Clearly, the best place for the mysterious island lair of a super-villain who likes invertebrates has to be Christmas Island. So cuddly!
I wonder if I could swap our cat for one?
Clearly, the best place for the mysterious island lair of a super-villain who likes invertebrates has to be Christmas Island. So cuddly!
I wonder if I could swap our cat for one?
Texas Star Party, one of the biggest public astronomy events of each year, drawing about 500 deep-sky enthusiasts and their telescopes to the Davis Mountains of West Texas. Image used with permission, via Todd Hargis and Ron Ronhaar.
Interested in astronomy, but not sure where to begin? A first step can be to seek out your local astronomy club. It consists of a roomful of willing and able amateur astronomers, whose telescopes may offer your first glimpse of the cosmos. The Astronomical League, an umbrella organization of 240 amateur astronomy clubs and societies in the U.S.
The Astronomical League also helps us create and maintain the list of events on this page. Click here to visit the Astronomical League’s website.
Know of an event that’s not on the list below? Contact us.
Do you have a great photo of a star party in your area? Submit here.
Looking for an astronomy club in your area? Click here.
Special thanks also to the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada for help with this list.
Jump below the photo for a list of upcoming events! If no web link is given, it’s because the information for 2016 hasn’t been posted yet. Check back.
View larger. | Big Dipper on the horizon while getting set up at the Astronomical Society of New Haven‘s 25th annual Connecticut Star Party in Goshen, Connecticut, October 9-11, 2015. Photo by Kurt Zeppetello.
Upcoming astronomy events …
March 2-6, 2016
Orange Blossom Special XXII International Star Party
Withlacoochee River Park
Dade City, Florida
http://ift.tt/1WnMXnm
March 5, 2016
Tri-Star
Guilford Technical Community College, Jamestown, North Carolina
Greenboro Astronomy Club and the Cline Observatory
observatory.gtcc.edu.tristar/
March 9–13, 2016
Staunton River Star Party
Scottsburg, Virginia
http://ift.tt/1IwNpXs
March 10–13
Don Surles’ Mirror Making Workshop No. 16
Delmarva Star Gazers, Georgetown, Delaware
http://ift.tt/1QHapHT
March 12
2016 All-Arizona Messier Marathon
Salome Emergency Airfield (south of I-10 at Exit 53)
http://ift.tt/1UuLnS1
March 19, 2016
Spring Starfest in Woodlawn Cemetery
Amateur Astronomers Association of New York
The Bronx, New York
http://ift.tt/1WnMVvI
April 1-3, 2016
Pickett Astronomy Weekend
Pickett-Pogue Dark Sky Park
Jamestown, Tennessee
http://ift.tt/1KlyreZ
April 2
Astronomy Day
Kern Astronomical Society, William M. Thomas
Planetarium, Bakersfield, California
http://ift.tt/1UuLnS3
April 2 or 3, 2016
Night Sky Maine Photography Workshop
Sandy Point Beach, Maine
Taylor Photography
April 2–9, 2016
OzSky Star Safari, a.k.a. Deepest
South Texas Star Safari
Coonabarabran, New South Wales, Australia
www.ozsky.org
April 5 or 6, 2016
Night Sky Maine Photography Workshop
Nubble Lighthouse, Cape Neddick, Maine
Taylor Photography
April 6–9
Mid-South Star Gaze and Astronomy Conference
French Camp, Mississippi
http://ift.tt/1KlyoA0
April 7–8
Northeast Astro-Imaging Conference
Rockland Astronomy Club, Suffern, New York
http://ift.tt/1EARBsf
April 7–10
Southern Star Astronomy Convention
Charlotte Amateur Astronomers Club, Little
Switzerland, North Carolina
http://ift.tt/1CdflgL
April 7–10
South Jersey Astronomy Club Spring Star Party
Belleplain, New Jersey
http://ift.tt/1QHaqeW
April 8-9
North Carolina Statewide Star Party
35+ public skywatching sessions from the North Carolina mountains to the coast
http://ift.tt/1WnMXnr
April 9-10, 2016
Northeast Astronomy Forum
Suffern, New York
http://ift.tt/1HMGVYK
April 29–30
NCRAL 2016
Heartland Community College, Normal, Illinois
www.ncral2016.org
May 1-8, 2016
38th Annual Texas Star Party
Prude Ranch near Fort Davis, Texas
texasstarparty.org/
May 2-5, 2016
Night Sky Utah Photography Workshop
Moab, Utah
Taylor Photography: SOLD OUT
May 5–8
Two Rivers Spring Star Party
Heaven’s Gate Farm, Barry, Illinois
http://ift.tt/1QHapYd
May 6–8
Tennessee Spring Star Party
Fall Creek Falls State Park, Tennessee
http://ift.tt/1AyagRv
May 6-8, 2016
Michiana Star Party Eight – MSP8
Vandalia, Michigan
(About 35 miles northeast of South Bend, Indiana)
http://ift.tt/1WnMXnt
May 9-12, 2016
Night Sky Utah Photography/Processing Workshop
Moab, Utah
Taylor Photography/Utah Session II
May 14, 2016
International Astronomy Day
Local astronomical societies, planetariums, museums, and observatories will be sponsoring public viewing sessions, presentations, workshops, and other activities.
Organized by the Astronomical League
http://ift.tt/1WnMVvP
May 19–23
AstroCats
London, Ontario, Canada
www.astrocats.ca
May 26 – May 30, 2016
RTMC Astronomy Expo (Riverside)
Camp Oakes, Big Bear, California
http://ift.tt/1Klyrf0
Canadian Astronomical Society (CASCA) annual meeting
May 30-June 2, 2016
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
http://ift.tt/1KlyoA4
June 1 – 4, 2016
Night Sky Maine Photography/Processing Workshop
Acadia National Park (Bar Harbor), Maine
Taylor Photography
June 2–4
The Symposium on Telescope Science
Ontario Airport Hotel, Ontario, California
http://ift.tt/1QHapYh
June 2-5, 2016
Cherry Springs Star Party
Coudersport, Pennsylvania
http://ift.tt/1Klyrf2
June 2–5
Wisconsin Observers’ Weekend
Hartman Creek State Park just west of Waupaca, Wisconsin
http://ift.tt/1QHaqve
June 3–5
2016 Bootleg Astronomy Star Party
Green River Conservation Area, Harmon, Illinois
http://ift.tt/1UuLmh3
June 3–5
MSRAL 2016 Convention
University of Missouri–Columbia
www.msral.org
June 4–11
Grand Canyon (Arizona) Star Party: North Rim
http://ift.tt/1UuLmh6
June 9–12
Spacefest
Starr Pass Resort, Tucson, Arizona
www.spacefest.info
June 29-July 3, 2016
Rocky Mountain Star Stare
Colorado Springs Astronomical Society, Gardner, Colorado
www.rmss.org/
June 29 or 30, 2016
Night Sky Maine Photography Workshop
Pemaquid Point Lighthouse, Maine
Taylor Photography
July 6 – 7, 2016
Night Sky Maine Photography/Processing Workshop
Marshall Point Lighthouse, Port Clyde, Maine
Taylor Photography
July 6–9
Green Bank Star Quest 13
National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Green
Bank, West Virginia
http://ift.tt/1UuLo8w
July 8-10, 2016
Star-B-Q, Eccles Ranch, Alberta, and other 2016 star parties in western Canada
http://ift.tt/1WnMXDJ
July 24-30, 2016
Maine Astronomy Retreat
Washington, Maine
http://ift.tt/1Klyrf4
July 27 – 30, 2016
Night Sky Maine Photography/Processing Workshop w/ 3 Instructors
Acadia National Park, Maine
Taylor Photography/Acadia 3 Instructor
July 27-31, 2016
York County Star Party
Shreveport Airport North
Wellsville, Pennsylvania (near Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC)
http://ift.tt/1lpzzCt
July 30 – August 7, 2016
Mount Kobau Star Party
Osoyoos, British Columbia, Canada
http://ift.tt/1WnMXDL
July 31–August 5
Nebraska Star Party
Merritt Reservoir, Valentine, Nebraska
http://ift.tt/1QHaqvm
August 2–7
Oregon Star Party
Trail Spring, Ochoco National Forest, Oregon
http://ift.tt/1UuLmhc
August 3 – 6, 2016
Night Sky NH Photography/Processing Workshop w/ 2 Instructors
Pittsburg, NH
Taylor Photography
August 3-7, 2016
Saskatchewan Summer Star Party
Cypress Hills, Saskatchewan, Canada
http://ift.tt/1WnMVM7
August 4-7, 2016
Starfest
Mount Forest, Ontario, Canada
August 4-7, 2016
Stellafane Convention
Springfield, Vermont
http://ift.tt/1WnMXDS
August 5-7, 2016
Kejimkujik Dark Sky Weekend
Caledonia, Nova Scotia, Canada
August 5-7, 2016
Butterpot Star Party
St. John’s, Newfoundland
August 10–13
ALCon in Washington, D.C.
Northern Virginia Astronomy Club
alcon2016.astroleague.org
August 26-28, 2016
Nova East
Smileys Provincial Park
Nova Scotia, Canada
September 2-4, 2016
Alberta Star Party
Starland, Alberta, Canada
September 24 – October 2, 2016
33rd Annual Okie-Tex Star Party
Camp Billie Joe, Oklahoma
www.okie-tex.com
September 27 – October 2, 2016
Northern Prairie Star Party
Tofield, Alberta, Canada
Bottom line: List of astronomy and night sky events for the public, for 2015 and 2016, compiled in cooperation with the awesome Astronomical League. Join in, and have fun!
Texas Star Party, one of the biggest public astronomy events of each year, drawing about 500 deep-sky enthusiasts and their telescopes to the Davis Mountains of West Texas. Image used with permission, via Todd Hargis and Ron Ronhaar.
Interested in astronomy, but not sure where to begin? A first step can be to seek out your local astronomy club. It consists of a roomful of willing and able amateur astronomers, whose telescopes may offer your first glimpse of the cosmos. The Astronomical League, an umbrella organization of 240 amateur astronomy clubs and societies in the U.S.
The Astronomical League also helps us create and maintain the list of events on this page. Click here to visit the Astronomical League’s website.
Know of an event that’s not on the list below? Contact us.
Do you have a great photo of a star party in your area? Submit here.
Looking for an astronomy club in your area? Click here.
Special thanks also to the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada for help with this list.
Jump below the photo for a list of upcoming events! If no web link is given, it’s because the information for 2016 hasn’t been posted yet. Check back.
View larger. | Big Dipper on the horizon while getting set up at the Astronomical Society of New Haven‘s 25th annual Connecticut Star Party in Goshen, Connecticut, October 9-11, 2015. Photo by Kurt Zeppetello.
