Back in 2016, proponents of using acupuncture in veterinary medicine attempted to gain recognition as a medical specialty through the AVMA’s American Board of Veterinary Specialties (ABVS), which is the organization that formally recognizes such specialized branches of veterinary medicine. The attempt failed because the ABVS recognized there was “a lack of scientific basis for such a specialty.” In other words, as I have been illustrating for over 15 years, there is no compelling body of scientific evidence showing that acupuncture is a coherent, safe, or effective treatment for any medical condition.
I detailed my own training and certification in acupuncture here, and despite engaging deeply with the scientific literature and hands-on practice, I remain unconvinced by claims that this method is anything more than a reliable of pre-scientific folk medicine, especially as taught an practiced by the majority of proponents through the perspective of so-called Traditional Chinese Medicine.
I am by no means alone in my conclusions, and the Evidence-based Veterinary Medicine Association (EBVMA), of which I am a member and past-president, has submitted an official letter recommending again rejecting the petition as inconsistent with the preponderance of the scientific evidence.
I contributed to this letter, but I had a slightly different view of the issues and so have also chosen to submit my own letter to ABVS opposing the petition. I encourage anyone who shares my concern to submit your own letter, or I would be happy to add your name to my own and that of other individuals who have chosen to endorse this statement. I have copied the letter and the current list of individuals endorsing it below. Let me know in the comments if you would like to be included
Public comment on this petition is due no later than 11:59 p.m. on August 12, 2025. All comments must be submitted by email to ABVS@avma.orgwith the subject line “Public comment – Acupuncture Specialty.”
Letter Opposing Recognition of Acupuncture as a Veterinary Medical Specialty
We are writing to oppose the establishment of an ABVS-sanctioned specialty in veterinary acupuncture. A similar petition was denied in 2016 due to “a lack of scientific basis for such a specialty.” Nothing substantive has changed since that decision, and despite decades of research and thousands of studies in humans and other species, there is still no cogent, robust body of scientific evidence to support the claims and practices of acupuncturists.
Acupuncture is fundamentally based not on plausible and proven scientific principles but on pre-scientific folk medicine concepts. The majority of veterinary acupuncture practitioners are trained in the model of so-called Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine (TCVM), largely by the Chi Institute and affiliated organizations. This system consists of a mélange of practices and philosophies developed for use in humans and adapted in modern times for use in animals. These disparate folk medicine traditions were repackaged and marketed as a unified system in China in the 1950s for domestic political reasons and then introduced into Europe and the United States in the 1970s.1,2 The claim that acupuncture is an ancient, unbroken tradition of veterinary treatment is not only irrelevant to the scientific validity of the practice but also factually incorrect.
TCVM relies on pre-scientific concepts to guide and validate acupuncture, including manipulation of an undetectable spiritual energy (e.g. Chi) and the Daoist metaphysical concept of “balance” between the universal opposites of Yin and Yang, often identified with masculine/feminine, heat/cold, light/dark, the seasons, and the five “elements” of nature (earth, air, fire, water, and wood).3 This system is similar to ancient Greek humoral medicine, Indian Ayurveda, and many other folk medicine systems for explaining disease in the absence of a scientific understanding of biology. Such a method does not correspond to the reality of physiology and pathophysiology as revealed by science, and it has not place in modern, science-based veterinary medicine.
Some proponents of acupuncture will claim that while they continue to use the terminology and clinical practices of TCVM acupuncture, they have replaced the underlying folk medicine principles with scientific explanations for the effects of their treatments. This often includes claiming acupuncture “points” and “channels” have some identifiable correspondence to verifiable functional or anatomic structures (e.g. nerves, muscles, blood vessels, tendons, myofascial “trigger points,” etc.). Stimulating these locations with needles, and with non-traditional adjuncts like electricity, is claimed to release endorphins or endogenous opioids or have other detectable physiology effects.
The problem with these claims is that they have not been validated by high-quality, repeatable scientific research.4 The minor local trauma of needle insertion certainly has detectable effects, certainly, but the consistency, predictability, and clinical value of these effects has not been demonstrated. There is little to distinguish acupuncture from other forms of mild trauma, such as prodding patients with a toothpick or striking them lightly with a hammer.
