SkeptVet essay reopens debate over alternative medicine and science

A new SkeptVet essay argues that “alternative” veterinary medicine is only compatible with science when it stops asking for special treatment and meets the same evidentiary standards as any other intervention. In the December 2025 post, veterinarian and science-based medicine advocate Brennen McKenzie says complementary and alternative veterinary medicine, or CAVM, persists as a category largely because it groups together therapies marketed as “holistic,” “integrative,” or “natural,” even when they lack the biologic plausibility, preclinical support, or clinical trial evidence expected in mainstream care. He also argues that the label can function as both a marketing tool and a rationale for using therapies with weaker evidence than would be accepted for drugs, diagnostics, or procedures in conventional practice. (skeptvet.com)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the piece lands in a long-running debate over where “integrative” care fits in evidence-based practice. That debate isn’t just philosophical. Reviews of the literature suggest the evidence base across many alternative veterinary modalities remains uneven, with some support for selected adjunctive uses, such as parts of multimodal osteoarthritis management, but substantial uncertainty or no identified studies for many other therapies. Meanwhile, major veterinary bodies outside the U.S., including the British Veterinary Association and BSAVA, say complementary therapies should not replace conventional care, should not delay effective treatment, and should be judged on the same standards of safety and efficacy. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

What to watch: Expect this discussion to keep surfacing in policy, education, and specialty-recognition fights as veterinary groups wrestle with how, or whether, to integrate low-evidence modalities into mainstream practice. (skeptvet.com)