My main issue was that if a deluded few want to pay extra for an insurance policy that covers them for magic then that’s fine but I don’t see why I should have to pay for this as well. Pet Plan got back to me and said that this part of the coverage was “not optional” and “they have no plans to change this”. I replied asking how Pet Plan had come to this position and this was their response; 

Within our customer base there is demand for these types of treatments and therefore, to provide a flexible product which suits all the different policyholder requirements we offer cover for these types of treatments. 

The cover for we provide for these types of treatments is limited with a maximum benefit of £750 per year for all injuries/illnesses, when compared to the veterinary fees benefit which provides £4000, £6000 or £12,000 per year for all injuries/illnesses (depending  on the plan chosen). 

The complementary treatment benefit provides cover for acupuncture, homeopathy, herbal medicine, chiropractic manipulation, osteopathy and hydrotherapy and most of these treatment types have been proven scientifically. 

I understand that with homeopathy the basis and scientific evidence to prove effectiveness is continuously under debate; however, as there is a demand for this type of therapy we provide a limited benefit towards these costs.

Thanks again for your feedback.

This will be my final correspondence on the matter.

Kind regards,

I concede that if there is demand for something then as a business it makes complete sense for them to provide this service. But surely those of us that don’t want to pay extra for coverage we will never use should be able to opt out of this? It is irrelevant how limited this coverage is; any money spent on rubbish is too much. I don’t accept this reasoning with the NHS spending money on homeopathy and I don’t accept it here.

I don’t want to get into the evidence for the various treatments listed above but for them to say that most of them being proven scientifically is pushing it quite a bit. 

Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill but I think if we just let these sorts of treatments to be supported and funded, regardless of how tacitly, then we are just allowing these dangerous practices to continue. All this does is give more legitimacy to nonsense and unproven madcap theories about how the world works.

It was good of Pet Plan to take the time to respond to my questions, I am not a customer only a potential one, and although they took a while to respond and I didn’t get the answers I wanted I am pleased that they engaged with the issue. Perhaps if more people ask for unproven treatments to be removed from their insurance plans, pet or otherwise, then this will be another victory for science based medicine.

Great news you would think but I couldn’t help but get annoyed with the way it was reported on the BBC news website. I am starting to get a little bit tired of the whole impartiality/tell both sides of the argument stance the BBC seems to take on practically everything. I can understand why in politics a publicly funded media should remain impartial but when it comes to matters of science it isn’t simply a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.

The way the BBC reported on this matter is illustrated perfectly in these couple of paragraphs in the ‘What is homeopathy?’ section;

Supporters believe homeopathy helps relieve a range of minor ailments from bruising to insomnia

But critics say it is no better than sugar pills and people only get better because they believe the treatment will work – the so-called placebo effect

There we have it, both sides of the argument; one person says this and the other says this. In the article we have the BMA saying homeopathy is a load of old bollocks and The Society of Homeopaths saying there was “evidence the remedies worked” only there isn’t and here lies the problem.

It really pisses me off that the Society of Homeopaths can just say there is evidence when there isn’t any. Especially when the British Medical Association come to their conclusions after looking at the evidence and both views are expressed as equal.

There is no bias in the article to one side; no mention of the fact that systematic reviews show it works no better than placebo and that if it did work “much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect.” Nope, just a couple of quotes from one side and a couple of quotes from the other.

This sitting on the fence is almost as bad as advocating the quackery; it gives legitimacy to their nonsense and gives the impression that the opinions of those with a vested interest in homeopathic witchcraft is somehow the same as a considered standpoint from the British Medical Association. This isn’t an argument from authority I’m making because the authority has evidence on its side. It is a great shame the BBC doesn’t take the time to represent these differences fairly.