Upcoming astronomy events …
March 2-6, 2016
Orange Blossom Special XXII International Star Party
Withlacoochee River Park
Dade City, Florida
http://ift.tt/1WnMXnm
March 5, 2016
Tri-Star
Guilford Technical Community College, Jamestown, North Carolina
Greenboro Astronomy Club and the Cline Observatory
observatory.gtcc.edu.tristar/
March 9–13, 2016
Staunton River Star Party
Scottsburg, Virginia
http://ift.tt/1IwNpXs
March 10–13
Don Surles’ Mirror Making Workshop No. 16
Delmarva Star Gazers, Georgetown, Delaware
http://ift.tt/1QHapHT
March 12
2016 All-Arizona Messier Marathon
Salome Emergency Airfield (south of I-10 at Exit 53)
http://ift.tt/1UuLnS1
March 19, 2016
Spring Starfest in Woodlawn Cemetery
Amateur Astronomers Association of New York
The Bronx, New York
http://ift.tt/1WnMVvI
April 1-3, 2016
Pickett Astronomy Weekend
Pickett-Pogue Dark Sky Park
Jamestown, Tennessee
http://ift.tt/1KlyreZ
April 2
Astronomy Day
Kern Astronomical Society, William M. Thomas
Planetarium, Bakersfield, California
http://ift.tt/1UuLnS3
April 2 or 3, 2016
Night Sky Maine Photography Workshop
Sandy Point Beach, Maine
Taylor Photography
April 2–9, 2016
OzSky Star Safari, a.k.a. Deepest
South Texas Star Safari
Coonabarabran, New South Wales, Australia
www.ozsky.org
April 5 or 6, 2016
Night Sky Maine Photography Workshop
Nubble Lighthouse, Cape Neddick, Maine
Taylor Photography
April 6–9
Mid-South Star Gaze and Astronomy Conference
French Camp, Mississippi
http://ift.tt/1KlyoA0
April 7–8
Northeast Astro-Imaging Conference
Rockland Astronomy Club, Suffern, New York
http://ift.tt/1EARBsf
April 7–10
Southern Star Astronomy Convention
Charlotte Amateur Astronomers Club, Little
Switzerland, North Carolina
http://ift.tt/1CdflgL
April 7–10
South Jersey Astronomy Club Spring Star Party
Belleplain, New Jersey
http://ift.tt/1QHaqeW
April 8-9
North Carolina Statewide Star Party
35+ public skywatching sessions from the North Carolina mountains to the coast
http://ift.tt/1WnMXnr
April 9-10, 2016
Northeast Astronomy Forum
Suffern, New York
http://ift.tt/1HMGVYK
April 29–30
NCRAL 2016
Heartland Community College, Normal, Illinois
www.ncral2016.org
May 1-8, 2016
38th Annual Texas Star Party
Prude Ranch near Fort Davis, Texas
texasstarparty.org/
May 2-5, 2016
Night Sky Utah Photography Workshop
Moab, Utah
Taylor Photography: SOLD OUT
May 5–8
Two Rivers Spring Star Party
Heaven’s Gate Farm, Barry, Illinois
http://ift.tt/1QHapYd
May 6–8
Tennessee Spring Star Party
Fall Creek Falls State Park, Tennessee
http://ift.tt/1AyagRv
May 6-8, 2016
Michiana Star Party Eight – MSP8
Vandalia, Michigan
(About 35 miles northeast of South Bend, Indiana)
http://ift.tt/1WnMXnt
May 9-12, 2016
Night Sky Utah Photography/Processing Workshop
Moab, Utah
Taylor Photography/Utah Session II
May 14, 2016
International Astronomy Day
Local astronomical societies, planetariums, museums, and observatories will be sponsoring public viewing sessions, presentations, workshops, and other activities.
Organized by the Astronomical League
http://ift.tt/1WnMVvP
May 19–23
AstroCats
London, Ontario, Canada
www.astrocats.ca
May 26 – May 30, 2016
RTMC Astronomy Expo (Riverside)
Camp Oakes, Big Bear, California
http://ift.tt/1Klyrf0
Canadian Astronomical Society (CASCA) annual meeting
May 30-June 2, 2016
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
http://ift.tt/1KlyoA4
June 1 – 4, 2016
Night Sky Maine Photography/Processing Workshop
Acadia National Park (Bar Harbor), Maine
Taylor Photography
June 2–4
The Symposium on Telescope Science
Ontario Airport Hotel, Ontario, California
http://ift.tt/1QHapYh
June 2-5, 2016
Cherry Springs Star Party
Coudersport, Pennsylvania
http://ift.tt/1Klyrf2
June 2–5
Wisconsin Observers’ Weekend
Hartman Creek State Park just west of Waupaca, Wisconsin
http://ift.tt/1QHaqve
June 3–5
2016 Bootleg Astronomy Star Party
Green River Conservation Area, Harmon, Illinois
http://ift.tt/1UuLmh3
June 3–5
MSRAL 2016 Convention
University of Missouri–Columbia
www.msral.org
June 4–11
Grand Canyon (Arizona) Star Party: North Rim
http://ift.tt/1UuLmh6
June 9–12
Spacefest
Starr Pass Resort, Tucson, Arizona
www.spacefest.info
June 29-July 3, 2016
Rocky Mountain Star Stare
Colorado Springs Astronomical Society, Gardner, Colorado
www.rmss.org/
June 29 or 30, 2016
Night Sky Maine Photography Workshop
Pemaquid Point Lighthouse, Maine
Taylor Photography
July 6 – 7, 2016
Night Sky Maine Photography/Processing Workshop
Marshall Point Lighthouse, Port Clyde, Maine
Taylor Photography
July 6–9
Green Bank Star Quest 13
National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Green
Bank, West Virginia
http://ift.tt/1UuLo8w
July 8-10, 2016
Star-B-Q, Eccles Ranch, Alberta, and other 2016 star parties in western Canada
http://ift.tt/1WnMXDJ
July 24-30, 2016
Maine Astronomy Retreat
Washington, Maine
http://ift.tt/1Klyrf4
July 27 – 30, 2016
Night Sky Maine Photography/Processing Workshop w/ 3 Instructors
Acadia National Park, Maine
Taylor Photography/Acadia 3 Instructor
July 27-31, 2016
York County Star Party
Shreveport Airport North
Wellsville, Pennsylvania (near Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC)
http://ift.tt/1lpzzCt
July 30 – August 7, 2016
Mount Kobau Star Party
Osoyoos, British Columbia, Canada
http://ift.tt/1WnMXDL
July 31–August 5
Nebraska Star Party
Merritt Reservoir, Valentine, Nebraska
http://ift.tt/1QHaqvm
August 2–7
Oregon Star Party
Trail Spring, Ochoco National Forest, Oregon
http://ift.tt/1UuLmhc
August 3 – 6, 2016
Night Sky NH Photography/Processing Workshop w/ 2 Instructors
Pittsburg, NH
Taylor Photography
August 3-7, 2016
Saskatchewan Summer Star Party
Cypress Hills, Saskatchewan, Canada
http://ift.tt/1WnMVM7
August 4-7, 2016
Starfest
Mount Forest, Ontario, Canada
August 4-7, 2016
Stellafane Convention
Springfield, Vermont
http://ift.tt/1WnMXDS
August 5-7, 2016
Kejimkujik Dark Sky Weekend
Caledonia, Nova Scotia, Canada
August 5-7, 2016
Butterpot Star Party
St. John’s, Newfoundland
August 10–13
ALCon in Washington, D.C.
Northern Virginia Astronomy Club
alcon2016.astroleague.org
August 26-28, 2016
Nova East
Smileys Provincial Park
Nova Scotia, Canada
September 2-4, 2016
Alberta Star Party
Starland, Alberta, Canada
September 24 – October 2, 2016
33rd Annual Okie-Tex Star Party
Camp Billie Joe, Oklahoma
www.okie-tex.com
September 27 – October 2, 2016
Northern Prairie Star Party
Tofield, Alberta, Canada
Bottom line: List of astronomy and night sky events for the public, for 2015 and 2016, compiled in cooperation with the awesome Astronomical League. Join in, and have fun!
Use the moon to find the planets Mars and Saturn, and the star Antares in late February and early March. Read more.
March 2016 is the best month of this year for seeing the planet Jupiter. The Earth in its faster, smaller orbit around the sun swings in between the sun and Jupiter on March 8, 2016. This marks Jupiter’s opposition, when it appears opposite the sun in Earth’s sky.
The king planet Jupiter lords over the nighttime sky whenever it’s at opposition. Jupiter not only shines all night long, but beams at its brightest best for the year. At opposition, this dazzling world rises in the east at sunset, climbs highest up for the night at midnight and sets in the west at sunrise. Although Jupiter ranks as the second-brightest planet, after Venus, Venus is only visible for a short while before sunrise. That leaves the king planet to rule the night.
Two other planets, Mars and Saturn, are in fine view in the morning sky. If you’re a morning person, you’re in luck because Mars and Saturn are best seen in the predawn sky, especially during the dark hour before dawn. Follow the links below to learn more about the March planets.
Mercury lost in glare of sunrise
Venus, brightest planet, east before sunrise
Jupiter lords over the March nighttime sky
Mars, brightening daily, from late night till dawn
Saturn, near Antares, shines in predawn sky
Like what EarthSky offers? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!
Astronomy events, star parties, festivals, workshops
From late January, and through mid-February, 5 bright planets were visible at once in the predawn sky. This image is from February 8, 2016. It’s by Eliot Herman in Tucson, Arizona. View on Flickr.
Mercury lost in the glare of sunrise. In the final week of January 2016 and the first two weeks of February 2016, Mercury joined up with the other four morning planets – Venus, Saturn, Mars and Jupiter – to present all five naked-eye planets in the same sky for the first time since the year 2005. Numerous EarthSky stargazers around the globe shared their photos of the five planets for our viewing pleasure. We extend a great big thank you to our EarthSky friends!
Photos of all five naked-eye planets in one sky
See all five visible planets simultaneously!
Mercury rises before the sun in early March but probably sits too close to close to the glare of sunrise to be visible. Mercury swings behind the sun on March 23, to transition from the morning to the evening sky. Quite by coincidence, the March 2016 full moon falls on this same date, on March 23.
First of season’s 4 full moons March 23
Don’t expect to see Mercury in March 2016. Some two weeks after Mercury’s entry into the evening sky in late March, look for the solar system’s innermost planet to become visible after sunset toward the end of the first week of April. For the Northern Hemisphere, this will be Mercury’s finest apparition in the evening sky for the year. Stayed tuned!
Beth Katz wrote on February 12: “Finally caught Mercury and Venus from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania on Friday, February 12, 2016. The snow in my yard has kept me from wandering around with the tripod to find the right place to avoid the trees.”
Venus, brightest planet, east before sunrise. No matter where you are on Earth, here’s a very fun observation to make this month: Venus at dawn. Venus is the brightest planet and third-brightest sky object overall, after the sun and moon. When it’s visible, it’s very, very prominent in our sky.
But this month, in March 2016, you’ll have to be especially vigilant to catch Venus before sunrise – especially from northerly latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. From both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, Venus will be sinking toward the sunrise throughout the month.
As viewed from mid-northern latitudes, Venus starts the month rising about one hour before the sun, yet by the month’s end, only rises about one-half hour before sunrise. The view is better from the Southern Hemisphere, with Venus rising about two hours before the sun in early March, and about one and one-hours hours before sunrise by the month’s end.
Look for the thin waning crescent moon to pair up with Venus in your eastern sky before sunrise March 7. Binoculars may come in handy if you live in the Northern Hemisphere.
Moon closest to Jupiter on March 21. Read more
Jupiter lords over the March nighttime sky. Jupiter is the only planet to light up the sky almost immediately after sunset, blazing away in the east at nightfall or early evening in early March. Jupiter reaches opposition on March 8, at which time this brilliant world rises in the east at sunset, climbs highest up for the night at midnight and sets in the west at sunrise. Jupiter’s opposition is an especially celebrated event, because that’s when this world is out all night long, from dusk till dawn. Moreover, this is when Earth comes closest to Jupiter for the year, and Jupiter, in turn, shines at its brightest best in Earth’s sky.
Jupiter’s opposition happens less than one day before the new moon, providing a deliciouslydark sky for observing Jupiter through the telescope. By the way, the new moon on March 8-9 will pass in front of the sun, to stage a total solar eclipse in Indonesia, and a partial solar eclipse for much of southern and eastern Asia, northern and western Australia, Alaska and Hawaii.
Supermoon total solar eclipse March 8-9
The moon swings close to Jupiter on the sky’s dome for several days, centered on March 21.
If you have binoculars or a telescope, it’s fairly easy to see Jupiter’s four major moons, which look like pinpricks of light on or near the same plane. They are often called the Galilean moons to honor Galileo, who discovered these great Jovian moons in 1610. In their order from Jupiter, these moons are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.
These moons circle Jupiter around the Jovian equator. In cycles of six years, we view Jupiter’s equator edge-on. So, in 2015, we got to view a number of mutual events involving Jupiter’s moons through a high-powered telescope. Click here or here or here for more details.
Although Jupiter’s axial tilt is only 3o out of perpendicular relative to the ecliptic (Earth’s orbital plane), Jupiter’s axis will tilt enough toward the sun and Earth so that the farthest of these four moons, Callisto, will NOT pass in front of Jupiter or behind Jupiter for a period of about three years, starting in late 2016. During this approximate 3-year period, Callisto will remain “perpetually” visible, alternately swinging “above” and “below” Jupiter.
Click here for a Jupiter’s moons almanac, courtesy of Sky & Telescope.
