World War by crossing the following breeds in varying proportions:

(1) Terriers and their derivatives bull terriers 

Up until the 19th century, these born killers, selected for thousands of generations for their aggressiveness, were used to harass (bait) animals of different species left to run free in an arena or attached to a pole. The English of all backgrounds, “including the ladies of a certain rank, to the example of the Roman ladies,” were particularly fond of these shows of incredible cruelty where people were thrilled at seeing dogs shred to pieces bulls, monkeys, goats, mules or badgers. 

(2) Big dogs like the German or Argentinian Mastiff 

The reputation of these Molossers is as bad as that of the terrier-type dogs of the previous section. These canine monsters with supernatural strength were used to lead cattle and to guard the shops of butchers. In the butchering sector, up until the 19th century, they were also used in dog fighting, a popular leisure activity that attracted a large crowd who derived great pleasure from seeing blood flow. (13) 




The pit bull is therefore a modern combat dog made from mating extremely aggressive breeds that were selected for hundreds of generations for their gameness (ability to fight to the death even with several bullets in its body and a broken leg), strength, overdeveloped predator instinct, high pain threshold, and impulsiveness. These factors combined with the incredible power of their jaws cause extremely serious injuries.

B. Michel, M. Tassin, N. Stroumza, G, Couly (2012).
Traumatologie faciale pédiatrique. 

EMC. Pédiatrie infectieuse :7(2).   

In Canada, the only purebred pit bulls, i.e. whose physical and mental characteristics (phenotype) are homogeneous and stable (fixed in the genes and reproducible from generation to generation) are the American pit bull terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, and its derivative, the American Staffordshire terrier, called “amstaff” in the jargon of the French suburbs. All other pit bulls are mixes.
Even if they are not all exactly identical in appearance, pit bulls are nevertheless typical and easily recognizable. “From the United States to Ontario, judges have concluded that visual identification of these dogs is within the reach of most people of ordinary intelligence,” writes Marie-Claude Malboeuf, journalist at, La Presse, in an incendiary article entitled, Pit bulls. On which side does science lean? (14) 

As stated by the world-renowned epidemiologist, Dr. Barry Pless, from McGill University, consulted by Ms. Malboeuf: “if it looks like a pit bull, if it behaves like a pit bull and if people recognize it as a pit bull, it's enough to say that it’s a pit bull.” (15) An assertion supported by a US study conducted in 2013 by Dr. Emily Weiss in a shelter belonging to the Humanitarian Society of Richmond. The employees in this study correctly identified, in 96% of cases, pit bull type dogs that were presented to them in the course of their work. (16) 


Genes Versus Training and Environment


These Rambos of dazzling ferocity are more dangerous than any other dogs because of their genetic propensity to attack without warning and to fight to the last breath if necessary. And this agonistic propensity of genetic origin is not due to a reversal of domestication or to an increase in wildness. Man developed fighting dogs of this type strictly for this purpose. Once an animal is domesticated, i.e. that is rendered docile enough to be manipulated without danger, domestication can indeed be exercised in both opposite directions, either to more docility or to more aggressiveness. (17)

Indeed, genes play an important role in aggressiveness and intelligence, even if the acquired or training environmental aspect of behaviour also matters. (18) All dogs are not born equal and all dogs are not equal in intelligence and docility. The favourite saying of the pro-pit bull advocates (19)(20)(21), copy-pasted from Jean Jacques Rousseau's theory of the noble savage, “there are no bad dogs, but only bad masters,” is false. All honest veterinarians know this. (22) 


Jean Jacques Rousseau

It is therefore quite surprising to hear, Anne-Marie Goldwater, “the pit bull lawyer ready to show her teeth in court,” utter the following words: “We use derogatory words to identify a certain subgroup of dogs which does not form a ‘race.’ Like blacks, Latinos, Arabs... these aren't races. Just like there is only one race, the race of human beings. There is only one ‘race’ of dogs, it's called dog: canis lupus familiaris. [...]. The ban of specific ‘races’ does not work. It will only result in a false sense of security.” (23) 

(‘Race’ in the above quotation is placed in quotation marks because in French, the original language of this quotation, there is no word for breed. The switching back and forth from animals to humans with the same word “race” is thus very smooth in French and quite effective rhetorically).

