Sumstorm, most of what you posted reads as a form of argument called "tu quoque" (you too), which is considered a logical fallacy.
Pointing out transgressions or shortcomings of mainstream medicine does nothing to advance the argument. No sensible person is arguing that there are zero holes in the widely-accepted scientific knowledge base. Also nobody is arguing that there have not been errors and oversights in the history of science-based medicine. I don't see how pointing out such things (regardless of whether they are valid) advances the argument in any direction at all..
I hate to say it, but the assumption that evidence in one species crosses into others automaticly (or even across breeds) holds the potential for more harm than accupuncture
Again, no reputable skeptical scientists argue that evidence in a single species automatically crosses over to all other species...
But as you (rightly) point out in the following statement (about zoo vets / exotics), practicality necessarily comes into play..
The cross-species potential of a treatment is dependent on all kinds of factors..
Is the finding negative or positive? The limited generalizability (new word) goes both ways.
If something is negative in dogs, and negative in rats, you can't necessarily say it's negative in cats..
If I point to negative studies on acupuncture in dogs, for an opponent to retort by saying "well you can't prove it's ineffective in horses so I will use it in horses because i've heard anecdotes!" would be painfully disingenuous.
Similarly if something is effective in rats and cats, you can't necessarily say it's effective in dogs..
Practicality
obviously must come into play in ALL forms of scientific research.
It is reasonable/practical to engage in cross-species experimentation, depending on the danger potential of the treatment, the risk:reward ratio, and other factors based on the history and current knowledge of the treatment..
So how does establishing all of this advance the argument in either direction?
it doesnt.
There was a study in human med that suggested placebo affect accounts for ~20% of cure. If my ill parent or ill pet is part of that 20%, I'm happy it worked. I also read a study recently that showed that a human med's effectiveness didn't have to be far off from placebo for it to go on market.
Here you slip up big time..
Placebo effect in humans is a well-established phenomenon (though many people misunderstand how it works)
Placebo effect in animals is a whole different story..
There's actually no decent evidence to suggests that a placebo effect exists in animals..
The effect in humans is dependent on a number of things, such as learned principles (e.g. aspirin works) and expectations (e.g. i'll feel better in
this way if i take a certain pill)..
The placebo effect in veterinary medicine is almost always the OWNER experiencing the placebo effect, rarely if ever the pet.
It is seen mainly with subjective pain criteria..
What complicates things is that human-animal interaction does usually have a small effect on the animal.. Contact with humans can have a calming effect on the animal, though it could also have a negative effect.. The experience of the vet's office could very well trigger a change in the animal, but this is absolutely NOT the placebo effect.
The placebo effect exists in owners, but a true placebo effect in pets has yet to be supported with good research . There have been proposed mechanisms (conditioning for one) by which the placebo effect could operate on animals, but they all are severely lacking in support and additionally most of them theoretically would allow for an equal and opposite "adverse placebo effect".
I encourage you to do more reading on the pet placebo issue.
Lastly, to argue that "science doesn't know everything therefore...", is an argument from ignorance in almost any circumstance.
Seriously, I'm somewhere between neutral to against alternative medicine, and even I'm thinking "Well said!"
