Why alternative medicine still tests veterinary science

A new SkeptVet commentary, “Is Alternative Medicine Compatible with Science?”, argues that so-called complementary and alternative veterinary medicine remains in tension with evidence-based practice when claims outpace data. The piece revisits a long-running debate over therapies such as homeopathy, herbal remedies, and acupuncture, and contends that labeling a treatment “natural,” “traditional,” or “integrative” doesn’t exempt it from the same standards of safety and efficacy expected of conventional care. That argument lands amid a broader profession-wide conversation: AVMA’s House of Delegates approved a revised 2025 policy on integrative veterinary medicine that says these modalities should be held to the same standards as other therapies, while groups including the Evidence-Based Veterinary Medical Association have continued to challenge efforts to expand recognition of practices they say lack convincing evidence. (skeptvet.com)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this is less a debate about labels than about clinical standards, informed consent, and risk communication. Reference sources such as the Merck Veterinary Manual say recommendations should be grounded in “science and substance,” and the BSAVA similarly distinguishes regulation from proof of effectiveness. In practice, that means clinicians still need to evaluate any integrative or alternative modality the same way they would a drug, device, or procedure: by weighing plausibility, quality of evidence, safety, cost, and whether its use could delay more effective care. (merckvetmanual.com)

What to watch: Expect this debate to keep surfacing in policy, CE, and specialty-recognition fights, especially where acupuncture and other integrative modalities seek broader institutional legitimacy. (skeptvet.com)