Just a quick note on the Society of Homeopaths argument that homeopathy shouldn’t be banned because “the cost of homeopathy on the NHS is low – just 0.001% of the £11 billion drugs budget.” This small amount has been reported as about £4million per year, that might seem a small amount to spend on water and sugar pills to the Society of Homeopaths but to me it sounds like a hell of a lot. Just because something is relatively cheap in comparison to a huge budget it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care about how that money is spent. You could spend that money on hiring some more doctors or nurses but if the Society of Homeopaths are going to support that kind of attitude I have a great idea; give me just half the £4million the NHS would otherwise throw literally down the drain on homeopathy and I will spend my time sitting in the Caribbean praying for people to get better. I’ll save the NHS £2 million a year, will guarantee that some of the people I pray for will get better and I don’t even believe in God.

Although my family has had cats for years it is always exciting getting your own pet for the first time. We have been reading up on various insurance policies, cat health websites about worms and fleas and all that stuff. What has dissapointed me is the amounts of woo prevalent in the pet world.

Take this website suggesting homeopathic remedies as worm treatment. People can catch worms from animals you know? This is REALLY bad advice.

But what pissed me off more than someone whistling in the office, (Seriously why are you whistling at all let alone in the office? Why, why would you do that? Stop it, stop it now before I rip your lips off) was insurance policies that covered alternative therapies. Why should I be paying for something that is utter nonsense?

I don’t know how many pet owners out there have insurance, if you don’t you really should, or if your policies cover alternative therapy, if they do they really shouldn’t, but for those of you that do have a policy I advise you to check it and is necessary write to your insurer to complain. Perhaps if enough of us do it then they might take notice.

Here is my letter to Pet Plan with hyperlinks added for your reference.    

Dear Pet Plan,

My partner and I have recently adopted two kittens from the Cats Protection Agency and so have been researching possible insurers. It is clear after shopping around that your policy is one of the better ones however I was very disappointed to see that as part of your plan you cover the cost of alternative treatments such as acupuncture and homeopathy. Since ‘alternative treatment’ is often synonymous with placebo or doesn’t work, as a potential customer I am concerned that the cost of your policies may be more expensive as a result of having to cover what is essentially other peoples’ delusions.

The breadth of evidence against these treatments is now extensive; Professor Edzard Ernst, the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, has critisised these treatments publically and often. In the American Journal of Medicine on homeopathy he said;

 ”Homeopathy is among the worst examples of faith-based medicine… These axioms [of homeopathy] are not only out of line with scientific facts but also directly opposed to them. If homeopathy is correct, much of physics, chemistry, and pharmacology must be incorrect… To have an open mind about homeopathy or similarly implausible forms of alternative medicine (eg, Bach flower remedies, spiritual healing, crystal therapy) is therefore not an option.”

These treatments don’t work, that is why they are called alternative treatments and not medicine. This obviously means that alternative treatment programmes are drawn out, costly as a result and ultimately aren’t really doing anything. Inevitably, if the condition is serious enough, claimants eventually have to resort to real medicine. All of this puts the cost of the claim up and subsequently your premiums up.

While I appreciate that this view may not be taken by all, alternative treatment enthusiasts are evidentially wrong and if they wish to pay extra for an insurance policy that caters to their delusions then that is up to them. I do not think it should be part of your standard policy or at the very least there should be a way of opting out of this cover for those of us that prefer to live in the real world. Can you tell me if this is something you are considering?

I look forward to your response,

I will of course keep you updated should they respond.

Many Thanks

Moving on it is Homeopathy Awareness Week and regulars to this blog, hello to you, will be familar with my attitude to the witchcraft that is homeopathic medicine. You can read previous posts on the topic here, here and over there.

To comiserate (I don’t really think it is the sort of thing we should be celebrating) Homeopathy Awareness Week I would like to draw your attention to these two videos. The first examines the horrific case of Gloria Thomas Sam and the second examines exactly why the parents of Gloria were wrong to put their faith in homeopathy.

Some of you may find some of the images in the first video disturbing. I know I did.

They claim that water has a memory and so therefore despite a 30C dilution containing not one molecule of active ingredient the water retains the memory of the ingredient and this is from where the remedy gets its potency. The more diluted the more potent. If there is anything wrong with my understanding of this then I invite homoeopathists to correct me in the comments.  

