The fact they don't respond is an indication of how little credibility they give Karen. Why would they even bother giving Karen any credit, her bias and false claims are obvious for anyone who even investigates. If they thought Karen had even the remotest of chances of discrediting there study, they would be all over it. But as it stands, any layman can see right through it.
But they DID
reply to her letter and it was published in the same
journal. I'm quite surprised you did not know this.
In their reply, there is not one mention of her "bias" OR "false claims". In fact they state that Ms. Delise "correctly points out that there are significant discrepancies regarding what constitutes a "pit bull" among violent dog breeds."
They then go off on some tangential subjects not mentioned in Ms. Delise's letter. Their reply to Ms. Delise was hardly "all over it", as you say.
Knowing this, it seems as though you just fabricated your first paragraph to suit your need.
And you are right, I could send a letter and rebutt hers, but for now I don't for two reasons, for one I live in Australia and two, I also think her rebuttal isn't even worth crediting by acknowledging it. Also I must add, other professionals have already rebutted her in Court, people like Dr Alan beck, whose deposition I posted a link to earlier. Dr Alan Beck has been instrumental in countering Karen's arguments and securing the BSL in the state of Denver.
You can read Dr Alan Becks deposition here: http://legal.pblnn.com/images/Denverpleadings/alanbeckdepo.pdf
Thank you, I will read that link when time permits. I assure you.
I did recently write a letter to a University here in Australia, rebutting a PhD candidate by the name of Ms Linda Watson who is currently researching a PhD on Dog Bite Injuries. Linda likes to do the occasional media report offering up her credentials for everyone to marvel over while claiming how wonderful pitbulls are. When PhD candidates put their name to an article, the University requires that they agree to a DISCLOSURE STATEMENT clarifying the following, in this case, Linda Watson agreed that she "does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.". But as it turned out Linda Watson is/was the PRESIDENT of Endangered Dog Breeds Association of Australia that openly promotes a Pitbull agenda. When I pointed this conflict of Interest out to the University, they responded very quickly and are taking the matter very seriously. I haven't yet followed up on the matter, but this type of deception is not appreciated by Universities. They have expressed such concern over the matter, they have politely asked me for now, to keep the matter to myself.
Care to share this letter with us?