SkeptVet essay reopens debate over alternative medicine and science

A December 2025 SkeptVet essay is reviving one of veterinary medicine’s most persistent fault lines: whether “alternative” medicine can coexist with science, and on what terms. The post’s answer is essentially yes, but only if those therapies stop claiming exemption from the usual rules of evidence. Its author, veterinarian Brennen McKenzie, argues that complementary and alternative veterinary medicine, often rebranded as “integrative,” “holistic,” or “natural,” should be treated like any other medical claim, meaning it should stand or fall on biologic plausibility, preclinical data, and well-designed clinical trials. (skeptvet.com)

That framing reflects a broader, long-running argument in the profession. Veterinary organizations have wrestled for years with how to talk about complementary and alternative therapies without appearing to endorse claims that outpace the evidence. Older AVMA guidance, as summarized in veterinary literature, held that all veterinary medicine, including complementary and alternative approaches, should be based on the same standards of safety and effectiveness. More recently, the issue has stayed alive through disputes over policy language, education, and specialty recognition. In June 2025, for example, SkeptVet published an Evidence-Based Veterinary Medical Association letter opposing a renewed effort to secure AVMA specialty recognition for veterinary acupuncture. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

McKenzie’s central claim is that the category itself is a warning sign. In the essay, he argues CAVM exists in part to distinguish certain practices from science-based medicine, while also giving them room to operate without the level of proof expected elsewhere in clinical care. He points to the routine use of labels such as “natural” or “traditional” as signals that can imply safety or efficacy without rigorous validation, and he argues that integrating poorly supported therapies into practice can erode confidence in science-based care and, in some settings, worsen outcomes by delaying effective treatment. (skeptvet.com)

The wider literature partly explains why the debate remains unsettled. A 2022 review in Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice found growing evidence for acupuncture and some herbal supplements as adjuncts in multimodal management of canine osteoarthritis, while noting that support for chiropractic is limited largely to equine and human literature. At the same time, a 2021 systematic review of 24 complementary and alternative veterinary therapies in cats, dogs, and horses found eligible studies for only nine therapies and reported that no studies were identified for 15 predefined modalities, underscoring how patchy the evidence base still is. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

Professional guidance from the U.K. offers a useful benchmark for how mainstream bodies are handling that uncertainty. The British Veterinary Association says complementary treatments should be complementary, not alternative, and should not delay or prevent conventional medicine. BSAVA similarly says treatment decisions should, whenever possible, be based on sound scientific evidence, and notes that regulation alone does not prove a therapy is effective. Those positions don’t reject every adjunctive modality outright, but they do place animal welfare, informed consent, and evidence disclosure at the center of decision-making. (bva.co.uk)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this is really a question about standards, communication, and risk management. Clinics are under pressure from pet parent demand for “natural” and “integrative” options, especially in chronic pain, oncology, geriatrics, and palliative care. But once a therapy enters the exam room, the practical obligations are the same as for any other recommendation: explain what is known, what is uncertain, what the alternatives are, and whether a modality could delay, replace, or interfere with effective treatment. In that sense, the controversy is less about branding than about whether veterinarians are applying a consistent evidence threshold across all modalities. (skeptvet.com)

There’s also a reputational and regulatory angle. If the profession appears to grant special legitimacy to poorly supported interventions, critics argue it risks blurring the line between evidence-based care and consumer-driven wellness marketing. Supporters of integrative approaches, by contrast, often argue that some adjunctive therapies deserve careful study rather than blanket dismissal. The available literature supports a middle position: some modalities may have limited, condition-specific value, but the category as a whole remains too heterogeneous, and too unevenly studied, to justify broad claims. That’s an inference from the reviews and policy statements, rather than a direct quote from any single source. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

What to watch: The next pressure points are likely to be AVMA policy debates, specialty-recognition efforts, continuing education programs, and how practices market integrative services to pet parents. As those discussions continue through 2026, the key dividing line will probably remain the same one McKenzie highlights: not whether a therapy is labeled alternative, but whether it can clear the same evidentiary bar as everything else in veterinary medicine. (skeptvet.com)