Not quite so, Ms. Goldwater. The dog is in fact a domesticated subspecies of the wolf, itself divided into more than 450 breeds or variants, easily identified by their morphology (phenotype) and able to predictably produce offspring true to type. In other words, pit bulls true to type such as the american staffordshire terrier, one of the three purebred pit bull breeds recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club, cannot produce a litter of poodles. And Man by the way, as stated by Steven Pinker of Harvard University and many others, is not a race but a species also divided into races, such as Latinos, Arabs, Whites, Asians, Jews, and Blacks (24)(25)(26)(27)(28). No white couple true to type can engender asian or black children. Race is real whether you like it or not. 

Finally, Ms. Goldwater is wrong in claiming without citing her sources that the banishment of pit bulls does not work. Epidemiologists, Malathi Raghavan, Patricia J. Martens, Dan Chateau, and Charles Burchill showed that in Manitoba, Breed-specific legislation (BSL) had a significant impact on the incidence of hospitalizations due to dog bites. (29) This is also true for the city of Toronto, where the results of the pit bull ban in 2005 are outstanding. (30) In Catalonia, also, BSL has been very successful. (31) 




Why, if it doesn't work, would pit bulls be banned or regulated in parts of more than 40 countries, in all US Military bases as well as in 700 US Communities? Because BSL works everywhere when properly implemented, that’s why. (32)


Are All Pit Bull Dogs Dangerous?


Of course not. The problem is in finding those that are not... before the fact. There is presently no test for effectively predicting a future attack. (30). And pit bull attacks are by definition unpredictable. 

The most dangerous pit bulls are those that are trained to be aggressive by mostly ill-reputed individuals, such as drug dealers or gang members or even ordinary persons who like to scare or intimidate others. Although law prohibits them, dogfights still occur and dogs are still bred for this purpose. Only the most aggressive dogs are used while the other less performing subjects are killed or sold on the market where there is a high demand for pit bulls. People who actually believe in the no-bad-dog-but-only-bad-master theory buy these animals wilfully without fully realizing what they are getting into. We have witnessed irresponsible dog owners actually exposing children to their pit bull just to prove a point. Others are sold to breeders, both black market and legal, where they are reproduced cheap by the dozens without any consideration for their behaviour traits as long as they are true to type. (33) 


Is the Pit Bull the Only Dangerous Dog? 


In the current state of affairs, it is impossible to answer this question with certainty, at least in Quebec where, according to the findings of the Working Committee on the supervision of dangerous dogs (WCSDD), statistics on dog bites are really a black hole. Registration of a dog, for example, is not required in each of the municipalities of the province of Quebec, and the application of this obligation when it exists is often uneven and incomplete, as it is not mandatory, for example, to report the breed of the registered animal.

Indeed, without knowing the exact number of bites for each breed and without knowing the population of each breed, it is impossible to find out precisely which breeds are the most dangerous. To make things worse, in Quebec unlike in the US, police officers, doctors and veterinarians are not required to report bites, unless rabies is suspected. Why such laxity when it is so easy to oblige veterinarians and other stakeholders to report aggressive dogs, and owners to register their animals? Is this a ploy used to protect business? According to the WCSDD, the right of veterinarians to secrecy in the case of an aggressive dog is also a substantial obstacle to any effective preventive measures. (34)

Fortunately, the situation is different in Toronto where the data on dogs is sufficiently large and precise to get a good idea of the problem (see table above). In fact, all pit bull type dogs, pure bred and mixes alike are the most dangerous, and we stated why previously, but other breeds are also a threat. All pit bull stock breeds and their derivatives, such as American bulldogs, Cane corsos, Presa canarios, Rottweilers, and the Mastiffs, as well as guard dogs and dogs trained to attack and defend their territory, such as the German shepherd are no choirboys either. Others like the Husky, the Samoyed and other sled dogs are often involved in bites. (35)




That said, even dogs famous for their docility, such as the Labrador or the golden retriever can occasionally be aggressive. Ms. Dinoire, the first face-grafted person, was bitten by her Labrador. Even a small dog like a Chihuahua, which is one the most frequent dog biter, can theoretically cause death if the victim is small enough, and if the bite is located in a vital area like the carotid artery or the jugular. We're never careful enough around any dog.


