SkeptVet rekindles debate over alternative medicine and science

Version 1 — Brief

A new SkeptVet commentary takes direct aim at a long-running question in companion animal care: whether alternative medicine can be compatible with science. In the December 7, 2025, post, veterinarian and science-based medicine advocate Brennan McKenzie argues that many forms of complementary and alternative veterinary medicine, or CAVM, use the language of evidence while relying on concepts that aren’t scientifically testable, such as qi, energy medicine, or poorly defined chiropractic constructs. He also argues that some modalities become more scientifically acceptable only when stripped of their original alternative claims and tested like any other medical intervention. The piece lands amid ongoing debate inside organized veterinary medicine over how “integrative” care should be defined and governed. (skeptvet.com)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the article is less about one modality than about standards. Major veterinary groups including the BSAVA and BVA say complementary approaches should be judged on safety, efficacy, interactions with conventional treatment, and animal welfare, with transparent disclosure of the evidence base to pet parents. That framing matters as practices field more questions about acupuncture, herbal products, chiropractic care, and other nonconventional options, especially when evidence quality varies widely by intervention and indication. (bsava.com)

What to watch: Expect this debate to keep surfacing in policy, credentialing, and client communication, particularly as veterinary organizations continue refining how integrative medicine fits within evidence-based practice. (aav.org)