This is yet another example of anti-peta misinformation.
Peta has high kill rates in their shelters because they have a no turn away policy. They will take any animal into their shelter and unfortunately many animals typically the older less cute ones are harder to find homes for and rather than keep them locked up in cages for the rest of their lives they settle for the less cruel option which is putting down the animals that aren’t going to find a loving home.
No-kill shelters have a trick up their sleeve where they look good on paper but in reality they turn away animals that aren’t likely to be adopted or even send animals that aren’t likely to get adopted to peta where they are then put down. In other words peta aren’t uniquely evil and bad at their job, the system funnels more animals into their hands because the alternative is leaving animals on the streets or locked up in cages for the rest of their lives.
Your first link is some guy’s website misrepresenting what peta’s actual stance on pets is. I already linked to peta’s website why they explain the problem is with manufacturing pets. Because there is such a demand for cute pets there’s an incentive to produce as many as possible and that leds to puppy mills where animals are forced into baby producing factories all while stray dogs get put down because they can’t find a home. They explain this on their website which I linked in the previous comment.
Peta doesn’t have a problem with the concept of having a pet, the problem is how such a reality exists. If people have a demand for pets then that means there needs to be a supply for pets. This is what that quote about the vice president meant. She simply doesn’t envision a world where pets can be manufactured in any ethical way. I do but I also don’t care if she thinks that because what she and peta stand for is treating animals ethically and that’s a good thing.
I can’t look at the campaign anymore because they’ve removed it but I found this article which had quotes from their website where it shows they mentioned that more research was needed and that one of the studies only had like 20 kids in it. Of course the media ran with headlines like “Oh peta said milk causes autism!” When they didn’t. They used the autism panic at the time and the “got milk” ad which existed to create a narrative that milk was a necessary part of a healthy diet to shift to a discussion about why we think milk is needed for a healthy lifestyle when the milk industry pumps cows full of hormones and shit that wind up in milk, not to mention the fact that cow milk is obviously for cows whereas human milk is for humans. Milk serves a role in mammals to quickly grow their offspring and yet humans don’t just continue drinking milk but we also drink milk from other animals. They go over all this on their website: https://www.peta.org/features/peta-ad-cows-dairy-products-disease/
I do take issue with how they framed autism with a frowny face as that normalises the notion that autism is a bad thing and I’m glad it’s been taken down. But at the end of the day peta is a charty for treating animals ethically. The way our society treats animals is so evil that holocaust survivors, the event we treat as the ultimate evil, draw parallels to it. There is such an urgency to put an end to this cruelty that I honestly don’t give a fuck if such a charity employs the “any publicity is good publicity” method which sometimes results in campaigns that look too goofy or sometimes go a bit to far.