A Few Root Problems 


Financial and Commercial Interests


Some people explain the current pet fad by a growing compassion of society towards animals and humans. Others, like the author of this article, see in this animal madness erroneous beliefs dating back to the 19th century, when it was falsely believed, for example, that a relationship with a pet could improve the moral and spiritual fibre of mankind. American child psychiatrist, Boris Levinson, the instigator of Animal Assisted Therapy (AAT), consecrated these false notions into “science” in the sixties. The pet industry, sniffing a golden opportunity to improve business used this pseudoscience to stimulate the demand for pets and the sale of goods and services. Their marketing campaign was a huge success. Today, one out of two households now has one or more animals and America and most Western countries have literally gone pet crazy. (36)

To give you an idea of the economic importance of this industry in America, it is the eighth in importance of the retail trade, ; it is larger than that of toys, hardware, and jewellery. According to the American Association of Pet Products, its annual turnover went from 17 billion US dollars in 1994 to 63 billion in 2016. (37)




Veterinarians, Big Pharma, psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, AAT researchers, animal protection NGOs, such as PETA, humane societies, pounds, shelters, animal rights' lawyers and jurists, animal media, film industry, steel industries that produce cans for pet food, agribusiness and fisheries who find in this outlet opportunities for their by-products, rendering plants that provide corpses for pet food manufacturers, makers of pet paraphernalia, trainers, breeders, dealers, smugglers, poachers, groomers, dog walkers, five-star hotels and restaurants for pets, homeopaths, fortune tellers, wig makers, funeral homes, cemeteries, distributors, drivers, supermarkets, super-pet shops and dog shops whose “sole purpose is to sell animals and nothing  else, as if they were selling furniture,” jumped on the bandwagon behind veterinarians and pet food manufacturers, the big winners of this economic bonanza. (38)(39)




Knowing this, it is easier to understand why this industry is so scared of breed-specific legislation for pit bulls. If it should extend to other breeds of biters as well as to their crosses, this would be a terrible blow to the industry. In this business, profit is directly dependent on the size of the animal. Even if they are less numerous than cats... dogs – and the bigger they are the better – are indeed the most profitable of all pets. (40)


Veterinary bias


“The latest studies,” writes Marie-Claude Malboeuf of, La Presse, cited above, “find one after the other that pit bulls are overrepresented among dogs responsible for injuries. However, the report of the Quebec Veterinary Association, cites four of the studies in question, but sometimes omits the most significant passages of the said studies. [...] The 2011 study - spanning 15 years, on the most severe cases treated at a Texas hospital - becomes almost contradictory. The surgeons, who wrote this study, state that pit bulls have proved more deadly than other dogs; caused more heavy or deep comas. And sent patients to intensive care for the longest time. ‘Regulation of pit bulls could substantially reduce the rate of deaths from dog bites, conclude these researchers.’ ”


Dr Suzie Price, President of the Quebec
Corporation of Veterinarians

“But instead of stating the foregoing in their report to the Government, veterinarians write the following,” writes Ms. Malbeuf: ‘the proportion of victims requiring a surgical operation was identical regardless of the dog: pit bull or another breed.’ In this report,” continues Ms. Malboeuf, “veterinarians criticize ‘serious gaps’ in data compiled by the victims, but totally support false studies compiled by the paid-for-hire scientists of the National Canine Research Council on behalf of a millionaire pro-pit bull advocacy group, Animal Farm Foundation. “According to the report of the Veterinary Association,” concludes Ms. Malbeuf, “targeting certain breeds would only calm the population and would run counter to scientific and demographic studies carried out in recent years.” (41)


Wishful Thinking


If lack of training, inadequate or insufficient training has a lot to do with biting, especially if biting inhibition is left out of the training scheme, inadequate care or surveillance also has a significant impact on behaviour. Badly socialized and poorly fed animals, those that are left alone for much of the day, those that lack exercise, those suffering from boredom and various psychological and physiological pathologies caused by domestication, such as the diseases stemming from the emotional dependence (sepaaration anxiety) are real time bombs. 

Quebec's law B-3.1 (art.8) requires that owners of a dog provide the latter with “stimulation, socialization opportunities, or environmental enrichments that suit its biological needs,” but who is responsible for enforcing this law? Do we have the personnel and the technical means required to enforce it in every house, street and Park? Not likely.  (42) 


Propaganda and Hate-Speech Rhetoric


“Racism” is a propaganda term designed and used in the thirties by the left (Marxist)- internationalists in order to stigmatize any racial affirmation on the part of whites and any criticism of immigrationism and multiculturalism. (43) This toxic term is commonly manipulated by the spokespersons of the pet industry, such as Claudia Gilbert, the veterinary columnist of the TV show, Salut Bonjour, for stigmatizing any criticism of pit bulls and bending the authorities in the desired way. And it works. Several mayors feeling guilty reversed their decision to ban pit bulls following accusations of this kind. (44)