Watch the moon move past the planets Mars and Saturn, plus the star Antares in late March. The green line depicts the ecliptic – Earth’s orbital plane projected onto the constellations of the Zodiac.
Mars, brightening daily, from late night till dawn. Mars is not as bright as Venus or Jupiter. However, Mars will be brightening by leaps and bounds in the next several months, to double in brilliance in March 2016 alone. Mars rises in the east quite late at night from mid-northern latitudes all month long. Mars rises around midnight local time in early March, and around 11:00 p.m. local time (midnight by daylight-saving time) by the month’s end.
Mars rises earlier at temperate latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. In early March, the red planet comes up around 10 to 11 p.m. local time in early March, and by the month’s end, at roughly 9 p.m. local time.
Let the waning crescent moon help guide your eye to Mars (and Saturn) in the morning sky on March 1. Then, to double your pleasure, watch the moon swing by Mars (and Saturn) at the month’s end, too, as shown on the above sky chart. Mars will eventually catch up with Saturn on August 25, 2016, to present a conjunction of these two worlds in the August evening sky.
From either the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, Mars (and nearby Saturn) are best viewed in the morning hours. Look for Mars and Saturn to be highest up in the sky just before dawn’s first light.
Mars will continue to brighten month by month, until the Red Planet culminates in brightness in May, 2016. Believe it or not, Mars will be about as brilliant then as Jupiter is now!
We’re looking ahead to some three months later, when Jupiter, Mars and Saturn will be lighting up the June 2016 evening sky as soon as darkness falls. The green line depicts the ecliptic – the sun’s yearly path in front of the constellations of the Zodiac.
Saturn, near Antares, shines in predawn sky. Saturn shines near Antares, the brightest star in the constellation Scorpius all through March 2016. From mid-northern latitudes, the ringed planet starts the month rising in the east around 2 a.m. local time. By the month’s end, Saturn rises at about midnight local time (1 a.m. local daylight-saving time).
As for temperate latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere, Saturn rises in the east at roughly midnight local time in early March. By the end of the month, Saturn will be up around 10 p.m. local time.
Although Saturn shines on par with the sky’s brightest stars, its brilliance can’t match that of Mars. Look for Saturn near Mars in the predawn sky, and for these two worlds to form a bright celestial triangle with the star Antares in the March predawn sky. Mars is brighter than Saturn, which in turn is brighter than Antares.
Watch for the moon to swing by Saturn for several days, centered on or near March 29. See the above sky chart.
Saturn, the farthest world that you can easily view with the eye alone, appears golden in color. It shines with a steady light. Binoculars don’t reveal Saturn’s gorgeous rings, by the way. For that, you need a small telescope. But binoculars will enhance Saturn’s golden color.
Saturn’s rings are inclined at a little more than 26o from edge-on in March 2016, exhibiting their northern face. Next year, in October 2017, the rings will open most widely, displaying a maximum inclination of 27o. As with so much in space (and on Earth), the appearance of Saturn’s rings from Earth is cyclical. In the year 2025, the rings will appear edge-on as seen from Earth. After that, we’ll begin to see the south side of Saturn’s rings, to increase to a maximum inclination of 27o by May, 2032.
What do we mean by visible planet? By visible planet, we mean any solar system planet that is easily visible without an optical aid and that has been watched by our ancestors since time immemorial. In their outward order from the sun, the five visible planets are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. These planets are visible in our sky because their disks reflect sunlight, and these relatively nearby worlds tend to shine with a steadier light than the distant, twinkling stars. They’re often bright! You can spot them, and come to know them as faithful friends, if you try.
Bottom line: March 2016 is Jupiter’s month to bask in the light of the sun. But two other planets, Mars and Saturn, are in fine view in the predawn hours, and with some diligence, you might catch Venus before sunrise.
Easily locate stars and constellations with EarthSky’s planisphere.
Don’t miss anything. Subscribe to EarthSky News by email
Awesome month for planets before dawn: October, 2015! Photo taken October 2, 2015 by Mohamed Laaifat Photographies in Normandy, France.
Eastern sky before dawn now. Photo taken September 18, 2015 and submitted to EarthSky by Greg Hogan in Kathleen, Georgia. Thanks, Greg!
View larger. Evening dusk on August 5: Venus at left. Mercury is climbing higher, toward Regulus (at top) and Jupiter (beneath Regulus).
By the evening of July 12, Venus and Jupiter were farther apart and lower in the western sky after sunset. Photo by Robert Kelly. Thanks, Robert!
Photo taken June 13, 2015 by John Nelson at Puget Sound, Washington. Thanks, John!
View larger. | Photo taken in early June, 2015 by Göran Strand in Sweden. He wrote: “One of the last nights during the spring when the stars were still visible … ” Follow Fotograf Göran Strand on Facebook, or @astrofotografen on Instagram. Or visit his website.
Lunar eclipse on the night of October 8, 2014. The object to the left is the planet Uranus! This beautiful photo is by Janey Wing Kenyon of Story, Wyoming.
Debra Fryar in Calobreves, Texas captured this photo of the moon and Jupiter on May 31, 2014. Jupiter was close to the twilight then.
With only a modest backyard telescope, you can easily see Jupiter’s four largest moons. Here they are through a 10″ (25 cm) Meade LX200 telescope. Image credit: Jan Sandberg
Jupiter was rivaling the streetlights, when Mohamed Laaifat Photographies captured this photo in Normandy, France. Visit his page on Facebook.
Venus by Danny Crocker-Jensen
These are called star trails. It’s a long-exposure photo, which shows you how Earth is turning under the stars. The brightest object here is Jupiter, which is the second-brightest planet, after Venus. This awesome photo by EarthSky Facebook friend Mohamed Laaifat in Normandy, France. Thank you, Mohamed.
Skywatcher, by Predrag Agatonovic.
Easily locate stars and constellations with EarthSky’s planisphere.
Don’t miss anything. Subscribe to EarthSky News by email
Use the moon to find the planets Mars and Saturn, and the star Antares in late February and early March. Read more.
March 2016 is the best month of this year for seeing the planet Jupiter. The Earth in its faster, smaller orbit around the sun swings in between the sun and Jupiter on March 8, 2016. This marks Jupiter’s opposition, when it appears opposite the sun in Earth’s sky.
The king planet Jupiter lords over the nighttime sky whenever it’s at opposition. Jupiter not only shines all night long, but beams at its brightest best for the year. At opposition, this dazzling world rises in the east at sunset, climbs highest up for the night at midnight and sets in the west at sunrise. Although Jupiter ranks as the second-brightest planet, after Venus, Venus is only visible for a short while before sunrise. That leaves the king planet to rule the night.
Two other planets, Mars and Saturn, are in fine view in the morning sky. If you’re a morning person, you’re in luck because Mars and Saturn are best seen in the predawn sky, especially during the dark hour before dawn. Follow the links below to learn more about the March planets.
Mercury lost in glare of sunrise
Venus, brightest planet, east before sunrise
Jupiter lords over the March nighttime sky
Mars, brightening daily, from late night till dawn
Saturn, near Antares, shines in predawn sky
Like what EarthSky offers? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!
Astronomy events, star parties, festivals, workshops
From late January, and through mid-February, 5 bright planets were visible at once in the predawn sky. This image is from February 8, 2016. It’s by Eliot Herman in Tucson, Arizona. View on Flickr.
Mercury lost in the glare of sunrise. In the final week of January 2016 and the first two weeks of February 2016, Mercury joined up with the other four morning planets – Venus, Saturn, Mars and Jupiter – to present all five naked-eye planets in the same sky for the first time since the year 2005. Numerous EarthSky stargazers around the globe shared their photos of the five planets for our viewing pleasure. We extend a great big thank you to our EarthSky friends!
Photos of all five naked-eye planets in one sky
See all five visible planets simultaneously!
Mercury rises before the sun in early March but probably sits too close to close to the glare of sunrise to be visible. Mercury swings behind the sun on March 23, to transition from the morning to the evening sky. Quite by coincidence, the March 2016 full moon falls on this same date, on March 23.
First of season’s 4 full moons March 23
Don’t expect to see Mercury in March 2016. Some two weeks after Mercury’s entry into the evening sky in late March, look for the solar system’s innermost planet to become visible after sunset toward the end of the first week of April. For the Northern Hemisphere, this will be Mercury’s finest apparition in the evening sky for the year. Stayed tuned!
Beth Katz wrote on February 12: “Finally caught Mercury and Venus from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania on Friday, February 12, 2016. The snow in my yard has kept me from wandering around with the tripod to find the right place to avoid the trees.”
Venus, brightest planet, east before sunrise. No matter where you are on Earth, here’s a very fun observation to make this month: Venus at dawn. Venus is the brightest planet and third-brightest sky object overall, after the sun and moon. When it’s visible, it’s very, very prominent in our sky.
But this month, in March 2016, you’ll have to be especially vigilant to catch Venus before sunrise – especially from northerly latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. From both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, Venus will be sinking toward the sunrise throughout the month.
As viewed from mid-northern latitudes, Venus starts the month rising about one hour before the sun, yet by the month’s end, only rises about one-half hour before sunrise. The view is better from the Southern Hemisphere, with Venus rising about two hours before the sun in early March, and about one and one-hours hours before sunrise by the month’s end.
Look for the thin waning crescent moon to pair up with Venus in your eastern sky before sunrise March 7. Binoculars may come in handy if you live in the Northern Hemisphere.
Moon closest to Jupiter on March 21. Read more
Jupiter lords over the March nighttime sky. Jupiter is the only planet to light up the sky almost immediately after sunset, blazing away in the east at nightfall or early evening in early March. Jupiter reaches opposition on March 8, at which time this brilliant world rises in the east at sunset, climbs highest up for the night at midnight and sets in the west at sunrise. Jupiter’s opposition is an especially celebrated event, because that’s when this world is out all night long, from dusk till dawn. Moreover, this is when Earth comes closest to Jupiter for the year, and Jupiter, in turn, shines at its brightest best in Earth’s sky.
Jupiter’s opposition happens less than one day before the new moon, providing a deliciouslydark sky for observing Jupiter through the telescope. By the way, the new moon on March 8-9 will pass in front of the sun, to stage a total solar eclipse in Indonesia, and a partial solar eclipse for much of southern and eastern Asia, northern and western Australia, Alaska and Hawaii.
Supermoon total solar eclipse March 8-9
The moon swings close to Jupiter on the sky’s dome for several days, centered on March 21.
If you have binoculars or a telescope, it’s fairly easy to see Jupiter’s four major moons, which look like pinpricks of light on or near the same plane. They are often called the Galilean moons to honor Galileo, who discovered these great Jovian moons in 1610. In their order from Jupiter, these moons are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.
These moons circle Jupiter around the Jovian equator. In cycles of six years, we view Jupiter’s equator edge-on. So, in 2015, we got to view a number of mutual events involving Jupiter’s moons through a high-powered telescope. Click here or here or here for more details.
Although Jupiter’s axial tilt is only 3o out of perpendicular relative to the ecliptic (Earth’s orbital plane), Jupiter’s axis will tilt enough toward the sun and Earth so that the farthest of these four moons, Callisto, will NOT pass in front of Jupiter or behind Jupiter for a period of about three years, starting in late 2016. During this approximate 3-year period, Callisto will remain “perpetually” visible, alternately swinging “above” and “below” Jupiter.
Click here for a Jupiter’s moons almanac, courtesy of Sky & Telescope.
Watch the moon move past the planets Mars and Saturn, plus the star Antares in late March. The green line depicts the ecliptic – Earth’s orbital plane projected onto the constellations of the Zodiac.
Mars, brightening daily, from late night till dawn. Mars is not as bright as Venus or Jupiter. However, Mars will be brightening by leaps and bounds in the next several months, to double in brilliance in March 2016 alone. Mars rises in the east quite late at night from mid-northern latitudes all month long. Mars rises around midnight local time in early March, and around 11:00 p.m. local time (midnight by daylight-saving time) by the month’s end.
Mars rises earlier at temperate latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. In early March, the red planet comes up around 10 to 11 p.m. local time in early March, and by the month’s end, at roughly 9 p.m. local time.
