SkeptVet rekindles debate over alternative medicine and science
Version 2 — Full analysis
A new SkeptVet essay is reopening a familiar fault line in veterinary medicine: can alternative medicine coexist with science, or does the label itself signal a deeper conflict? In a December 7, 2025, post, Brennan McKenzie argues that many complementary and alternative veterinary medicine approaches present themselves as evidence-informed while still resting on theories that fall outside modern biology and physics. His conclusion is blunt: therapies become compatible with science only when they’re tested and used according to the same evidentiary standards as conventional care, not when they’re shielded by “holistic” or “natural” branding. (skeptvet.com)
The argument arrives in a broader professional context. Veterinary organizations have spent years trying to distinguish between complementary therapies used alongside standard care and alternative therapies used in place of it. The BSAVA says integrative medicine should mean combining conventional medicine with therapies that have reasonable evidence of safety and effectiveness, while warning that claims for many complementary treatments can exceed the available data. The BVA similarly says veterinarians must disclose the evidence base and safety concerns, avoid harmful interactions, and ensure these treatments do not compromise welfare. (bsava.com)
That tension has also shown up in organized veterinary policy discussions. A summary of the AVMA House of Delegates winter session published by the Association of Avian Veterinarians said Resolution 6 defined integrative veterinary medicine as the coordination of complementary, alternative, and conventional veterinary medicine, and said it should be held to the same standards outlined in the Model Veterinary Practice Act and Principles of Veterinary Medical Ethics. While that summary is secondhand rather than the primary AVMA policy text, it suggests the profession is still trying to balance openness to adjunctive care with a clear evidence threshold. (aav.org)
McKenzie’s post pushes that issue further by challenging the scientific foundations of several commonly discussed modalities. In the essay, he argues that acupuncture, Reiki, and some chiropractic concepts rely on undetectable forces or constructs that have not been convincingly demonstrated. He also writes that use of alternative therapies can correlate with lower confidence in science-based medicine and, in some settings, poorer outcomes when effective conventional care is delayed or displaced. Those concerns echo language from BSAVA, which notes that “natural” does not automatically mean safe and that withholding conventional treatment can create welfare risks. (skeptvet.com)
There’s also evidence of active industry pushback against efforts to further institutionalize some alternative modalities. In a 2025 letter opposing AVMA specialty recognition for veterinary acupuncture, the Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine Association argued that acupuncture lacks consistent evidence of clinical benefit in animals and does not meet the AVMA’s own evidence-based standards for specialty designation. The letter is advocacy, not a neutral review, but it shows how sharply contested this territory remains, even within the profession. (skeptvet.com)
Why it matters: For practicing veterinarians, this isn’t just a philosophical debate. It affects informed consent, standard-of-care decisions, referral patterns, continuing education, and how teams talk with pet parents seeking “integrative” options. The practical takeaway from the available policy statements is fairly consistent: evaluate each intervention on its own evidence, be explicit about uncertainty, watch for interactions or delayed treatment, and keep animal welfare at the center. In other words, the profession may be able to accommodate some nonconventional tools, but only to the extent they can meet the same expectations for plausibility, safety, and clinical benefit applied elsewhere in medicine. (bva.co.uk)
What to watch: The next phase of this conversation will likely play out in policy language, specialty recognition efforts, and the marketing of “integrative” services, with close attention on whether organizations define these offerings by philosophy, or by evidence. (aav.org)