My simple test is this;

1. Take 10 different 30C remedies; Heph Sulph, Pulsatilla, Lycopdium, Arnica, Apis Mel, Argent Nit, Sepia, Thuja, Kali Phos, Kali Bich. (Purchased from your local Boots store of course)

 2. An independent adjudicator should now place the remedies in 10 separate numbered containers being sure to make a record of the numbers to the corresponding remedy. This should be done away from prying eyes.

 3. Another independent adjudicator should now take these containers and pass them to a homeopathic practitioner.

 4. The homeopathic practitioner is free to conduct as many tests as they deem necessary to identify what remedies correspond to what numbered containers.

 5. Should they be able to identify correctly all ten remedies then this would provide some evidence that despite the 30C dilution the remedies still contain some ‘memory’ of the initial active ingredient.

Please Note

While this would not completely convince me that homeopathy worked it would go a little way to proving the fundamental memory premise. While 10 out of 10 may seem a little strict should a similar test be done with 10 traditional medicines, aspirin, paracetamol etc I am confident a chemist would correctly identify 10 out of 10.  

It would be great to hear what simple tests you would devise for homoeopathists to take to show the fundamental science behind their ‘medicine’ is sound. Alternatively I would like to hear from homoeopathists as to what evidence would convince them that homeopathy doesn’t work?

The author of ‘Classic Tactics by Crap Football Teams’ is now delighted to bring you ‘Classic Tactics by Crap Peddlers (AKA Woo Merchants)’ a list of tactics employed by those peddling alternative medicine, creationism, astrology and other woo designed to lure the laymen and frustrate the sceptics;

1.      Attack the Source of the Information not the Information Itself.

This is more commonly known as an Ad Hominim attack. Rather than engage the opposition in an informed and measured debate the Crap Peddler will undermine the opposition with insults seemingly blind to the fact that even if these insults were true they still wouldn’t undermine the legitimacy of the counterargument only the individual making that argument. A current favourite insult being employed by homeopathic peddlers has been to call their detractors Nazis. Which brings me nicely on to our next tactic;

2.      Attempt to associate the legitimate scientific theory or research with an immoral ideology.

This is perhaps a reworking of our first tactic; failing to insult the individual Crap Peddlers will try to associate the information with something morally abhorrent. This is a favourite tactic of creationists who often try to associate Darwin’s theory of Evolution with Nazism. Once again even if this were true it would not undermine the theory itself. I’m sure Hitler believed in gravity it doesn’t suddenly make Newton wrong.

3.      I can’t hear you!

Better known as, not engaging with the evidence. When confronted with insurmountable evidence to the contrary a crap peddler clearly is left with no other choice other than to simply ignore that evidence and pretend it doesn’t exist. Perhaps the best example of this is the creationist’s argument that there are no transitional fossils despite the colossal amount of fossils sitting in museum exhibits around the world just waiting to be looked at.

4.      Barefaced Lying

You would think that this tactic was a bad one since someone is bound to find out that you are lying and call you up on it. Fortunately this is not a problem for your average Crap Peddler since they can easy revert to Tactic 3 should this situation arise.

5.      Won’t somebody please think of the children!

A slightly confusing title, but this is essentially the art of appealing to people’s emotions. An emotional anecdote can work wonders for the Crap Peddler when faced with cold hard facts. This particular tactic has been exploited brilliantly by Jenny McCarthy who has used her son’s plight as the foundation of her campaign against vaccines.

6.      The whole world is against us.

Do you remember when you were a kid and you knew you were in the wrong, things weren’t going your way and there was nothing you could do about it other than to say ‘It’s not fair’ to which the inevitable reply ‘Life’s not fair’ would come hurtling back at you. Well Crap Peddlers have their own version of ‘It’s not Fair’ where they will claim that there is some sort of conspiracy, that they are in the minority or that they are being silenced. Well they can dress it up how they like but every time I hear a Crap Peddler banging on about conspiracy I can’t help picture my Mum saying ‘Life’s not fair’, and it isn’t you know, she was right.

