SkeptVet revives long-running clash with Andrew Jones
Bottom line
A new SkeptVet editorial argues that former British Columbia veterinarian Andrew Jones has revived his attacks on the site less because of a new scientific dispute and more because controversy helps his search visibility and brand. The post revisits a long-running clash between Jones, who built an online business around “natural” pet health advice, and SkeptVet, which critiques claims about homeopathy, raw diets, chiropractic, acupuncture, and anti-establishment messaging in companion animal care. The broader context matters: British Columbia’s regulator records that Jones was found guilty of unprofessional conduct in 2010 over marketing practices and violations of prior undertakings, resulting in formal reprimands, fines totaling C$30,000, and costs. (cvbc.ca)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this is another example of how misinformation often spreads through personality-driven content rather than new evidence. Evidence-based veterinary medicine advocates have warned that clinicians are increasingly forced to work through “middlemen” and online influencers who can distort research, while recent commentary in the veterinary literature says the profession needs to take a more active role in countering social media misinformation for pet parents. Regulators and professional bodies have also drawn a firm line around science-based care: the RCVS has said homeopathy lacks a recognized evidence base, and EBVM leaders argue that better access to high-quality evidence is central to patient care and public trust. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
What to watch: Expect the bigger issue, not just this feud, to be how veterinarians respond as online personalities continue to shape pet parent beliefs about vaccines, nutrition, parasite prevention, and “natural” therapies. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
A fresh SkeptVet editorial has reopened one of veterinary medicine’s more durable internet disputes, arguing that Andrew Jones’ renewed focus on SkeptVet says less about a change in the evidence and more about the economics of online attention. In the post, SkeptVet frames Jones’ criticism as part of a long-running pattern in which attacks on evidence-based critics help fuel visibility for a business built around alternative pet health content. (skeptvet.com)
That history is central to the story. SkeptVet has been writing about Jones for more than a decade, portraying him as a marketer of “secret” or suppressed pet health advice that ranges from mainstream wellness messaging to unsupported claims about therapies such as homeopathy and other alternative modalities. In earlier posts, SkeptVet said Jones responded to criticism largely with attacks on the messenger rather than direct engagement with the evidence. (skeptvet.com)
The regulatory backdrop gives the dispute more weight than a typical blogger-versus-influencer argument. Public records from the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia show that, on September 20, 2010, council found Jones guilty of unprofessional conduct related to marketing practices and violations of written undertakings he had previously given the regulator. The disposition included a formal reprimand, a C$20,000 fine for violating marketing guidelines, a C$10,000 fine for violating two personal undertakings, and inquiry costs. (cvbc.ca)
The substance of the disagreement also reflects a larger professional fault line. SkeptVet’s critique centers on modalities and narratives that have long divided the field, including homeopathy, raw feeding, chiropractic, acupuncture, and generalized distrust of conventional veterinary medicine. On that point, the editorial is aligned with a broader evidence-based movement in the profession. A recent review on evidence-based veterinary medicine warned that veterinarians increasingly face misinformation and disinformation when aggressive marketing and simplified online summaries stand in for critical review of original research. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
Outside commentary suggests this problem is bigger than any one personality. A 2025 PubMed-indexed article on veterinary social media misinformation described the issue as pressing and urged veterinarians to play a more active role in debunking false claims and building transparent ways to address them for pet parents. Professional bodies have also staked out clearer positions over time. The RCVS said in its 2017 statement on complementary medicines that veterinary standards should advance on sound scientific principles and that homeopathy exists without a recognized body of evidence for its use. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
Why it matters: For practicing veterinarians, this story is less about one feud and more about the operating environment in which client communication now happens. Pet parents often arrive with strong beliefs shaped by search, video platforms, newsletters, and creator-led communities before they ever enter the exam room. That can complicate conversations about vaccines, parasite prevention, nutrition, pain control, and chronic disease management, especially when distrust of the profession is part of the pitch. Evidence-based veterinary medicine advocates argue that better research literacy, clearer communication, and easier access to trustworthy summaries are essential if clinicians are going to compete with emotionally compelling but weakly supported claims. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
There’s also a reputational dimension for the profession. When online figures present themselves as truth-tellers standing up to a compromised veterinary establishment, criticism from peers can be recast as censorship or self-interest. That dynamic is familiar in both human and animal health, and it helps explain why misinformation can persist even when professional consensus is clear. Inference: the renewed attention around SkeptVet likely reflects not just personal grievance, but the fact that conflict remains a durable audience-growth strategy in pet health media. That inference is supported by the long-running commercial and rhetorical pattern documented in SkeptVet’s earlier posts and by broader EBVM concerns about marketing-driven information channels. (skeptvet.com)
What to watch: The next phase will be whether this remains a niche online clash or becomes another case study in how veterinary misinformation ecosystems evolve, especially as clinics, associations, and evidence-based advocates put more effort into direct digital communication with pet parents. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
Common questions
Why is Andrew Jones being discussed in this story again?
The editorial says his renewed attacks on SkeptVet appear tied more to search visibility and brand-building than to a new scientific dispute.What did the British Columbia regulator find in Andrew Jones’ case?
The College of Veterinarians of British Columbia found him guilty of unprofessional conduct in 2010 for marketing practices and violations of written undertakings.What penalties were imposed on Andrew Jones?
The disposition included a formal reprimand, a C$20,000 fine for violating marketing guidelines, a C$10,000 fine for violating two personal undertakings, and inquiry costs.What kinds of pet health claims does SkeptVet criticize?
SkeptVet has criticized claims about homeopathy, raw diets, chiropractic, acupuncture, and anti-establishment messaging in companion animal care.