Similarly, the existence of special “points” at which such minor trauma should be directed has not been convincingly demonstrated. Almost any part of the body contains some structure that one could argue is relevant and would respond in some way to stimulation. Studies of clinical acupuncture find that different practitioners use very different locations for needling,5 and virtually no part of the body has not been claimed as a special “point” by at least some school of acupuncturists.4,6,7
The lack of a biologically plausible theoretical mechanisms demonstrated by pre-clinical studies for both TCVM and the more ostensibly scientific varieties of veterinary acupuncture is not the only deficiency in the evidence base. Despite the lack of a plausible and demonstrable mechanism of action, many clinical studies of acupuncture have been done, in humans and other species. Even with thousands of such studies, and thousands of systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted over many decades, no clear consensus has emerged demonstrating meaningful, consistent, predictable benefits for acupuncture treatment. The claims acupuncturists make are still predominantly based on personal clinical experience and selective emphasis on positive clinical studies with significant methodological flaws.
PubMed lists over 2,000 systematic reviews of acupuncture studies since the last attempt to form a veterinary acupuncture specialty in 2016. The vast majority of reviews, and of acupuncture clinical studies, are conducted by advocates for the practice, and many are published in journals and countries with a documented publication bias that favors acupuncture.8–12 Despite this obvious risk of bias, systematic reviews of the systematic reviews in this area consistently find inconclusive evidence or low quality, with the best quality studies most likely to show no effect and the positive studies most likely to involve subjective symptoms, such as pain.
For example, a 2022 review of systematic reviews concluded13,
“Despite a vast number of randomized trials, systematic reviews of acupuncture for adult health conditions have rated only a minority of conclusions as high- or moderate-certainty evidence, and most of these were about comparisons with sham treatment or had conclusions of no benefit of acupuncture.”
This is effectively the same conclusion as a similar review of reviews published in 200614,
“Systematic reviews of acupuncture have overstated effectiveness by including studies likely to be biased. They provide no robust evidence that acupuncture works for any indication.”
When decades of research involving thousands of studies and hundreds of thousands of participants fail to find unequivocal, high-quality evidence supporting an intervention, it becomes very implausible to claim that it is a powerfully effective treatment that deserves recognition as a medical specialty.
The veterinary acupuncture literature, as expected, is far smaller and or lower quality than the research in humans. The majority of studies have significant methodological limitations and high risk of bias, and both positive and negative results have been reported. The literature is insufficient to support rigorous systematic reviews or meta-analyses. There is little reason, however, to imagine that the results of reviews, even if more and better quality studies were available, would be more supportive than the vast, and still inconclusive literature on acupuncture in humans.
Proponents of a specialty argue that the popularity of the practice is growing and that this justifies a recognized specialty. Even if their claim of 5,000 individuals trained in this practice is correct, that represents less than 4% of veterinarians in the U.S. More importantly, the popularity of a practice has no relevance to its scientific validity.
Recognition of acupuncture as a specialty would create the impression that it is a clinical practice with scientific validity and genuine expertise equivalent to cardiology, internal medicine, emergency and critical care, and other ABVS-recognized specialties. This is simply false. Even if recognition encouraged standardization of training and credentials, how is this of value to veterinary patients and clients when the principles underlying this training are implausible and not supported by reliable and consistent scientific evidence? Legitimizing acupuncture by declaring it a clinical specialty would mislead veterinarians and the public and likely encourage expanded use of this dubious practice. For these reasons, we oppose the current petition.
