SkeptVet essay renews debate over alternative medicine and science

A December 2025 essay from SkeptVet is putting a familiar fault line in veterinary medicine back in focus: whether “alternative” medicine can coexist with science, or whether the term itself mainly functions as a workaround for weaker evidence standards. In the post, veterinarian Brennan McKenzie argues that therapies should not get a special evidentiary pass because they’re labeled natural, traditional, holistic, or integrative. Instead, he says they should be judged by the same framework used elsewhere in medicine: biological plausibility, preclinical evidence, and rigorous clinical trials. (skeptvet.com)

The argument lands in a profession that has been wrestling with this issue for years. Merck Veterinary Manual defines integrative veterinary medicine as the use of complementary and alternative therapies alongside mainstream care, but explicitly says the key difference from conventional medicine is the strength of evidence supporting best practices. It also advises clinicians to discuss benefits and risks with clients using science and substance, rather than “myths and metaphors.” That framing reflects a broader push across veterinary medicine to keep client communication grounded in evidence even when demand for nontraditional care is real. (merckvetmanual.com)

McKenzie’s essay goes further than a general call for caution. He argues that some widely promoted modalities, including homeopathy, Reiki, chiropractic, and many acupuncture frameworks, rest on concepts that have not been convincingly demonstrated, such as undetectable energy forces or poorly substantiated physiological constructs. He also contends that the category of complementary and alternative veterinary medicine persists partly because it creates a marketing distinction from standard care and can lower the threshold of proof in the eyes of pet parents. In his view, once a treatment is shown to work reliably, it stops being “alternative” and simply becomes medicine. (skeptvet.com)

That critique mirrors recent institutional disputes. In a 2025 letter opposing veterinary acupuncture specialty recognition, the Evidence-Based Veterinary Medical Association said there is no good scientific evidence that acupuncture consistently improves clinical outcomes and argued that AVMA-recognized specialties should be supported by a scientific knowledge base and evidence-based practice standards. The letter also said the field lacks a coherent, consistent foundation across its many variants, from traditional Chinese frameworks to “Western” acupuncture models. (skeptvet.com)

Industry debate has also spilled into conference programming. Vet Record reported in August 2024 that WSAVA drew criticism for including traditional Chinese veterinary medicine content in its congress scientific program. Critics, including veterinary ethicist Manuel Magalhães Sant’Ana and evidence-based medicine advocates, warned that featuring TCVM risked lending credibility to approaches they viewed as unscientific, while WSAVA responded that congress content is intended to stimulate discussion and is not necessarily an endorsement of scientific validity. (skeptvet.com)

At the same time, not every nontraditional or emerging modality is being treated the same way by organized veterinary medicine. AVMA’s regenerative medicine policy acknowledges that adoption has outpaced the evidence base in some areas, but it does not dismiss the field outright. Instead, it says protocols should ideally be formulated using evidence-based medicine and warns veterinarians about scientific, regulatory, and liability considerations. That distinction matters: skepticism toward unsupported claims is not the same as rejecting innovation. It’s a reminder that the profession’s core question is not whether a therapy is conventional or alternative, but whether it is safe, plausible, effective, and honestly represented. (avma.org)

Why it matters: For practicing veterinarians, this is fundamentally a misinformation and trust issue. Pet parents are routinely exposed to claims that “natural” means safer, that older traditions are inherently valid, or that anecdotal improvement is enough to justify treatment. In the exam room, that can complicate decision-making, delay effective care, and create informed-consent problems if benefits, risks, and evidentiary gaps aren’t clearly explained. The profession is also navigating reputational risk: when weakly supported therapies are presented under the same clinical umbrella as evidence-based care, it can become harder for pet parents to distinguish open-minded medicine from uncritical endorsement. (merckvetmanual.com)

What to watch: The next phase is likely to play out through policy revisions, credentialing fights, continuing education agendas, and state-level oversight of complementary and alternative veterinary medicine. Watch whether veterinary organizations sharpen their language around evidence thresholds, informed consent, and scope of practice, and whether critics of misinformation gain more traction in debates over acupuncture, TCVM, and other integrative offerings. (ahvma.org)