The pro-pit bull, animal, and pet industry advocates use many other stigmatizing words and expressions to suppress any criticism. The following expressions and terms, for example, are common in the vocabulary of advocates: “pit bulls are the Jews of the canine world,” “gazed,” “gas chamber,” “deportee,” “genocide,” “pit bulls are the blacks of society and anti-pit bulls are the KKK,” “visible minority,” “discrimination of race,” “racial profiling of dogs sanctions racial profiling of human beings.” These agents of propaganda, disinformation, and intimidation well versed in the rhetoric of multiculturalism,  civil rights,  human rights,  and hate speech make an amalgam between the persecution of humans and the “persecution” of pit bulls. To the dismay of Jewish associations who have prohibited this event, pro-pit bull advocates even wanted to parade in the streets with their pit bulls wearing a yellow star!. (45) (46) (47) (48) (49) 

“In order to save a dog, I am willing to accept any legislation which makes it mandatory to sterilize, vaccinate, keep on a leash and identify a dog,” claims Anne-Marie Goldwater cited above. “I even accept muzzles, I'm pretty open, but I will never support a project that targets a visible minority of dogs. [...] With all of my lawyer DNA, I am against this idea to discriminate against a breed. We're in 2016, we don't judge people by their appearance, so how could we do so with dogs?” (50) 

But Ms. Goldwater, these dogs that you defend with all your DNA as if they were human beings in good and due form, are not human beings, but domestic animals created by humans specifically for the purpose of serving mankind. Given their bad reputation and the danger they represent to humans, especially children and the elderly, it is therefore completely justified to take preventive or precautionary measures to protect the public. We are not targeting a “visible minority,” because as we said previously, dogs are not human beings, but pets. Aren't you confusing animals with humans? 
Obviously if you're for forced sterilization, vaccination, restraint, mandatory animal identification, and  muzzling, you are contradicting yourself, because you are in fact admitting that animals are not human beings. Don’t you know that humans are not forcibly sterilized, enslaved, muzzled, and identified with a microchip under the skin? You use terms and arguments specific to humans in order to make the public feel guilty and convince them that you are right. This is called emotional blackmail disinformation, and intimidation.

The Coalition for the promotion of the security of people and dogs, founded by lawyers, Genevieve and Julius Grey as well as Sabrina Sabbah, are not much better in that department than Ms. Goldwater. “I don't understand,” laments Mr. Grey, “why do we insist, contrary to all reports from veterinarians, that legislation for the elimination of certain breeds is effective.” (51) Well, quite simply because veterinarians, Mr. Julius, have no credibility. These licensed propaganda and disinformation agents serve neither the public nor the animals they treat, but their own interests and those of their industry and clients. You would be more credible if you quoted studies, such as those at the beginning of this article.

LAWYER JULIUS GREY
“The coalition,” insists Mr. Julius Grey, “bases its claims on studies that show that the banishment of pit bulls did not improve the security of the people of Ontario.” (52) Not so, Mr. Julius. Ontario is on the contrary an example to follow (see the above graphic on breed management in Ontario). (53)
Mr. Julius Grey ends his rant by threats of a lawsuit and by issuing the following warning: “Montreal will be fingered all over the world for its intolerance and inhumanity.” (54) A non-argument that sounds like Hillary Clinton or CNN calling Donald Trump a racist and a xenophobe!

These intimidation tactics sewn with lies and hints of anti-Semitism, xenophobia, racism, fascism, Nazism and holocaust are tools of propaganda hostile to those who would assert their rights for perfectly legitimate reasons. Without these “stink balls,” opponents of breed-specific legislation would be forced to defend their point of view with objective arguments, and they would fail for sure, because they have no reasonable arguments. 


The Humanization of Animals


From the beginning of domestication, our ancestors in their great wisdom worked hard to erect a barrier between animals and humans in order to avoid falling into the trap of animal humanization and the very damaging sentimentality that accompanies it, as much for animals as for humans. Since animals are not inert objects that can be exploited at will without any risk of illness, injury, and environmental damage, it was necessary for reasons of common sense to take precautions to avoid the worst.

PETER SINGER
But for the past fifty years or so, animal advocates, such as Peter Singer, the Karl Marx of animal liberation – a progressive movement from the left, in the same line of thought as the other libertarian movements, such as feminism, pedophilia, LGBT, gay marriage, gender theory, bestialism, multiculturalism, massive immigration, no borders, and globalism (55)(56) – an attempt is made to destroy the above barrier by extending human rights and privileges to animals.

