27/01/2026
I keep hearing “evidence-based” thrown around in veterinary medicine, yet it seems to quietly vanish the moment it becomes inconvenient.
Take BOAS.
We are repeatedly told—often with absolute certainty—that virtually all flat-faced dogs will develop BOAS, that it occurs within the first weeks or months of life, and that surgery is therefore inevitable.
Really?
Virtually all?
Which breeds exactly?
At what age?
Using what diagnostic criteria?
Based on which studies?
Where is the actual evidence supporting these sweeping claims?
BOAS is real. It can be serious and life-limiting. That is not in dispute. But repeating absolute statements without clearly defined populations, timelines, breed distinctions, or outcomes is not evidence-based medicine — it is dogma.
And here’s where it becomes genuinely dangerous.
When we start proposing breed bans, breeding restrictions, or legislation based on vague, non-specific, or extrapolated data, we abandon science entirely. Without robust, breed-specific, evidence-based research, creating laws or blanket policies is not just unscientific — it is irresponsible.
If we expect owners, breeders, and policymakers to act on evidence, then we must provide it. Evidence-based medicine does not mean “this is the accepted narrative.” It means data, nuance, transparency, and an honest acknowledgement of uncertainty.
If the evidence exists — show it.
If it doesn’t — stop claiming certainty.
Science welcomes scrutiny.
Slogans do not.
