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.

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.

This is a ridiculous turn of events. How an earth can they claim Singh was acting in malice? There is nothing in the original article to support this. He quite rightly attacks Chiropractic medicine on the efficacy of it methods, questions the mechanism at the root of chiropractic medicine and makes his judgments based on the evidence uncovered in his book ‘Trick or Treatment’, co-authored with Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst. The article is considered and does not make an ad hominem attack of the type you would usually associate with malice.

It seems to me that the BCA are doing everything they can to attack the source of the criticism rather than the criticism itself. Then they have the audacity of accusing Simon Singh of malice. This is a joke.

UPDATE

The BCA have now changed their statement to remove the previous comment; “However, this action is actually a simple libel claim based on the fact that the BCA was maliciously attacked by Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper.”

It now reads; “However, this action is a simple claim based on the fact that the BCA was libelled by Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper.

Too late. Their actions speak for themselves. I had asked in the comments over at Jack of Kent’s blog if this ‘malice’ allegation constituted libel, although he didn’t respond to me directly he has now tweeted; @jackofkent This was the day the BCA case came to an end. @SLSinghonly now needs to threaten to counter-sue. The BCA cannot justify that clear meaning.

Thanks to Jack of Kent for keeping everyone updated on this throughout the day.

Previously I posted about the British Chiropractic Association who are suing Simon Singh for libel following his comments in a guardian article.

As an update to that original post the BCA did eventually produced a list of studies purported to support the questionable treatments, however these did nothing more than to support Simon Singh’s criticism. For a decent review of these studies check out Science-Based Medicine.

To help support his case and in order to make sure this criticism does not go unheard, various blogs are being invited to reproduce a version of his article. I haven’t been invited but here it is anyway!

Beware the spinal trap

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that ’99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae’. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: ‘Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.’

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher. If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singhis a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardianfor which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.