The Annals of Surgery published the following article in their April 2011 issue:

Mortality, Mauling, and Maiming by Vicious Dogs

John K. Bini, MD, Stephen M. Cohn, MD, Shirley M. Acosta, RN, BSN, Marilyn J. McFarland, RN, MS,

The Internet can provide access to some of the very best of information on almost every imaginable subject or issue.

However, the Internet also provides access to the very worst type of speculation, bias, misinformation, manipulation, and even deceit, on almost every imaginable subject or issue.

As of late, it is becoming acceptable for scientific journals to cite internet sources as references. However, when did it become acceptable for the author(s) of a scientific or medical journal article to reference an internet source stating a clear and obvious agenda without the authors doing even a modicum of fact checking as to whether their source's data is reliable and/or unbiased?

It is not possible to know if the Bini et el study is the beginning of a disturbing and troubling trend in published studies citing questionable internet sources, or if the Bini et el study is merely a singularly disturbing and troubling use of unreliable internet sources.

Many of the errors in Bini's study are addressed in a published letter to the editor. (Annals of Surgery, May 2012 issue).

While the errors, and number of errors, are disturbing; the real question is: how did so many grievous and factual errors wind up in a published medical journal article?

The answer is simple: The authors used uncited and unreliable "data" from internet sources.

Perhaps the most shocking references cited by Bini et al is the use of a "youtube video" and a website/blog created by Colleen Lynn called Dogsbite.org. Dogsbite.org was founded in 2007 by Ms. Lynn, a website designer by trade. She was bitten by a dog on June 17, 2007 and soon thereafter started a dog bite victim’s website/blog.

Ms. Lynn believes the dog that bit her was a “pit bull,” and her website has subsequently evolved into a very obvious agenda against dogs she perceives to be “pit bulls.”

Certainly Ms. Lynn is entitled to her opinions and beliefs. But the question becomes, is this obviously biased website an acceptable reference source for a published medical journal article?

Not only does Ms. Lynn/Dogsbite.org make claim to having “data” relating to “pit bull” attacks, but she also makes astounding claims about canine behavior and genetics, often presenting these claims as “factual.”

Prior to the inclusion in the Bini et al study, there is no evidence of Ms. Colleen Lynn or her website being cited in any other published, or peer reviewed article.

The fact that Ms. Lynn clearly gleaned all her "data" from media sources apparently was acceptable to Dr. Bini.

What is more shocking is the fact that Ms. Lynn refers to people who own or are accepting of pit bulls as "pit nutters" at least 168 times on her website/blog, apparently did not give any pause to Bini either.

Bini also did not seem deterred as using Dogsbite.org as a reference despite the fact that Ms. Lynn created a "Maul Talk Manual" in which in over four web pages she lists dozens of words she invented to describe "pit bull owners and their advocates."

Ms. Lynn's list of invented words and her made-up definitions should have caused very serious concern as to the reliability of her claims, "data" and bias:

Maul Talk Manual / Words invented by Dogsbite.org / Colleen Lynn

Pitiology: Ms. Lynn describes, "Pitiology is a term derived from the DogsBite.org community. It refers to the study of pit bull owners by animal groups and behaviorists bent upon pitying and sympathizing with these owners."

Pitiot: Ms. Lynn states that, "Like the terms piticide and and pitricide, derived from members of the DogsBite.orgcommunity, “pitiot” combines two words to make a new one with meaning specific to the pit bull problem and the pit bull community... describing a pit bull owner “idiot..”

Pitplexia: Here Ms. Lynn credits a website fan named, Dude, I BaggedYourPit for coming up with this term to describe an inability to identify a pit bull, or belief that a pit bull cannot be identified by appearance. She goes on to say that "Pitplexic Disorder is a symptom and diagnostic indicator for Pitthetic Dementia."

Pittie party: Ms. Lynn describes how she came to invent the word “pittie party" as the union of pittie and “pity party,” and is used to describe pit bull apologists who are trying to drum up sympathy (a pity party) for their pit bulls and themselves."

Ugly dog: Ms. Lynn describes “Ugly dog” is a term conceived by blogger Craven Desires to describe all pit bulls. She goes on to say that, "To be sure, pit bulls are ugly dogs, and they maul to death countless adorable dogs."

The list goes on to include dozens of other strange and disturbing terms invented by Ms. Lynn, including: Pit nutter, post-nutter, pre-nutter, pithole, piticide, pitricide, pitthetic dementia, pitplexic disorder and others invented by Ms. Lynn to describe pit bulls, pit bull owners, pit bull advocates and the "conditions they suffer from."

"Science Whores"
Of all the terms invented by Ms. Lynn (Dogsbite.org) to insult and degrade "pit bulls" and their owners, the term that should have caused Dr. Bini, his collaborators, and the staff of the Annals of Surgery, the most concern was the term "science whore," to describe their Veterinary counterparts who happened to have made statements about "pit bulls" in which Ms. Lynn found disagreeable.

I shall not link to or list the names of the distinguished veterinarians and veterinarian behaviorists who Ms. Lynn referred to as "science whores" on her website because they had the audacity not to demonize or say negative things about "pit bulls." Suffice it to say, these insults can be easily found on her website

Please sign and share this petition and urge the Press Association to urge members not to cite dogsvite.org as a legitimate source.....