Shifts in meaning and the replacement of words and expressions specific to animals by their human equivalent are thus currently observed. So, instead of saying, for example, “animal,” the word “child” is used, “buy” is replaced by “adopt,” and “pound,” by “shelter.” The name of the breed is capita-lized as in humans and the names given to pets are mostly human names. Recently, for progressive reasons of the type listed above, Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, a notorious no-borders like his father, has even legalized sex with animals... as long as there is no penetration! (57)(58) Who will police this law and how... remains a mystery!

JUSTIN TRUDEAU

The intention is undoubtedly sincere in a number of people who are truly concerned for good reasons by animal suffering, but it is legitimate to ask if this will to humanize animals is not diverted from its true purpose for business and ideological reasons in order to prevent any hindering to consumption and to impose on the public ideas and customs contrary to the laws of nature and common sense, respectively.

The industry and animal rights advocates, which are a kind of fifth column financed by private donors and the wealthy multinationals that control the market, are seeking, for example, to pass a bylaw that would prevent Quebec apartment building owners not only to prohibit pets, but to expel the owners of delinquent pets. 

Is this really out of goodness of the heart? There’s reason to doubt it, as no action to help animals where it really counts, at the root, is truly taken. For understandable reasons, from a commercial point of view, all the measures taken are aimed at issues adversely affecting demand, consumerism, and serving at the same time to inflate sales of the many services offered by this commercial sector such as dog training, psychological assessments, etc. (59)(60)(61)(62) 

In other words, just as certain countries use human rights and democracy to invade and destroy countries that don't think or behave the required way or to impose by force on their citizens unpopular policies, such as massive immigration, multiculturalism, and globalization, veterinarians and the pet industry in general including pit bull advocates use compassion, animal rights, and a humanistic and progressive hate-speech-rhetoric to silence all criticism and to impose practices and ideas that are not in the interest of the public, animals, and the environment.

According to this version of things, pro-pit bull advocates are unable to admit that genes play an important role in behaviour and that breeds (races) are a reality, as this admission would force them to admit that this is true for humans as well. (63)(64) An impossible feat, obviously, as these truths are totally contrary to the progressive egalitarian ideology inspired by the Marxist cabal that runs their lives.



Is it surprising therefore, if bites and other adverse effects of the humanization of animals are on the increase? An animal does not react like a human being. If you pull its ears for fun; if you try to have sex with it as professed by child psychiatrist, Boris Levinson, a man obsessed in his writings and conferences with the sexuality of young boys and whose worthless theories initiated the present pet fad (65)(66)(67)(68); if you kiss your dog on the mouth and hold it in your arms all the time; if for the sake of egalitarianism, you refuse to assume your dominant status; or if you make your dog eat at the table with the rest of the family, feed it first and let it sleep on your couches and beds, thus inferring to it a dominant status, you can expect reprisals. Unlike pit bulls dogs that have it in their genes to attack and bite without warning and without reason, the overwhelming majority of dog biters are merely responding the only way they can, to what they have perceived as a threat. Even the best-socialized animals, including pit bulls, have a tolerance threshold that should not be crossed. These dogs are perfectly normal, but react instinctively, for good reasons in their own cognitive logic, to abnormal conditions over which they have no control.


Discussion


The elimination of the fighting pit bull works. Don’t believe those who claim otherwise. It is also false to claim that breed-specific legislation does not work because banned dogs will be replaced by another dog breed just as aggressive as soon as they are taken off the market. Pit bull bylaws exist since the 80s and no dog, wherever these laws exist, has even come close to replacing this ultimate killing machine. A pit bull can shred to pieces and tear apart a 200 lbs. mastiff before you know it. No other dog can do this. In other words, it is wrong and dangerous to let these born killers off the hook on the pretext that others will follow anyways. We don’t do this for humans and we should not do it for dogs either. 

Statistics are meaningful and we should strive to compile them with more accuracy for all dog bites, but what makes them so meaningful is their capacity to bring forth the extreme severity and extent of the injuries caused by the pit bulls and the unpredictability of their attacks. This should be one of the main guiding principles when deciding if a breed should be banned, even more important than the frequency of bites. 

It is essential to collect valid data on the population of breeds, the number of bite incidents, the severity of the bite injury, as well as the breeds responsible. To do this, we need to lift the professional secrecy of veterinarians in order to oblige them to report the aggressive dogs they see in their practice. It should also be mandatory for owners to register their pets and their breed without exception when they buy a pet, sign a lease, buy a house or fill in their income tax form. All veterinarians, doctors, police officers, and other stakeholders everywhere should be required to report bites and to identify the breed of the biter with a cell phone picture. These statistics must be available to the public on demand at any time or posted on a website for all to see.