Brennen McKenzie, MA, MSc, VMD, CVMA
Gary Block DVM, MS, DACVIM
President EBVMA
Jörg M. Steiner, med.vet., Dr.med.vet., PhD, DACVIM, DECVIM-CA, AGAF
Nicholas Jenkins, DVM, MS
Erica Tramuta-Drobnis, VMD MPH CPH
Thomas Doker DVM, MPH, DACVPM(Epidemiology), CPH
Robert Larson DVM, PhD, DACT, DACVPM Epidemiology), ACAN
Martin Whitehead BSc, PhD, BVSc, CertSAM, MRCVS
Luis Arroyo Lic. Med Vet,, DVSc, PhD, DACVIM
References
1. Ramey DW, Buell PD. Acupuncture and ‘traditional Chinese medicine’ in the horse. Part 1: A historical overview. Equine Vet Educ. 2004;16(4):218-224. doi:10.1111/j.2042-3292.2004.tb00301.x
2. Michaels PA. Chinese Medicine in Early Communist China, 1945–1963: A Medicine of Revolution. Soc Hist Med. 2006;19(2):338-340. doi:10.1093/shm/hkl010
3. Xie H, Preast V. TCVM: Fundamental Principles. 2nd ed. Chi Institute Press; 2013. https://media.graphassets.com/pp77sBzRQVGnm6lNJa8x
4. McKenzie BA. Acupuncture. In: Placebos for Pets: The Truth about Alternative Medicine in Animals. Ockham Publishing; 2019:490.
5. Molsberger AF, Manickavasagan J, Abholz HH, Maixner WB, Endres HG. Acupuncture points are large fields: the fuzziness of acupuncture point localization by doctors in practice. Eur J Pain Lond Engl. 2012;16(9):1264-1270. doi:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00145.x
6. Magovern P. Koryo Hand Acupuncture: A Versatile and Potent Acupuncture Microsystem. Acupunct Med. 1995;13(1):10-14. doi:10.1136/aim.13.1.10
7. Gori L, Firenzuoli F. Ear Acupuncture in European Traditional Medicine. Evid-Based Complement Altern Med ECAM. 2007;4(Suppl 1):13-16. doi:10.1093/ecam/nem106
8. Li J, Hui X, Yao L, et al. The relationship of publication language, study population, risk of bias, and treatment effects in acupuncture related systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiologic study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23:96. doi:10.1186/s12874-023-01904-w
9. Ma B, Qi G qing, Lin X ting, Wang T, Chen Z min, Yang K hu. Epidemiology, Quality, and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Acupuncture Interventions Published in Chinese Journals. J Altern Complement Med. 2012;18(9):813-817. doi:10.1089/acm.2011.0274
10. Masuyama S, Yamashita H. Trends and quality of randomized controlled trials on acupuncture conducted in Japan by decade from the 1960s to the 2010s: a systematic review. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2023;23:91. doi:10.1186/s12906-023-03910-3
11. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19(2):159-166. doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00150-5
12. Wang Y, Wang L, Chai Q, Liu J. Positive Results in Randomized Controlled Trials on Acupuncture Published in Chinese Journals: A Systematic Literature Review. J Altern Complement Med. 2014;20(5):A129-A129. doi:10.1089/acm.2014.5346.abstract
13. Allen J, Mak SS, Begashaw M, et al. Use of Acupuncture for Adult Health Conditions, 2013 to 2021: A Systematic Review. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(11):e2243665. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.43665
14. Derry CJ, Derry S, McQuay HJ, Moore RA. Systematic review of systematic reviews of acupuncture published 1996-2005. Clin Med Lond Engl. 2006;6(4):381-386. doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.6-4-381
I, Christopher N. Ricks, D.V.M., would like to be included in this letter opposing acupuncture as specialty branch and Acupuncturist for board specialty status.
Will do, thanks!
Please include me in this letter- Stephen LaRocca, DVM. I fully oppose the proposition of the inclusion of acupuncture as a veterinary specialty. Further, I do not believe this discipline should be a component of general practice, either. The idea of restraining animals and stabbing them with needles despite lack of empirical support is flatly wrong.
Please include my name on this letter opposing acupuncture as a recognized veterinary specialty.
Claire Landwehr, DVM
Will do, thanks!
Thanks for the support!
I , Melissa Alley, BVSC MANZCVS PGCERTSC FCERTECC, senior companion animal veterinarian in clinical practice, would like to be included in this letter opposing acupuncture as specialty branch and Acupuncturist for board specialty status.
Dr. William F. “Bill” Jackson from Florida was the one who played a key role in starting veterinary specialty boards. He was the founding president, organizing chairman, and an honorary diplomate of the American Board of Veterinary Practitioners (ABVP), which was a significant step in establishing veterinary specialties. He was also a diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons and the American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists, further cementing his influence in the field. I remember seeing him at the local meetings. When these vets get up at our required CE meetings to promote acupuncture specialty we need to address the quackery then.