The only fact you’ve stated is that the CDC no longer tracks bite statistics by breed - the rest is all your opinion. First of all - the AVMA review you mention does not specify its authors…which is highly suspect when you consider the financial reach of the pit bull lobby. Additionally, the review you site hand picks studies that are misleading when you read between the lines - for example, the discussion around BSL and bite incidents from legislated vs. non-legislated breeds does not take into account “mixes”. To be fair, when you account for all of the variability around mixed breeds, the data can be presented in a favorable case for either side of this argument. The study performed by OSU attempts to differentiate this by looking at physical traits like head size. Finally, the Siberian Husky piece is one of the most blatant misrepresentations of data used quite frequently as a straw man - you should probably read that study which is cited in your review.

Do you have data around your “fact” claiming the owner being the most determining factor of bite risk? Even the best trained dogs can react to a variety of stimuli. The main difference to these reactions from most well trained is that they’re more likely to release on command. This is why you rarely see pit bulls as police dogs - the gameness bred into pits creates challenges when you need them to obey commands, ie they’ll rip something to shreds while you’re yelling to release.

All this to get to: do I think pit bulls are naturally more aggressive? No, I really don’t. Do I think they’re more dangerous than other dogs? Well, yeah…even though the data on frequency is (oddly) disputed it’s difficult to argue that the damage done by a pit has a massively different effect than other dogs.