Ten good reasons to ban pit bulls:

1.   Breed-specific legislation works.
2.   The extreme seriousness of the injuries.
3.   The extent of the injuries (multiple).
4.   The medical costs involved.
5.  The abnormally high frequency of pit bull attacks compared to other breeds.
6.   The unpredictability of the attacks.
7.   The fact that most of the victims are children less than 12 years old.
8.  The genetic origins of the aggressivity.
9.   When these dogs are banned, no other breed can replace them.
10.   Immensely popular with the public.

Knowing all along that regardless of the measures taken, it is impossible to eradicate biting dogs without addressing the root causes listed above. Society must choose between lying for business and ideological reasons and telling the truth in order to protect the public, animals, and the environment. 
The domestication of an animal as dangerous as the wolf is not without risks. It is important therefore to respect the barriers between man and animals that some seek to destroy for ideological and commercial reasons. 

The nature of man, his greed, violence, and need to use a dog or another substitute to flee and escape from the harsh realities of the human condition, leads mankind to commit the worst atrocities and absurdities that can be imagined. Can we change human nature like the progressives on the left believe they can? We do not believe so. This is built in our hardware. For the moment, until we know better, we prefer to do what we have always done to make living in society the most pleasant experience possible within the contingencies of domestication and genetics.

Animal advocates, such as Peter Singer, who aggressively condone with one hand, the exploitation of pets while demonizing with the other, meat eaters, for example, as if nothing were, purport to liberate animals from their chains just like Jean Jacques Rousseau wanted to do for humans and Karl Marx after him. But, by a deceitful trick of the mind that only we humans know the secret, these do-gooders forget that the dog or cat under their yoke, which they claim to love as well if not better than their own children, is as enslaved as other categories of domestic animals. One could argue that the exploitation of pets which operates under the cover of good feelings andintentions is much more cruel by its hypocrisy and sophistication than all other forms of animal exploitation, including vivisection, seal hunting, and the force-feeding of geese. 

In the end, before lecturing others, before calling those who oppose them, racists and heartless, before proclaiming their moral superiority over ordinary people, pit bull and animal advocates in general should start by breaking free themselves from the need to exploit an animal for their sole comfort and pleasure.


About the author


Dr Charles Danten has university degrees in agronomy (BSC), veterinary medicine (DVM), and biomedical translation from ENG to FR-CA (MA). He worked as a veterinarian for 18 years, 10 of which in his own practice.


Further Readings


Danten, Charles (2015). Slaves of Our Affection. The Myth of the Happy Pet. Createspace. Debunks the pet culture and the claimed benefits of pets. 

Francione, Gary (1996). Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Temple University Press. Good book by the happy owner of several pets.

Ewen, Stuart  (2001). Captains of Consciousness. Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture. 25th Anniversary Edition. How traditional family ties were destroyed for commercial reasons.

Heinze, Andrew R (2004). Jews and The American Soul. Human Nature in the 20th century. Princeton University Press. The influence of Jews on progressive movements in the United-States.

MacDonald, Kevin (2002). The Culture of Critique. An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements. 1st Books Library. California University Professor, Kevin MacDonald, writes an academic, well-referenced and soft-spoken book on the destruction of America’s traditional culture by Jewish-led cultural marxism.

Pinker, Steven (2002). The Blank Slate. The Modern Denial of Human nature. Penguin Books. For those who doubt the importance of genes in behaviour.

Rushton, J. Philip (2013). Race, Evolution, and Behaviour. lulu.com. Race vindication at its best.
West, Patrick (2002). Conspicuous Compassion: Why Sometimes It Really Is Cruel to Be Kind. Civitas. The price vice pays to virtue.


References


1. Michael S. Golinko, MD, MA, Brian Arslanian, MD, andet Joseph K. Williams, MD, FAAP (July 2016). Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution. Clinical Pediatrics. DOI: 10.1177/0009922816657153.

2. Mark A. Prendes et alcoll. (2016). Ocular Trauma From Dog Bites: Characterization, Associations, and Treatment Patterns at a Regional Level I Trauma Centre Over 11 Years. Ophthal Plast Reconstr Surg: 32(4).

3. Garvey et alcoll. (2015). Morbidity of pediatric dog bites: A case series at level one pediatric trauma centre. Journal of Pediatric Surgery: p. 50, pp. 343-346.

4. O’Brien et alcoll. (2015). Dog bites to the head and neck: an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment. Am. Journal of otolaryngology – head and neck medicine and surgery : p. 36, 32-38.

