SkeptVet revives debate over alternative medicine and science

A December 7, 2025, essay from SkeptVet argues that “alternative” medicine and science-based medicine are often fundamentally at odds, despite the growing use of terms like “complementary” and “integrative” in veterinary practice. The post says many complementary and alternative veterinary medicine, or CAVM, approaches borrow the language of evidence-based care while still relying on tradition, personal experience, or concepts SkeptVet says are incompatible with modern science, including vitalism and other non-physical explanations for disease. The argument lands in a profession that has been moving in the opposite direction at the policy level: organizations including the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the British Veterinary Association, and BSAVA have all said complementary therapies should not replace treatments supported by recognized evidence or sound scientific principles. (skeptvet.com)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this is less a debate about labels than about standards of care, informed consent, and animal welfare. UK veterinary bodies have explicitly said that therapies lacking a recognized evidence base should be used, if at all, only alongside conventional care, and should never delay effective treatment. That framing matters for clinicians navigating pet parent demand for acupuncture, herbal products, homeopathy, or other integrative offerings, especially as practices weigh how to discuss uncertainty, avoid overstated claims, and protect trust in evidence-based medicine. (rcvs.org.uk)

What to watch: Expect this conversation to keep surfacing as veterinary groups revisit integrative medicine policies, education, and how practices communicate evidence gaps to pet parents. (ahvma.org)