7.      Get ‘em young.

It is very easy to indoctrinate an individual into your particular brand of crap if that individual doesn’t have the information to make an informed decision for themselves. In order to increase their chances of not meeting stiff opposition in the face of blatant lies and crummy science Crap Peddlers will often target children before they have a chance to develop the critical thinking tools that will fend off such nonsense.

8.      Pluck those Cherries.

Perhaps misleadingly placed after Tactic 7. I am of course not talking about that sort of cherry picking. No I am referring to the art of highlighting the results that reflect positively on your particular brand of woo and ignoring the negative results. Although this is an amalgamation of Tactics 3 and 4 it is so specific that I felt it warranted a number of its own.  

9.      I know I am but so are you.

If you accuse the opposition of doing something that you yourself are doing it makes it very difficult for them to then accuse you of doing that very thing. You with me? For example if a Crap Peddler was to call you close minded it then makes it very difficult for you to accuse them of the very same thing lest you be reduced to the debating skills of a 5 year old.

10.  Smoking prevents the plague don’t you know? 

Crap Peddlers love to use the age of a treatment and its cultural origins as support of its efficacy. This can also spill over to the Crap Peddler themselves when they claim they have studied a treatment for years and have spent time in the far east. Imagine an ancient Chinese remedy being prepared by a ‘wise’ old sage, preferably with a long white wispy beard. Surely you can’t go wrong! Well turns out you can go wrong.

11.  Sue the bastards

Yeah this is kind of Tactic 1 but it takes a certain amount of gall to face criticism and instead of confronting the criticism running to the courts in hope that you will scare the opposition into withdrawing. I can only assume this tactic was dreamed up by a poker player as the ultimate bluff. Crap Peddlers be warned though, people like Simon Singh are setting precedent by calling the bluff so to speak and steps are being taken towards libel reform to make this tactic ill advised in the future.

Warning

Despite being aware of these rules this still does not put you in a position to argue with a Crap Peddler successfully. Remember the main advantage a Crap Peddler has over you is that they don’t care if they are talking bollocks. All the Crap Peddler needs to do is construct enough doubt in a neutral observer to make the observer think they are on a level pegging and the Crap Peddler has won. This is often why experienced sceptics like Richard Dawkins will avoid debates with creationists; engaging them gives them a platform from which to present their woo and if you attack a specific claim and win they make something else up you can’t refute instantly without due research. This does not mean Crap Peddlers should remain unchallenged just do so with caution. You have been warned.

This is not a comprehensive list but I think most arguments/tactics employed by Crap Peddlers can fit into one or more of these categories. Remember this is not a list of the arguments themselves as that would be endless, rather the general form of debating tactics that Crap Peddlers take. For example the irreducible complexity argument given by creationists uses Tactics 3 and 4. If you think there are any clear omissions or mistakes please add them in the comments and I will amend the list accordingly.

Which is exactly why I am supporting a fantastic new campaign to raise awareness of the reality of homeopathy. They are gathering signatures for a open letter to Boots to ask them to remove homeopathic remedies from their shelves.

Homeopathy doesn’t work, it is a pseudoscientific alternative medicine that claims that the more you dilute something the more potent it becomes. Think about that for a second, its fucking stupid. I can only assume this madness hasn’t been generally accepted as just that because of the misinformation that is out there about it. Homeopaths jump on the hippy new age mamby pamby natural bollocky herbal bandwagon and hippy new age mamby pamby natural bollocky herbal people buy into it without knowing anything about it.  Its a shame because I’ve known some drug smoking, dreadlock wearing folk in my time and if you told them you were going to make their joints stronger by diluting the amount of cannabis with more tobacco they would laugh in your face and politely ask you to leave. Im going slightly off topic, go sign up to the campaign!