Let the waning crescent moon help guide your eye to Mars (and Saturn) in the morning sky on March 1. Then, to double your pleasure, watch the moon swing by Mars (and Saturn) at the month’s end, too, as shown on the above sky chart. Mars will eventually catch up with Saturn on August 25, 2016, to present a conjunction of these two worlds in the August evening sky.
From either the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, Mars (and nearby Saturn) are best viewed in the morning hours. Look for Mars and Saturn to be highest up in the sky just before dawn’s first light.
Mars will continue to brighten month by month, until the Red Planet culminates in brightness in May, 2016. Believe it or not, Mars will be about as brilliant then as Jupiter is now!
We’re looking ahead to some three months later, when Jupiter, Mars and Saturn will be lighting up the June 2016 evening sky as soon as darkness falls. The green line depicts the ecliptic – the sun’s yearly path in front of the constellations of the Zodiac.
Saturn, near Antares, shines in predawn sky. Saturn shines near Antares, the brightest star in the constellation Scorpius all through March 2016. From mid-northern latitudes, the ringed planet starts the month rising in the east around 2 a.m. local time. By the month’s end, Saturn rises at about midnight local time (1 a.m. local daylight-saving time).
As for temperate latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere, Saturn rises in the east at roughly midnight local time in early March. By the end of the month, Saturn will be up around 10 p.m. local time.
Although Saturn shines on par with the sky’s brightest stars, its brilliance can’t match that of Mars. Look for Saturn near Mars in the predawn sky, and for these two worlds to form a bright celestial triangle with the star Antares in the March predawn sky. Mars is brighter than Saturn, which in turn is brighter than Antares.
Watch for the moon to swing by Saturn for several days, centered on or near March 29. See the above sky chart.
Saturn, the farthest world that you can easily view with the eye alone, appears golden in color. It shines with a steady light. Binoculars don’t reveal Saturn’s gorgeous rings, by the way. For that, you need a small telescope. But binoculars will enhance Saturn’s golden color.
Saturn’s rings are inclined at a little more than 26o from edge-on in March 2016, exhibiting their northern face. Next year, in October 2017, the rings will open most widely, displaying a maximum inclination of 27o. As with so much in space (and on Earth), the appearance of Saturn’s rings from Earth is cyclical. In the year 2025, the rings will appear edge-on as seen from Earth. After that, we’ll begin to see the south side of Saturn’s rings, to increase to a maximum inclination of 27o by May, 2032.
What do we mean by visible planet? By visible planet, we mean any solar system planet that is easily visible without an optical aid and that has been watched by our ancestors since time immemorial. In their outward order from the sun, the five visible planets are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. These planets are visible in our sky because their disks reflect sunlight, and these relatively nearby worlds tend to shine with a steadier light than the distant, twinkling stars. They’re often bright! You can spot them, and come to know them as faithful friends, if you try.
Bottom line: March 2016 is Jupiter’s month to bask in the light of the sun. But two other planets, Mars and Saturn, are in fine view in the predawn hours, and with some diligence, you might catch Venus before sunrise.
Easily locate stars and constellations with EarthSky’s planisphere.
Don’t miss anything. Subscribe to EarthSky News by email
Awesome month for planets before dawn: October, 2015! Photo taken October 2, 2015 by Mohamed Laaifat Photographies in Normandy, France.
Eastern sky before dawn now. Photo taken September 18, 2015 and submitted to EarthSky by Greg Hogan in Kathleen, Georgia. Thanks, Greg!
View larger. Evening dusk on August 5: Venus at left. Mercury is climbing higher, toward Regulus (at top) and Jupiter (beneath Regulus).
By the evening of July 12, Venus and Jupiter were farther apart and lower in the western sky after sunset. Photo by Robert Kelly. Thanks, Robert!
Photo taken June 13, 2015 by John Nelson at Puget Sound, Washington. Thanks, John!
View larger. | Photo taken in early June, 2015 by Göran Strand in Sweden. He wrote: “One of the last nights during the spring when the stars were still visible … ” Follow Fotograf Göran Strand on Facebook, or @astrofotografen on Instagram. Or visit his website.
Lunar eclipse on the night of October 8, 2014. The object to the left is the planet Uranus! This beautiful photo is by Janey Wing Kenyon of Story, Wyoming.
Debra Fryar in Calobreves, Texas captured this photo of the moon and Jupiter on May 31, 2014. Jupiter was close to the twilight then.
With only a modest backyard telescope, you can easily see Jupiter’s four largest moons. Here they are through a 10″ (25 cm) Meade LX200 telescope. Image credit: Jan Sandberg
Jupiter was rivaling the streetlights, when Mohamed Laaifat Photographies captured this photo in Normandy, France. Visit his page on Facebook.
Venus by Danny Crocker-Jensen
These are called star trails. It’s a long-exposure photo, which shows you how Earth is turning under the stars. The brightest object here is Jupiter, which is the second-brightest planet, after Venus. This awesome photo by EarthSky Facebook friend Mohamed Laaifat in Normandy, France. Thank you, Mohamed.
Skywatcher, by Predrag Agatonovic.
Easily locate stars and constellations with EarthSky’s planisphere.
Don’t miss anything. Subscribe to EarthSky News by email
A classroom activity helps students explore questions related to password security. Conversations about cyber security and safeguarding personal information online are important to have with students, and activities like Password Duel help students engage directly with these concepts through fun, educational, hands-on exploration, testing, and data analysis in a game designed specifically for classroom use.
With more and more activities taking place online, and students setting up accounts for everything from social media to school management tools and virtual classrooms, cyber security is an increasingly important issue for students to understand. Being smart about online passwords involves more than simply not telling someone else a password or not keeping it written down and taped somewhere obvious.
What makes a good password? How can students develop smart password strategies?
A new classroom activity at Science Buddies helps students explore password security in a fun science activity that lets students experience firsthand how adding layers of complexity to passwords can strengthen passwords and make them harder to guess.
A Password Cracking Challenge for the Classroom
There is a difference between what makes a password difficult for another human to guess and what it takes to make a password difficult to guess for a computer program that has been designed to crack passwords and can run through hundreds of thousands of possibilities in a matter of seconds. The Password Duel classroom activity helps students see and better understand how password strength increases with complexity and variation. Learning to make smart choices about passwords to help prevent other individuals being able to guess them is a step towards smart online behavior.
In the Password Duel activity, students play a game in which they try and guess the password of an opposing team member. In each round, teams are assigned different kinds of passwords. As a class, students track data related to how many times each kind of password is guessed. The more rounds played, the more data students are able to collect, and the more apparent the results will be.
What is easier to guess? A single digit password 0-9? A double-digit password 0-99? A single lowercase letter password (a-z)? A two-character password that can use numbers 0-99 or lowercase letters (a-z)? What happens if you add punctuation marks in a password? What happens if you increase the number of characters allowed? How can you determine the number of possible combinations for a password? The answers to some of these questions may seem obvious, but this classroom activity engages students directly with the concept of password security (and password theft) and lets them observe how the strength of a password is related to certain variables involved in creating a password.
For testing purposes, the activity uses very short passwords for the rounds of the Password Duel activity. After the activity, teacher and students can talk about the data they gathered, what they observed when trying to guess different kinds of passwords, and about ways to extend what they observed into real-world practices.
Both an educator guide and a student guide are available for this classroom activity.
Making Connections
For students interested in password security, the following projects and activities may also be of interest:
A classroom activity helps students explore questions related to password security. Conversations about cyber security and safeguarding personal information online are important to have with students, and activities like Password Duel help students engage directly with these concepts through fun, educational, hands-on exploration, testing, and data analysis in a game designed specifically for classroom use.
With more and more activities taking place online, and students setting up accounts for everything from social media to school management tools and virtual classrooms, cyber security is an increasingly important issue for students to understand. Being smart about online passwords involves more than simply not telling someone else a password or not keeping it written down and taped somewhere obvious.
What makes a good password? How can students develop smart password strategies?
A new classroom activity at Science Buddies helps students explore password security in a fun science activity that lets students experience firsthand how adding layers of complexity to passwords can strengthen passwords and make them harder to guess.
A Password Cracking Challenge for the Classroom
There is a difference between what makes a password difficult for another human to guess and what it takes to make a password difficult to guess for a computer program that has been designed to crack passwords and can run through hundreds of thousands of possibilities in a matter of seconds. The Password Duel classroom activity helps students see and better understand how password strength increases with complexity and variation. Learning to make smart choices about passwords to help prevent other individuals being able to guess them is a step towards smart online behavior.
In the Password Duel activity, students play a game in which they try and guess the password of an opposing team member. In each round, teams are assigned different kinds of passwords. As a class, students track data related to how many times each kind of password is guessed. The more rounds played, the more data students are able to collect, and the more apparent the results will be.
What is easier to guess? A single digit password 0-9? A double-digit password 0-99? A single lowercase letter password (a-z)? A two-character password that can use numbers 0-99 or lowercase letters (a-z)? What happens if you add punctuation marks in a password? What happens if you increase the number of characters allowed? How can you determine the number of possible combinations for a password? The answers to some of these questions may seem obvious, but this classroom activity engages students directly with the concept of password security (and password theft) and lets them observe how the strength of a password is related to certain variables involved in creating a password.
For testing purposes, the activity uses very short passwords for the rounds of the Password Duel activity. After the activity, teacher and students can talk about the data they gathered, what they observed when trying to guess different kinds of passwords, and about ways to extend what they observed into real-world practices.
Both an educator guide and a student guide are available for this classroom activity.
Making Connections
For students interested in password security, the following projects and activities may also be of interest:
View larger. | Expected position in the sky of asteroid 2013 TX68 as of March 1, 2016, about 30 minutes after sunset. The space rock will be difficult to observe even with telescopes, especially if the asteroid passes at a great distance. At present, its distance at closest approach is not known. Illustration by Eddie Irizarry using Stellarium.
UPDATE February 29, 2016. Astronomers have continued to be able to refine the orbit of asteroid 2013 TX68, a space rock that will safely pass by Earth around March 8 at 00:06 UTC (March 7 at 7:06 pm ET). But its precise distance at its closest point is still not precisely known.
Marco Micheli of the European Space Agency’s NEO Coordination Centre (NEOCC/SpaceDys) in Frascati, Italy, realized that this object – which was observed only briefly in 2013 before going into a region of the sky lit by the sun’s glare – was visible on some images a few days before it was officially detected on October 6, 2013. The new images let scientists roughly refine its trajectory, but just a bit. It has been determined that the space rock’s closest possible approach to Earth in early March is farther than earlier thought.
The most recent estimate indicates the asteroid may pass at a nominal or most probable distance of 3,104,591 miles (4,996,355 km). However, the space rock may still pass as close as 19,000 miles (30,000 km) or as far as 10,722,990 miles (17,256,980 km). Astronomers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory say the variation in possible nearest distances for this asteroid is due to the wide range of possible trajectories for this object, which was tracked for only a short time after its discovery in 2013.
Asteroid 2013 TX68 may pass by Earth around the evening of March 7 (according to clocks in the Eastern Time zone), but the time uncertainty is still 2 days. That means the space rock may be passing by our planet sometime between the evenings of March 5 and 9. The asteroid is travelling at a speed of 34,279 miles per hour (55,166 km/h).
If the new trajectory estimate is correct, there is no longer even a remote risk of impact in September, 2017, as earlier estimates had indicated.
Indeed, according to the latest orbit predictions, the next approach of asteroid 2013 TX68 will not be in 2017. It may pass by our planet again on September 18, 2056. However, the next closest approach dates predictions can change again, as soon as the asteroid is re-observed and its orbit is better understood and precisely defined.
Why is there so much uncertainty about this object?
It’s the scenario that astronomers have always cautioned us about … the fact that asteroid 2013 TX68 is approaching Earth from the sun’s direction. In late February, the space rock was still approaching Earth from this direction, although the asteroid was actually at a greater distance from us than our star. In other words, it has been in the daytime sky, and astronomers can’t observe it.
The uncertainty of the exact date of closest approach as well as the precise orbit, is due to the fact that asteroid 2013 TX68 was just observed during 10 days (including the newly found pre-discovery images). That is still a short time to define an orbit precisely. After it was observed and tracked for those few days in 2013, the asteroid passed into Earth’s daytime sky and could no longer be observed.