5. Prendes et alcoll. (2015). Ocular trauma from dog bites: characterization, associations, and treatment patterns at a regional Level 1 trauma centre over 11 years. Ophthalmic Plastic Reconstructive Surgery.

6. Bini, J.K. et al. (2011) Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs. Annals of Surgery; 253 (4).

7. Ricky L. Langley (2009). Human Fatalities Resulting From Dog Attacks in the United States, 1979–2005. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine; 20(1):19-25.

8. Jeffrey J. Sacks, MD et alcoll. (2000) Breeds of Dogs Involved in Fatal Human Attacks in the United States Between 1979 and 1998. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.

9. J. J. Sacks, R. W. Sattin andet S. E. Bonzo (1989). Dog Bite-Related Fatalities from 1979 through 1988. Journal of the American Medical Association; 262:1489-1492.

10. William G. Winkler (1977). Human Deaths Induced by Dog Bites, United States, 1974-75. Public Health Reports; 92(5):425–429.

11. Bini J. K et alcoll. Article cited.

12. Michael S. Golinko et coll. Article cited.

13. Jean-Pierre Digard (2004). La construction sociale d’un animal domestique : le pitbull. Anthropozoologica; 39 (1):17-26.

14. Marie-Claude Malbœuf (2016). Pitbulls. De quel côté penche la scienceLa Presse.

15. Ibid.

16. Dr Emily Weiss (26 septembre 2013). Bully this—The Results Are In… ASPCA de Richmond. 

17. Jean-Pierre Digard. Article cited.

18. Steven Pinker (2002). The Blank Slate. The Modern Denial of Human nature. Penguin Books.

19. Justin Tomczak (2015). All dogs have the potential to be great. It just takes a responsible owner and a loving home to transform that underdog into a wonder dog. The Huffington Post.

20. Francis Battista (2016). Mythological creatures I have known. Dogs, like people are individuals and should be treated and evaluated as individuals, not by the blanket categories of breed or appearance. The Huffington Post

21. Pit Bull Week (2016). The Huffington Post.

22. Mark Derr (February 6, 2001). It Takes Training and Genes to Make a Mean Dog Mean. The New York Times.

23. Thomas Gerbet (September 21, 2016). L'avocate Anne-France Goldwater défend les pitbulls à Longueuil. Radio Canada : http://ici.radio-canada.ca/regions/Montreal/2016/09/21/002-pit bulls-longueuil-goldwater.shtml (site consulted on November 12, 2016).

24. SP Hagenaars et al (2016). Shared genetic aetiology between cognitive functions and physical and mental health in UK Biobank and 24 GWAS consortia. Molecular psychiatry advance on-line publication: 21, 1624–1632; doi:10.1038/mp.2015.225.

25.Atahualpa Castillo-Morales, Jimena Monzón-Sandoval, Alexandra A. de Sousa, Araxi O. Urrutia, Humberto Gutierrez (2016). Neocortex expansion is linked to size variations in gene families with chemotaxis, cell–cell signalling and immune response functions in mammals. Open biology. DOI: 10.1098/rsob.160132.

26. J. Philip Rushton (2013). Race, Evolution, and Behaviour. lulu.com

27. Steven Pinker (2012). Fear of Race Realism and the Denial of Human Differences. Conference on YouTube.com (video consulted on November 19, 2016).

28. Administration (June 10, 2014). Jews Are a Race, Genes reveal. Jewsnews.co.il: http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/06/10/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal.html (site consulted in December 2016)

29. Malathi Raghavan, Patricia J. Martens, Dan Chateau, and et Charles Burchill (2012). Effectiveness of breed-specific legislation in decreasing the incidence of dog-bite injury hospitalizations in people in the Canadian province of Manitoba. Injury Prevention.

30. Eric Andrew-Gee andet Joel Eastwood (October 3, 2014). Pit bulls were Toronto’s biggest biters, before the ban. Toronto Star: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/03/pit_bulls_were_torontos_biggest_biters_before_the_ban.html (site consulted on November 15, 2016).

31. Joan R. Villalbi, Montse Cleries, Susana Bouis, Víctor Peracho, Julia Duran, and et Conrad Casas (2010). Decline in Hospitalization's Due to Dog Bite Injuries in Catalonia, 1997–2008. An Effect of Government Regulation? Injury Prevention; 16(6):408-10.

32. www.dogsbite.org. Thursday, September 1, 2016. Cities with Successful Pit Bull Laws; Data Shows Breed-Specific Laws Work. Tracking Results: 2006 to Present Day.