On February 11, 2016, NASA removed asteroid 2013 TX68 from a list of space rocks with possibilities of future impact with Earth over the next 100 years.
If the asteroid passes at its closest possible distance of just 19,254 miles (30,986 km), which seems unlikely, the flyby would still be even closer than orbiting communications satellites.
Preliminary estimates of the size of asteroid 2013 TX68 suggest the space rock has a diameter of 30 meters (98 ft), which is about twice the size of the Chelyabinsk meteor that entered over Russian skies in February, 2013.
If a space rock of this size were to enter our atmosphere, it would produce a shock wave at least twice as intense as that of the Chelyabinsk meteor, which broke windows in six Russian cities – caused more than 1,500 people to seek medical care, mostly due to cuts from flying glass – and did other damage to thousands of buildings.
How close will asteroid 2013 TX68 pass in early March? We will find out very soon, but scientists are not concerned. Paul Chodas, manager of NASA’s Center for Near-Earth Object Studies (CNEOS):
We already knew this asteroid, 2013 TX68, would safely fly past Earth in early March, but this additional data allow us to get a better handle on its orbital path.
The data indicate that this small asteroid will probably pass much farther away from Earth than previously thought.
Prospects for observing this asteroid, which were not very good to begin with, are now even worse because the asteroid is likely to be farther away, and therefore dimmer than previously believed.
Read more about asteroid 2013 TX68 at JPL’s site
Artist’s concept of an asteroid approaching Earth.
Orbit of asteroid 2013 TX68. The small arrow depicts the direction of the space rock, showing the asteroid is coming approximately from the sun’s direction, as seen from the perspective of Earth. Image via NASA/JPL-Caltech.
Bottom line: Astronomers know that asteroid 2013 TX68 will pass closest to Earth between March 5 and 9, 2016. It may pass farther than previously thought, but astronomers will better define its orbit very soon.
View larger. | Expected position in the sky of asteroid 2013 TX68 as of March 1, 2016, about 30 minutes after sunset. The space rock will be difficult to observe even with telescopes, especially if the asteroid passes at a great distance. At present, its distance at closest approach is not known. Illustration by Eddie Irizarry using Stellarium.
UPDATE February 29, 2016. Astronomers have continued to be able to refine the orbit of asteroid 2013 TX68, a space rock that will safely pass by Earth around March 8 at 00:06 UTC (March 7 at 7:06 pm ET). But its precise distance at its closest point is still not precisely known.
Marco Micheli of the European Space Agency’s NEO Coordination Centre (NEOCC/SpaceDys) in Frascati, Italy, realized that this object – which was observed only briefly in 2013 before going into a region of the sky lit by the sun’s glare – was visible on some images a few days before it was officially detected on October 6, 2013. The new images let scientists roughly refine its trajectory, but just a bit. It has been determined that the space rock’s closest possible approach to Earth in early March is farther than earlier thought.
The most recent estimate indicates the asteroid may pass at a nominal or most probable distance of 3,104,591 miles (4,996,355 km). However, the space rock may still pass as close as 19,000 miles (30,000 km) or as far as 10,722,990 miles (17,256,980 km). Astronomers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory say the variation in possible nearest distances for this asteroid is due to the wide range of possible trajectories for this object, which was tracked for only a short time after its discovery in 2013.
Asteroid 2013 TX68 may pass by Earth around the evening of March 7 (according to clocks in the Eastern Time zone), but the time uncertainty is still 2 days. That means the space rock may be passing by our planet sometime between the evenings of March 5 and 9. The asteroid is travelling at a speed of 34,279 miles per hour (55,166 km/h).
If the new trajectory estimate is correct, there is no longer even a remote risk of impact in September, 2017, as earlier estimates had indicated.
Indeed, according to the latest orbit predictions, the next approach of asteroid 2013 TX68 will not be in 2017. It may pass by our planet again on September 18, 2056. However, the next closest approach dates predictions can change again, as soon as the asteroid is re-observed and its orbit is better understood and precisely defined.
Why is there so much uncertainty about this object?
It’s the scenario that astronomers have always cautioned us about … the fact that asteroid 2013 TX68 is approaching Earth from the sun’s direction. In late February, the space rock was still approaching Earth from this direction, although the asteroid was actually at a greater distance from us than our star. In other words, it has been in the daytime sky, and astronomers can’t observe it.
The uncertainty of the exact date of closest approach as well as the precise orbit, is due to the fact that asteroid 2013 TX68 was just observed during 10 days (including the newly found pre-discovery images). That is still a short time to define an orbit precisely. After it was observed and tracked for those few days in 2013, the asteroid passed into Earth’s daytime sky and could no longer be observed.
On February 11, 2016, NASA removed asteroid 2013 TX68 from a list of space rocks with possibilities of future impact with Earth over the next 100 years.
If the asteroid passes at its closest possible distance of just 19,254 miles (30,986 km), which seems unlikely, the flyby would still be even closer than orbiting communications satellites.
Preliminary estimates of the size of asteroid 2013 TX68 suggest the space rock has a diameter of 30 meters (98 ft), which is about twice the size of the Chelyabinsk meteor that entered over Russian skies in February, 2013.
If a space rock of this size were to enter our atmosphere, it would produce a shock wave at least twice as intense as that of the Chelyabinsk meteor, which broke windows in six Russian cities – caused more than 1,500 people to seek medical care, mostly due to cuts from flying glass – and did other damage to thousands of buildings.
How close will asteroid 2013 TX68 pass in early March? We will find out very soon, but scientists are not concerned. Paul Chodas, manager of NASA’s Center for Near-Earth Object Studies (CNEOS):
We already knew this asteroid, 2013 TX68, would safely fly past Earth in early March, but this additional data allow us to get a better handle on its orbital path.
The data indicate that this small asteroid will probably pass much farther away from Earth than previously thought.
Prospects for observing this asteroid, which were not very good to begin with, are now even worse because the asteroid is likely to be farther away, and therefore dimmer than previously believed.
Read more about asteroid 2013 TX68 at JPL’s site
Artist’s concept of an asteroid approaching Earth.
Orbit of asteroid 2013 TX68. The small arrow depicts the direction of the space rock, showing the asteroid is coming approximately from the sun’s direction, as seen from the perspective of Earth. Image via NASA/JPL-Caltech.
Bottom line: Astronomers know that asteroid 2013 TX68 will pass closest to Earth between March 5 and 9, 2016. It may pass farther than previously thought, but astronomers will better define its orbit very soon.
“I lost both parents to lung cancer. The doctors did what they could, but treatments back then were not what they are today. Lung cancer is a formidable opponent. Young researchers should take this opportunity to learn from the best – families like us are willing them to succeed.”
These were the words of one of Manchester’s most famous adopted sons, the legendary Sir Alex Ferguson, who opened the inaugural Cancer Research UK Lung Cancer Centre of excellence conference in the city with a rallying call via video for why lung cancer research means so much to him.
Lung cancer is the world’s biggest cancer killer: it’s the second most common cancer and claims more than 35,000 lives a year. And while rates are slowly falling in men, they’re still rising in women – a worrying trend that reflects smoking patterns over the last few decades.
Despite the progress we’ve seen in many types of cancer, lung cancer survival is still poor. And we’ve made it one of our top priorities to change this.
Back in 2014, we announced the new Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence – a big step towards accelerating progress against lung cancer.
And the end of December saw the Centre’s first ambitious conference take place, bringing together the world’s leading lung cancer experts to share their latest findings. And getting everyone in one room gave researchers the opportunity to fire up new research ideas and speed up progress in understanding and treating the disease.
The event included talks from biologists, geneticists, immunologists, physics experts and clinicians. Here’s a summary of the top themes that came out of the meeting.
Lung cancer experts are unanimous on one point; survival is low because many patients are diagnosed too late to be given life-saving surgery.
One possible solution to this problem is screening – testing healthy people with no symptoms for signs of lung cancer.
Dr Sam Janes, a specialist consultant at the UCL Cancer Research UK Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence, went through some of the advantages and disadvantages of giving people at high risk of lung cancer (for example heavy, long-term smokers) a type of scan, called a low-dose CT scan, to spot tumours earlier.
It’s a complicated subject – on the one hand, a scan can potentially detect lung cancer at an early stage, meaning a patient’s chance of having successful treatment is higher.
But on the other, screening smokers might offer them false reassurance and de-motivate them from attempting to quit – this is something that would need to be looked into.
The scans themselves also give out radiation – albeit small doses – that can increase the risk of developing other types of cancer. And an abnormality spotted on a scan doesn’t definitely mean the person has lung cancer, or that it will grow aggressively and put life at risk. So there are concerns that some people might have unnecessary and risky operations or be treated for cancer that would not have harmed them.
It’s a complex topic, and it’s not clear yet how the benefits and harms stack up against each other.
Professor Avrum Spira, from Boston University in the US, is tackling some of these problems from an exciting and innovative angle. He believes we need tests that could be used alongside scans to help make decisions on whether a person needs an invasive diagnostic procedure. And his team has developed a test in the US to try and do this.
When smokers underwent surgery to diagnose a suspicious growth in the lung following a CT scan, he collected a sample of cells from the airways at the same time.
He tested the cells to find out the general level and pattern of genetic mistakes caused by smoking, and found the results from the airway cells gave a good indication of how likely the growth was to be cancer. His hope is that one day cells taken from the airway – or even the nose – could be used to decide whether someone needs an invasive biopsy or can be monitored with scans, reducing the number of people who are given unnecessary treatment.
“The nose knows,” he told the audience. We’ll wait and see if he’s right.
Over the last couple of decades we’ve seen the era of precision medicine dawn – treatments that specifically home in on the genetic faults underpinning different types of cancer.
But while many lung cancers respond well to targeted treatments, there’s a huge problem: resistance. In these cases, the cancer returns and treatment stops working.
But in recent years researchers have shown that most tumours are a mix of genetically different groups of cancer cells that can change and evolve over time, helping this resistance take hold.
Understanding the genetic differences between lung cancer cells and the changes that happen during treatment is going to be critical in re-sensitising them, or knowing what other treatments to give the patient. But how do we best analyse and monitor cancer over time? Taking repeated samples via surgery is usually not an option, taking too much of a toll on patients.
Professor Caroline Dive, joint lead of the Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence based in Manchester, is hoping that blood samples may be the answer. She’s focusing on what cells that have broken away from the tumour and entered the bloodstream can tell doctors about the disease – how likely it is to come back, and how effective new treatments are.
Her team has been able to isolate these circulating tumour cells from patients and recreate lung cancer tumours in mice. And in developing this approach they have found a promising new drug combination.
Other exciting approaches to monitoring lung cancer may come from looking at DNA shed by tumours into the blood, and using detailed imaging to predict cancer’s behaviour by analysing its size, shape and location.
As well as tracking the changes in lung cancer over time, another key focus of the conference was on better treatments.
Preventing resistance is more effective than treating resistance
– Dr Pasi Janne, Dana Farber Cancer Institute in the US
Most lung cancers respond well to the different treatments available – chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and certain ‘targeted’ treatments. But they often come back resistant to these therapies.
One of the hot debates at the conference was how best to tackle this challenge. “Preventing resistance is more effective than treating resistance,” said Dr Pasi Janne, from the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in the US.
Some doctors were in favour of combining more therapies for a patient’s initial treatment, with a view to stopping any cancer cells surviving and becoming resistant.
Others favoured a less intensive front-line approach, and preferred developing strategies to keep patients’ lung cancer under control long term – turning it into a chronic disease rather than one that kills. This approach would need a better understanding of cancer evolution and new treatments to stop resistant cells growing.
Both lines of attack have advantages and disadvantages, but one thing is for certain – we urgently need more clinical trials to help doctors find out the answers.
No conference would be complete without mention of the most exciting type of treatment to emerge over the last few years – immunotherapy.
The session was introduced by Professor Tim Illidge, who joked that the rising success of immunotherapy bore a striking resemblance to the inverse drop in form Manchester United had seen in recent years.
A big challenge for immunotherapy is working out who might benefit from it. And there was a lot of interest in which tumour cell molecules make good targets for the immune system, and whether these molecular ‘red flags’ were present on all of the cancer cells or just groups of them.
The bottom line, from leading experts like Dr Sergio Quezada from UCL in London, was that the ‘quality’ of the red flag was going to be critical in boosting a strong immune response against cancer.
And there are lots of promising treatments in the pipeline – drugs that stop cancer cells hiding, treatments that re-educate immune cells, and even vaccines that turn immune cells against cancer.
There’s a lot we still don’t understand about immunotherapies and who is going to benefit from them, but there’s clearly huge determination from researchers to find this out. Clinical trials testing immunotherapies for lung cancer patients are underway, with many questions over timing and the best way to combine them with other treatments still remaining.
While there’s still a long way to go, we are making progress for lung cancer patients. And there was a great sense of optimism from the scientists and doctors gathered in Manchester.
Just because things haven’t worked in the past, doesn’t mean they won’t in the future if we keep improving things
– Professor Julian Downward, Cancer Research UK
Bringing these experts together initiated lots of exciting conversations – boosting each other’s knowledge and possible new avenues opening up where scientists could work together across the UK, Europe and beyond.
For too long lung cancer hasn’t had the attention it needs. That is now changing.
“I first started working on this when my eldest daughter was first born,” said Professor Julian Downward, from the Francis Crick Institute, as he explained an approach to targeting a weakness in lung cancer cells. “We’ve now just celebrated her 13th birthday.”
“Just because things haven’t worked in the past, doesn’t mean they won’t in the future if we keep improving things,” he said.
And based on this conference, there’s a real sense that is happening.
Emma
“I lost both parents to lung cancer. The doctors did what they could, but treatments back then were not what they are today. Lung cancer is a formidable opponent. Young researchers should take this opportunity to learn from the best – families like us are willing them to succeed.”
These were the words of one of Manchester’s most famous adopted sons, the legendary Sir Alex Ferguson, who opened the inaugural Cancer Research UK Lung Cancer Centre of excellence conference in the city with a rallying call via video for why lung cancer research means so much to him.
Lung cancer is the world’s biggest cancer killer: it’s the second most common cancer and claims more than 35,000 lives a year. And while rates are slowly falling in men, they’re still rising in women – a worrying trend that reflects smoking patterns over the last few decades.
Despite the progress we’ve seen in many types of cancer, lung cancer survival is still poor. And we’ve made it one of our top priorities to change this.
Back in 2014, we announced the new Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence – a big step towards accelerating progress against lung cancer.
And the end of December saw the Centre’s first ambitious conference take place, bringing together the world’s leading lung cancer experts to share their latest findings. And getting everyone in one room gave researchers the opportunity to fire up new research ideas and speed up progress in understanding and treating the disease.
The event included talks from biologists, geneticists, immunologists, physics experts and clinicians. Here’s a summary of the top themes that came out of the meeting.
Lung cancer experts are unanimous on one point; survival is low because many patients are diagnosed too late to be given life-saving surgery.
One possible solution to this problem is screening – testing healthy people with no symptoms for signs of lung cancer.
Dr Sam Janes, a specialist consultant at the UCL Cancer Research UK Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence, went through some of the advantages and disadvantages of giving people at high risk of lung cancer (for example heavy, long-term smokers) a type of scan, called a low-dose CT scan, to spot tumours earlier.
It’s a complicated subject – on the one hand, a scan can potentially detect lung cancer at an early stage, meaning a patient’s chance of having successful treatment is higher.
But on the other, screening smokers might offer them false reassurance and de-motivate them from attempting to quit – this is something that would need to be looked into.
The scans themselves also give out radiation – albeit small doses – that can increase the risk of developing other types of cancer. And an abnormality spotted on a scan doesn’t definitely mean the person has lung cancer, or that it will grow aggressively and put life at risk. So there are concerns that some people might have unnecessary and risky operations or be treated for cancer that would not have harmed them.
It’s a complex topic, and it’s not clear yet how the benefits and harms stack up against each other.
Professor Avrum Spira, from Boston University in the US, is tackling some of these problems from an exciting and innovative angle. He believes we need tests that could be used alongside scans to help make decisions on whether a person needs an invasive diagnostic procedure. And his team has developed a test in the US to try and do this.
When smokers underwent surgery to diagnose a suspicious growth in the lung following a CT scan, he collected a sample of cells from the airways at the same time.
He tested the cells to find out the general level and pattern of genetic mistakes caused by smoking, and found the results from the airway cells gave a good indication of how likely the growth was to be cancer. His hope is that one day cells taken from the airway – or even the nose – could be used to decide whether someone needs an invasive biopsy or can be monitored with scans, reducing the number of people who are given unnecessary treatment.
“The nose knows,” he told the audience. We’ll wait and see if he’s right.
Over the last couple of decades we’ve seen the era of precision medicine dawn – treatments that specifically home in on the genetic faults underpinning different types of cancer.
But while many lung cancers respond well to targeted treatments, there’s a huge problem: resistance. In these cases, the cancer returns and treatment stops working.
But in recent years researchers have shown that most tumours are a mix of genetically different groups of cancer cells that can change and evolve over time, helping this resistance take hold.
Understanding the genetic differences between lung cancer cells and the changes that happen during treatment is going to be critical in re-sensitising them, or knowing what other treatments to give the patient. But how do we best analyse and monitor cancer over time? Taking repeated samples via surgery is usually not an option, taking too much of a toll on patients.
Professor Caroline Dive, joint lead of the Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence based in Manchester, is hoping that blood samples may be the answer. She’s focusing on what cells that have broken away from the tumour and entered the bloodstream can tell doctors about the disease – how likely it is to come back, and how effective new treatments are.
Her team has been able to isolate these circulating tumour cells from patients and recreate lung cancer tumours in mice. And in developing this approach they have found a promising new drug combination.
Other exciting approaches to monitoring lung cancer may come from looking at DNA shed by tumours into the blood, and using detailed imaging to predict cancer’s behaviour by analysing its size, shape and location.
As well as tracking the changes in lung cancer over time, another key focus of the conference was on better treatments.
Preventing resistance is more effective than treating resistance
– Dr Pasi Janne, Dana Farber Cancer Institute in the US
Most lung cancers respond well to the different treatments available – chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and certain ‘targeted’ treatments. But they often come back resistant to these therapies.
One of the hot debates at the conference was how best to tackle this challenge. “Preventing resistance is more effective than treating resistance,” said Dr Pasi Janne, from the Dana Farber Cancer Institute in the US.
Some doctors were in favour of combining more therapies for a patient’s initial treatment, with a view to stopping any cancer cells surviving and becoming resistant.
Others favoured a less intensive front-line approach, and preferred developing strategies to keep patients’ lung cancer under control long term – turning it into a chronic disease rather than one that kills. This approach would need a better understanding of cancer evolution and new treatments to stop resistant cells growing.
Both lines of attack have advantages and disadvantages, but one thing is for certain – we urgently need more clinical trials to help doctors find out the answers.
No conference would be complete without mention of the most exciting type of treatment to emerge over the last few years – immunotherapy.
The session was introduced by Professor Tim Illidge, who joked that the rising success of immunotherapy bore a striking resemblance to the inverse drop in form Manchester United had seen in recent years.
A big challenge for immunotherapy is working out who might benefit from it. And there was a lot of interest in which tumour cell molecules make good targets for the immune system, and whether these molecular ‘red flags’ were present on all of the cancer cells or just groups of them.
The bottom line, from leading experts like Dr Sergio Quezada from UCL in London, was that the ‘quality’ of the red flag was going to be critical in boosting a strong immune response against cancer.
And there are lots of promising treatments in the pipeline – drugs that stop cancer cells hiding, treatments that re-educate immune cells, and even vaccines that turn immune cells against cancer.
There’s a lot we still don’t understand about immunotherapies and who is going to benefit from them, but there’s clearly huge determination from researchers to find this out. Clinical trials testing immunotherapies for lung cancer patients are underway, with many questions over timing and the best way to combine them with other treatments still remaining.
While there’s still a long way to go, we are making progress for lung cancer patients. And there was a great sense of optimism from the scientists and doctors gathered in Manchester.
Just because things haven’t worked in the past, doesn’t mean they won’t in the future if we keep improving things
– Professor Julian Downward, Cancer Research UK
Bringing these experts together initiated lots of exciting conversations – boosting each other’s knowledge and possible new avenues opening up where scientists could work together across the UK, Europe and beyond.
For too long lung cancer hasn’t had the attention it needs. That is now changing.
“I first started working on this when my eldest daughter was first born,” said Professor Julian Downward, from the Francis Crick Institute, as he explained an approach to targeting a weakness in lung cancer cells. “We’ve now just celebrated her 13th birthday.”
“Just because things haven’t worked in the past, doesn’t mean they won’t in the future if we keep improving things,” he said.
And based on this conference, there’s a real sense that is happening.
Emma
Despite their reputation as nuisance species, modern pigeons are pretty smart:
Here are three other cool facts about pigeons:
Videos from YouTube.
Despite their reputation as nuisance species, modern pigeons are pretty smart:
Here are three other cool facts about pigeons:
Videos from YouTube.
I’ve written before about the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, which in 2009 started providing free IUDs and contraceptive implants (the two forms of long-acting reversible contraception, or LARC) to low-income women at family planning clinics in 37 Colorado counties. Between 2008 and 2014, the state’s teen birth and abortion rates both dropped by 48% (see this webinar for details). While teen birth rates have been declining nationwide in recent years, Colorado’s decline was the largest.
LARC methods have become increasingly popular in the US over the past several years. This is likely due in part to women and providers alike becoming increasingly familiar with these methods’ safety, efficacy, and suitability. In particular, IUDs’ popularity suffered after the Dalkon Shield, which had a flawed design and was associated with serious — and in some cases, fatal — negative health effects in the 1970s. (While many women in Europe continued to use other IUDs after sales of the Dalkon Shield were suspended, the vast majority of US women using contraception chose other methods.) IUDs were also originally approved only for women who had already given birth, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommend both IUDs and implants for teens and other women seeking to avoid pregnancy, whether or not they’ve had children. The main benefit of these methods is that they don’t rely on people remembering to do something every day or before every act of intercourse (like pills and barrier methods do), and as a result their failure rates are below 1%.
While familiarity with LARC methods has grown substantially over the past decade, cost can remain a barrier. The devices generally cost $500 – $1,000, which is steep for both women and providers. The Affordable Care Act requires most employer-sponsored insurance plans to cover at least one of each form of FDA-approved prescription contraceptives without cost-sharing (i.e., women shouldn’t owe co-payments for either the device or related visits). This has put IUDs and implants within financial reach for many more women — although it may take a while before all non-exempt employers are fully compliant with this ACA provision. Medicaid must cover family planning services without cost-sharing, but specific benefits can vary by state, and not all states have accepted the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.
Many low-income women obtain contraception from Title X providers, who receive federal grants in order to provide family-planning services on a sliding-scale fee basis to low-income men and women. In these cases, the cost barrier may not be just women’s out-of-pocket costs, but the cost to the Title X provider of keeping IUDs and implants in stock. Even with special pricing, Title X clinics can pay $300 – $500 for each LARC device. (One new exception to this is the Lileta IUD, approved by FDA in 2015; its manufacturer, the nonprofit company Medicines360, is making it available to providers in the 340B program for $50.) When many Title X clients pay $0 or a very small amount for the services they receive, it’s not financially sustainable for providers to buy and insert a lot of LARC devices. The Colorado Family Planning Initiative gave Title X providers money to buy IUDs and implants, and to undertake other activities like staff training that were necessary in order to serve more clients and provide free LARC to women who opted for an IUD or implant.
Think of the children!
Over the summer, the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee released a funding bill that would have eliminating all federal funding for the Title X program. Crippling the Title X program would have been terrible for public health, so I was relieved when the FY2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act kept Title X funding at its FY 2015 level. However, the House proposal made me suspect that many members of Congress don’t care sufficiently about healthcare for low-income women. But everyone cares about children, right? And a recent study from Colorado, published in the American Journal of Public Health in September, finds that pre-term births in Colorado dropped significantly after access to LARC improved.