33. Ibid.

34. Comité de travail sur les chiens dangereux (2016). Ministère de l’Agriculture et des Pêcheries du Québec.

35. Eric Andrew-Gee andet Joel Eastwood. Article cited.

36. Charles Danten (2015). Un vétérinaire en colère. Sur les chemins de la rédemption. Createspace: www.charlesdanten.com

37. Pet Industry Market Size & Ownership Statistics. American Pet Products Association : http://www.americanpetproducts.org/ (site consulted in November 2016).

38. Jean-Luc Vadakarn (1998). Parle à mon chien ma tête est malade. Albin Michel.

39. Stuart Ewen (2014). La société de l'indécence. Publicité et genèse de la société de consommation. Éditions le retour aux sources.

40. Pet Industry Market Size & Ownership Statistics. Article cited.

41. Marie-Claude Malbœuf. Article cited.

42. Patrick West (2002). Conspicuous Compassion: Why Sometimes It Really Is Cruel to Be Kind. Civitas. 

43. Sam Francis (1999). The Origins of  “Racism.” The Curious Beginnings of a Useless Word. American Renaissance; 10(5). 

44. Claudia Gilbert, veterinarian (2015) L’agressivité et le racisme canin. Salut Bonjour de TVA.

45. Linda Hammerschmid (September 15, 2016) Banning dog breeds – knee “jerk” political decisions. The Montrealer.

46. Common pit bull argument Shriek Racism – Pit bulls are Blacks and BSL is the KKK. Pit bull Holocaust – Pro BSL BAN THE BREED – STOP THE DEED – Anti Pit bull and Pit bull owner website : https://pit bullholocaust.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/common-pit-bull-argument-shriek-racisim-pit-bulls-are-blacks-and-bsl-is-the-kkk/ (site consulted on November 11, 2016).

47. ‘Puppycide’: 2 Detroit cops kill 100 dogs during tenure, investigation reveals. RT : https://www.rt.com/usa/367086-detroit-police-dog-killings/ (site consulted on November 16, 2016).

48. Marjorie Ingall (2016). The Jews of the Canine World. Pit bulls have been unfairly stereotyped as genetically dangerous monsters. Sound familiar? Tablet Mag.

49. Amélie Pineda (July 16, 2016). L’avocate-pitbull est prête à montrer les dents en cour. Me Anne-France Goldwater est contre l’interdiction des pitbulls dans les villes. Journal de Montréal.

50. Ibid.

51. Une coalition contre l'interdiction des pitbulls à Montréal (September 21, 2016). Radio-Canada : http://ici.radio-canada.ca/regions/Montreal/2016/09/21/004-coalition-avocats-defense-pit bulls-chiens-interdiction-ville-montreal.shtml (site consulted on November 12, 2016).

52. Ibid.

53. Eric Andrew-Gee andet Joel Eastwood. Article cited

54. Une coalition contre l'interdiction des pitbulls à Montréal. Article cited.

55. Andrew R. Heinze (20004). Jews and The American Soul. Human Nature in the 20th century. Princeton University Press.

56.  Kevin MacDonald (2002). The Culture of Critique. An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements. 1st Books Library. 

57. Michael Bédard (June 9, 2016). Il n'y a pas de crime de bestialité sans pénétration, dit la Cour suprême du Canada. Ici Radio-Canada.

58. Charles Danten (2015). Should you wear a condom to make love to your dog? www.charlesdanten.com

59. Sergio Dalla Bernardina (2006). L'éloquence des bêtes. Quand l'homme parle des bêtes. Métailié.

60. Patrick West (2002). Conspicuous Compassion: Why Sometimes It Really Is Cruel to Be Kind. Civitas.

61. Gary Francione (1996). Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement. Temple University Press.

62. Alan Herscovici (1991). Second Nature. The Animal-Rights Controversy. Stoddart.

63. Steven Pinker. Book cited.

64. Steven Pinker (2012). Fear of Race Realism and the Denial of Human Differences. Conference on YouTube.com (video consulted on November 19, 2016).

65. Boris Levinson (1974). Ecology of the Surplus Dog and Cat. Chicago, Ill: Conference: 18-3.

66. Boris Levinson (1978). Pets and personality development. Psychological reports; 42: 1031-1038.

67. Boris Levinson (1998). Pet-oriented child psychotherapy. 2e edition. Charles C. Thomas.

68. Charles Danten (2015). Should you wear a condom to make love to your dog?