Lisa M. Goldthwaite and colleagues from the University of Colorado used data from the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment to analyze births to Colorado women in 2008, before the CFPI began, and in 2012, after it had been fully implemented. For each birth, they captured the woman’s county of residence as well as other demographic and health information. The researchers examined the relationship between county of residence and two adverse pregnancy outcomes, preterm birth and low birthweight.
The CFPI provided funds to Title X-funded agencies that served 37 of the state’s 64 counties. The authors compared birth outcomes for women living in Title X counties to those living in counties without Title X clinics. In addition, for each of the Title X counties, they calculated the percentage of Title X clients who were using LARC methods, out of all the women using contraception at that county’s Title X clinics. These counties were then grouped into quartiles.
The authors found that between 2008 and 2012, the total number of clients receiving family-planning services from Title X providers jumped from 46,201 to 64,148, and the percentage of those clients using LARC methods rose from 1% to 9%. Statewide, the authors found a 12% decrease in the odds of preterm birth after adjusting for confounders. When comparing counties with and without Title X providers, they found the odds of preterm birth were significantly lower for women living in counties served by Title X. When comparing Title X counties by proportion of clients using LARC methods, they found the two quartiles with the greatest LARC use to have a significant decrease in preterm births when compared to the quartile with the lowest LARC use. None of the associations for low birthweight were statistically significant. Goldthwaite and her colleagues conclude (emphasis added):
Because of the association found in the present study between LARC use and PTB, increasing LARC uptake at the population level may be an important future direction for public health policy, programming, and research. In particular, our results suggest that providing access to free or affordable highly effective methods of contraception will lead to an overall reduction in rates of PTB. Although the funding provided through the Colorado Initiative ended in 2013, we encourage public health leaders in Colorado and across the United States to provide ongoing advocacy for the support of accessible and affordable family planning services.
Thanks to a group of foundations, the Colorado Family Planning Initiative received enough money to continue through mid-2016. Perhaps results such as these will convince the state’s legislators — and maybe even the US Congress — to support free access to some of the most effective forms of contraception.
I’ve written before about the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, which in 2009 started providing free IUDs and contraceptive implants (the two forms of long-acting reversible contraception, or LARC) to low-income women at family planning clinics in 37 Colorado counties. Between 2008 and 2014, the state’s teen birth and abortion rates both dropped by 48% (see this webinar for details). While teen birth rates have been declining nationwide in recent years, Colorado’s decline was the largest.
LARC methods have become increasingly popular in the US over the past several years. This is likely due in part to women and providers alike becoming increasingly familiar with these methods’ safety, efficacy, and suitability. In particular, IUDs’ popularity suffered after the Dalkon Shield, which had a flawed design and was associated with serious — and in some cases, fatal — negative health effects in the 1970s. (While many women in Europe continued to use other IUDs after sales of the Dalkon Shield were suspended, the vast majority of US women using contraception chose other methods.) IUDs were also originally approved only for women who had already given birth, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics now recommend both IUDs and implants for teens and other women seeking to avoid pregnancy, whether or not they’ve had children. The main benefit of these methods is that they don’t rely on people remembering to do something every day or before every act of intercourse (like pills and barrier methods do), and as a result their failure rates are below 1%.
While familiarity with LARC methods has grown substantially over the past decade, cost can remain a barrier. The devices generally cost $500 – $1,000, which is steep for both women and providers. The Affordable Care Act requires most employer-sponsored insurance plans to cover at least one of each form of FDA-approved prescription contraceptives without cost-sharing (i.e., women shouldn’t owe co-payments for either the device or related visits). This has put IUDs and implants within financial reach for many more women — although it may take a while before all non-exempt employers are fully compliant with this ACA provision. Medicaid must cover family planning services without cost-sharing, but specific benefits can vary by state, and not all states have accepted the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.
Many low-income women obtain contraception from Title X providers, who receive federal grants in order to provide family-planning services on a sliding-scale fee basis to low-income men and women. In these cases, the cost barrier may not be just women’s out-of-pocket costs, but the cost to the Title X provider of keeping IUDs and implants in stock. Even with special pricing, Title X clinics can pay $300 – $500 for each LARC device. (One new exception to this is the Lileta IUD, approved by FDA in 2015; its manufacturer, the nonprofit company Medicines360, is making it available to providers in the 340B program for $50.) When many Title X clients pay $0 or a very small amount for the services they receive, it’s not financially sustainable for providers to buy and insert a lot of LARC devices. The Colorado Family Planning Initiative gave Title X providers money to buy IUDs and implants, and to undertake other activities like staff training that were necessary in order to serve more clients and provide free LARC to women who opted for an IUD or implant.
Think of the children!
Over the summer, the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee released a funding bill that would have eliminating all federal funding for the Title X program. Crippling the Title X program would have been terrible for public health, so I was relieved when the FY2016 Omnibus Appropriations Act kept Title X funding at its FY 2015 level. However, the House proposal made me suspect that many members of Congress don’t care sufficiently about healthcare for low-income women. But everyone cares about children, right? And a recent study from Colorado, published in the American Journal of Public Health in September, finds that pre-term births in Colorado dropped significantly after access to LARC improved.
Lisa M. Goldthwaite and colleagues from the University of Colorado used data from the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment to analyze births to Colorado women in 2008, before the CFPI began, and in 2012, after it had been fully implemented. For each birth, they captured the woman’s county of residence as well as other demographic and health information. The researchers examined the relationship between county of residence and two adverse pregnancy outcomes, preterm birth and low birthweight.
The CFPI provided funds to Title X-funded agencies that served 37 of the state’s 64 counties. The authors compared birth outcomes for women living in Title X counties to those living in counties without Title X clinics. In addition, for each of the Title X counties, they calculated the percentage of Title X clients who were using LARC methods, out of all the women using contraception at that county’s Title X clinics. These counties were then grouped into quartiles.
The authors found that between 2008 and 2012, the total number of clients receiving family-planning services from Title X providers jumped from 46,201 to 64,148, and the percentage of those clients using LARC methods rose from 1% to 9%. Statewide, the authors found a 12% decrease in the odds of preterm birth after adjusting for confounders. When comparing counties with and without Title X providers, they found the odds of preterm birth were significantly lower for women living in counties served by Title X. When comparing Title X counties by proportion of clients using LARC methods, they found the two quartiles with the greatest LARC use to have a significant decrease in preterm births when compared to the quartile with the lowest LARC use. None of the associations for low birthweight were statistically significant. Goldthwaite and her colleagues conclude (emphasis added):
Because of the association found in the present study between LARC use and PTB, increasing LARC uptake at the population level may be an important future direction for public health policy, programming, and research. In particular, our results suggest that providing access to free or affordable highly effective methods of contraception will lead to an overall reduction in rates of PTB. Although the funding provided through the Colorado Initiative ended in 2013, we encourage public health leaders in Colorado and across the United States to provide ongoing advocacy for the support of accessible and affordable family planning services.
Thanks to a group of foundations, the Colorado Family Planning Initiative received enough money to continue through mid-2016. Perhaps results such as these will convince the state’s legislators — and maybe even the US Congress — to support free access to some of the most effective forms of contraception.
“Some of them burn slow and long, like red dwarfs. Others — blue giants — burn their due so fast they shine across great distances, and are easy to see. As they start to run out of fuel, they burn helium, grow even hotter, and explode in a supernova. Supernovas, they’re brighter than the brightest galaxies. They die, but everyone watches them go.” -Jodi Picoult
One of the toughest things to predict is where our galaxy’s next supernova will occur. The smart bet is that it will be a massive star, 20 times the Sun’s mass or more, as more than 80% of the Universe’s supernovae are of the Type II/core-collapse variety. While most bets are on Betelgeuse or Eta Carinae, there are perhaps many superior options.
Image credit: ESO/IDA/Danish 1.5 m/ R. Gendler, U.G. Jørgensen, J. Skottfelt, K. Harpsøe, of Pismis 24 and NGC 6357 in visible light.
Star cluster Pismis 24, located in the nebula NGC 6357, is a great but rarely-touted candidate, containing at least nine separate O-stars, including a star system so massive it was once thought to weigh in at 300 suns, which would have made it the single most massive star known to humanity. It’s now known to consist of at least four separate stars, at least two of which are still excellent candidates for our galaxy’s next supernova.
Image credit: NASA, ESA and Jesús Maíz Apellániz (Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, Spain). Acknowledgement: Davide De Martin (ESA/Hubble), of the star cluster Pismis 24, containing hundreds of members.
Go get the whole story — and some amazing views — on today’s Mostly Mute Monday.
“Some of them burn slow and long, like red dwarfs. Others — blue giants — burn their due so fast they shine across great distances, and are easy to see. As they start to run out of fuel, they burn helium, grow even hotter, and explode in a supernova. Supernovas, they’re brighter than the brightest galaxies. They die, but everyone watches them go.” -Jodi Picoult
One of the toughest things to predict is where our galaxy’s next supernova will occur. The smart bet is that it will be a massive star, 20 times the Sun’s mass or more, as more than 80% of the Universe’s supernovae are of the Type II/core-collapse variety. While most bets are on Betelgeuse or Eta Carinae, there are perhaps many superior options.
Image credit: ESO/IDA/Danish 1.5 m/ R. Gendler, U.G. Jørgensen, J. Skottfelt, K. Harpsøe, of Pismis 24 and NGC 6357 in visible light.
Star cluster Pismis 24, located in the nebula NGC 6357, is a great but rarely-touted candidate, containing at least nine separate O-stars, including a star system so massive it was once thought to weigh in at 300 suns, which would have made it the single most massive star known to humanity. It’s now known to consist of at least four separate stars, at least two of which are still excellent candidates for our galaxy’s next supernova.
Image credit: NASA, ESA and Jesús Maíz Apellániz (Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, Spain). Acknowledgement: Davide De Martin (ESA/Hubble), of the star cluster Pismis 24, containing hundreds of members.
Go get the whole story — and some amazing views — on today’s Mostly Mute Monday.
They even have a short list of candidates. Unfortunately, the only available copy of the secret internal report on running a third party candidate has the list blacked out (see above).
According to Scott Bland at Politico:
Conservative donors have engaged a major GOP consulting firm in Florida to research the feasibility of mounting a late, independent run for president amid growing fears that Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination.
…
“All this research has to happen before March 16, when inevitably Trump is the nominee, so that we have a plan in place,” a source familiar with the discussions said. March 16 is the day after the GOP primary in Florida…
The document, stamped “confidential,” was authored by staff at Data Targeting, a Republican firm based in Gainesville, Fla. The memo notes that “it is possible to mount an independent candidacy but [it] will require immediate action on the part of this core of key funding and strategic players.”
This, of course, would guarantee that both the Republican candidate, probably Trump, and the independent candidate, would lose. So, it is a kind of apoptosis.
Here’s the thing. Why would they do this? Why would the Republican Party build up a power base linked to a philosophy, then, when the ultimate candidate emerges, who represents that philosophy of hate and fascism comes to fore, bail?
One possibility is that the importance of corporate control of the President is the central guiding force for strategy. After all, we are talking about unspecified “donors.” Those donors are not concerned with the political philosophy of the candidate, just that the candidate be controlled.
It is interesting to compare this effect across the two parties. One could say that Clinton is more the corporate candidate and Sanders is not. But, Democrats are not actually (despite pernicious rumors the contrary) destroying sanders or planning to put him down. A lot of Democrats, including many in power, like Sanders. But when an insurgency candidate (which, it seems, is defined as not, or less, bought and paid for) comes along in the Republican party, the Programmed Party Death Button is seriously considered. The parties really are not the same.
I wouldn’t expect anything to come to this if it is a real effort to get a particular candidate to win. But if this really is an effort by the Republicans to put themselves down, then the chances of a third party run may be much higher, because it doesn’t have to work. It just has to break everything.
They even have a short list of candidates. Unfortunately, the only available copy of the secret internal report on running a third party candidate has the list blacked out (see above).
According to Scott Bland at Politico:
Conservative donors have engaged a major GOP consulting firm in Florida to research the feasibility of mounting a late, independent run for president amid growing fears that Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination.
…
“All this research has to happen before March 16, when inevitably Trump is the nominee, so that we have a plan in place,” a source familiar with the discussions said. March 16 is the day after the GOP primary in Florida…
The document, stamped “confidential,” was authored by staff at Data Targeting, a Republican firm based in Gainesville, Fla. The memo notes that “it is possible to mount an independent candidacy but [it] will require immediate action on the part of this core of key funding and strategic players.”
This, of course, would guarantee that both the Republican candidate, probably Trump, and the independent candidate, would lose. So, it is a kind of apoptosis.
Here’s the thing. Why would they do this? Why would the Republican Party build up a power base linked to a philosophy, then, when the ultimate candidate emerges, who represents that philosophy of hate and fascism comes to fore, bail?
One possibility is that the importance of corporate control of the President is the central guiding force for strategy. After all, we are talking about unspecified “donors.” Those donors are not concerned with the political philosophy of the candidate, just that the candidate be controlled.
It is interesting to compare this effect across the two parties. One could say that Clinton is more the corporate candidate and Sanders is not. But, Democrats are not actually (despite pernicious rumors the contrary) destroying sanders or planning to put him down. A lot of Democrats, including many in power, like Sanders. But when an insurgency candidate (which, it seems, is defined as not, or less, bought and paid for) comes along in the Republican party, the Programmed Party Death Button is seriously considered. The parties really are not the same.
I wouldn’t expect anything to come to this if it is a real effort to get a particular candidate to win. But if this really is an effort by the Republicans to put themselves down, then the chances of a third party run may be much higher, because it doesn’t have to work. It just has to break everything.
Rall, Ted. Snowden. New York: Random House, 2015. 224pp. ISBN-13: 978-1609806354
For those that have watched Citizenfour or read Glenn Greenwald’s No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. surveillance state, there’s not much new or shocking in Ted Rall’s excellent graphic novel, Snowden.
But for someone who hasn’t had a chance to check out either or those works, this is a fantastic place to start a deeper exploration into the amazing story around Edward Snowden, one of the major figures in the current debate about the way governments try to control and monitor the Internet. It affects our privacy, our security not to mention our sense of whether or not our governments work for our benefit or whether they see our interests as subservient to their own desire for control and secrecy. And we’re not just talking about the secret US government programs that Snowden blew the whistle on, but a whole bunch of other countries too.
Ted Rall’s very fine graphic novel uses a stark and subtle style of illustration as well as a keen sense of narrative to hit the high points. This book is highly recommended for all library collections that deal with the interface between technology and politics — academic, public and even middle school or high school libraries.
Tanaka, Etsuro; Keiko Koyama; and Becom Co. Ltd. The Manga Guide to Physiology. San Francisco: No Starch Press, 2016.256pp. ISBN-13: 978-1593274405
Similar to the Survive! Inside the Human Body graphic novel series I reviewed a little while back, The Manga Guide to Physiology is a spoonful-of-sugar-makes-the-medicine-go-down treatment of physiology in a graphic novel format, a specialty of the the publisher, No Starch Press. In fact, the Manga Guide series and the Survive! series are both No Starch publications.
An No Starch really knows how to do this type of book well. Just as the Survive! books combined a fun story with serious information about the various systems that make the human body run in quite a bit of detail, so too does the Manga Guide to Physiology. The framing story for the Manga Guide is a nursing student, Kumiko, who needs to, uh, bone up on physiology for a make up exam. Under the tutelage of a cool young prof, Kumiko combines studying for the exam with preparing to run a marathon. The framing here works extremely well as there’s plenty of opportunity for light-hearted banter and well as serious discussion about physiology. The race-training provides a great opportunity for putting the book-learning into practice! As with many other books of this type, the story line covers only fairly basic information while each chapter has several pages of more in-depth information.
This is a very fine book which would work well for a quick study of the basics in any physiology course, sort of to provide some scaffolding to help get a student over the hump. Any academic, public or school library would benefit by having this fun and instructive book in their collection.
Wicks, Maris. Human Body Theater. New York: First Second Press, 2015. 240pp. ISBN-13: 978-1626722774
Maris Wicks’ wonderful Human Body Theatre is quite similar to The Manga Guide to Physiology in that it is a fun and lighthearted digest of anatomy and physiology. However, while the Manga Guide could quite easily be used to provide some support/scaffolding for an actual course in physiology, HBT doesn’t go into anywhere near the same detail. As such, it’s more appropriate for younger students who show an interest in biology or physiology, probably at the elementary or middle school level. The art is simple and elegant yet detailed enough to illustrate the science while the story is fun and breezy. Basically, a skeleton telling it’s story through the various systems of the body while it sort of re-assembles itself into a fully-fleshed body.
A fun book that I would recommend for any school or public library as well as any academic library that collects graphic novels. It would also make a perfect gift for any child that has shown some interest in science or biology.
Yang, Gene Luen and Mike Holmes. Secret Coders, Book 1. New York: First Second Press, 2015. 96pp. ISBN-13: 978-1626720756
Want to get a youngster in your life acquainted with the logical principles that underpin computer programming? Well, Volume 1 of Gene Luen Yang and Mike Holmes’ Secret Coders series is just the book to get the tech ball rolling. Hopper has just started at a new school and is feeling a bit discombobulated. But she does make a few friends among the nerdier denizens of her new school. But there are mysteries at this new school — some sort of cleaning robot that behaves by some strange rules or instructions. Hopper and her buddies’ process of figuring out what that all means is the first step in the books stealthy introduction to what programming is all about — teaching a machine to follow instructions. Of course, we have a cliff hanger so Volume 2 is anxiously awaited.
Of course, the name of our hero is a nice nod to computing history.
This is a very fine book that I would recommend for any school or public library as well as any academic library that collections science- or technology-themed graphic novels. It would also make a great gift for any young person who might be interested in science or technology.
(Manga Guide to Physiology, Human Body Theatre and Secret Coders review copies all provided by the publishers.)
===========
Other science graphic novels and illustrated books I have reviewed:
Rall, Ted. Snowden. New York: Random House, 2015. 224pp. ISBN-13: 978-1609806354
For those that have watched Citizenfour or read Glenn Greenwald’s No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. surveillance state, there’s not much new or shocking in Ted Rall’s excellent graphic novel, Snowden.
But for someone who hasn’t had a chance to check out either or those works, this is a fantastic place to start a deeper exploration into the amazing story around Edward Snowden, one of the major figures in the current debate about the way governments try to control and monitor the Internet. It affects our privacy, our security not to mention our sense of whether or not our governments work for our benefit or whether they see our interests as subservient to their own desire for control and secrecy. And we’re not just talking about the secret US government programs that Snowden blew the whistle on, but a whole bunch of other countries too.
Ted Rall’s very fine graphic novel uses a stark and subtle style of illustration as well as a keen sense of narrative to hit the high points. This book is highly recommended for all library collections that deal with the interface between technology and politics — academic, public and even middle school or high school libraries.
Tanaka, Etsuro; Keiko Koyama; and Becom Co. Ltd. The Manga Guide to Physiology. San Francisco: No Starch Press, 2016.256pp. ISBN-13: 978-1593274405
Similar to the Survive! Inside the Human Body graphic novel series I reviewed a little while back, The Manga Guide to Physiology is a spoonful-of-sugar-makes-the-medicine-go-down treatment of physiology in a graphic novel format, a specialty of the the publisher, No Starch Press. In fact, the Manga Guide series and the Survive! series are both No Starch publications.
An No Starch really knows how to do this type of book well. Just as the Survive! books combined a fun story with serious information about the various systems that make the human body run in quite a bit of detail, so too does the Manga Guide to Physiology. The framing story for the Manga Guide is a nursing student, Kumiko, who needs to, uh, bone up on physiology for a make up exam. Under the tutelage of a cool young prof, Kumiko combines studying for the exam with preparing to run a marathon. The framing here works extremely well as there’s plenty of opportunity for light-hearted banter and well as serious discussion about physiology. The race-training provides a great opportunity for putting the book-learning into practice! As with many other books of this type, the story line covers only fairly basic information while each chapter has several pages of more in-depth information.
This is a very fine book which would work well for a quick study of the basics in any physiology course, sort of to provide some scaffolding to help get a student over the hump. Any academic, public or school library would benefit by having this fun and instructive book in their collection.
Wicks, Maris. Human Body Theater. New York: First Second Press, 2015. 240pp. ISBN-13: 978-1626722774
Maris Wicks’ wonderful Human Body Theatre is quite similar to The Manga Guide to Physiology in that it is a fun and lighthearted digest of anatomy and physiology. However, while the Manga Guide could quite easily be used to provide some support/scaffolding for an actual course in physiology, HBT doesn’t go into anywhere near the same detail. As such, it’s more appropriate for younger students who show an interest in biology or physiology, probably at the elementary or middle school level. The art is simple and elegant yet detailed enough to illustrate the science while the story is fun and breezy. Basically, a skeleton telling it’s story through the various systems of the body while it sort of re-assembles itself into a fully-fleshed body.
A fun book that I would recommend for any school or public library as well as any academic library that collects graphic novels. It would also make a perfect gift for any child that has shown some interest in science or biology.
Yang, Gene Luen and Mike Holmes. Secret Coders, Book 1. New York: First Second Press, 2015. 96pp. ISBN-13: 978-1626720756
Want to get a youngster in your life acquainted with the logical principles that underpin computer programming? Well, Volume 1 of Gene Luen Yang and Mike Holmes’ Secret Coders series is just the book to get the tech ball rolling. Hopper has just started at a new school and is feeling a bit discombobulated. But she does make a few friends among the nerdier denizens of her new school. But there are mysteries at this new school — some sort of cleaning robot that behaves by some strange rules or instructions. Hopper and her buddies’ process of figuring out what that all means is the first step in the books stealthy introduction to what programming is all about — teaching a machine to follow instructions. Of course, we have a cliff hanger so Volume 2 is anxiously awaited.
Of course, the name of our hero is a nice nod to computing history.
This is a very fine book that I would recommend for any school or public library as well as any academic library that collections science- or technology-themed graphic novels. It would also make a great gift for any young person who might be interested in science or technology.
(Manga Guide to Physiology, Human Body Theatre and Secret Coders review copies all provided by the publishers.)
===========
Other science graphic novels and illustrated books I have reviewed:
Last week, I revisited a topic I first discussed in 2014 a couple of times. It is a topic that I find simultaneously amusing and depressing at the same time, specifically a private discussion forum known as Naturopathic Chat, or NatChat for short—or, as I like to say, Sh*t Naturopaths Say When They Think No One Is Listening.
Except, of course, as we know now, someone is listening—and has been for nearly a year and a half.
It was that person listening, who goes by the ‘nym NaturoWhat, who originally allowed me a peak at the rank quackery regularly recommended by naturopaths for their patients. Most recently, he (she or it?) allowed me to see how naturopaths react to that rarest of rare beasts, the pro-vaccine naturopath, in this case a man named Eric Yarnell. Let’s just say that the reaction was one of suspicion to the point that more than one NatChat member suspected him of being the member leaking all that juicy information to skeptics and managed to persuade the hapless founder and moderator of the list, a naturopath named Mona Morstein, to temporarily ban him. The uproar was such that eventually she had to reinstate him, but it certainly wasn’t evidence that the vast majority of naturopaths were particularly accepting of pro-vaccine views. Rather, it seemed to me from their discussion that Yarnell is well enough liked by his peers that his pro-vaccine opinions are viewed more or less as a quirk of his personality to be ignored when possible and barely tolerated when not.
When I last wrote about Yarnell’s temporary excommunication (word choice intentional) from the NatChat church, I also learned three things. First, the naturopaths there really, really hate Britt Hermes, the former naturopath turned science advocate who has been revealing a lot about just how quacky naturopathy and naturopaths are on her blog Naturopathic Diaries. When the leaks from NatChat first appeared, she was the number one suspect of being the leaker, but she clearly is not. Second, I discovered that one of the two naturopaths most critical of Yarnell included Britt’s former boss, Michael Uzick, who, NaturoWhat’s transcripts revealed, was one of the naturopaths who had written to Morstein about Yarnell. Second, I learned that Colleen Huber is a “naturopathic oncologist” just like Michael Uzick. She’s also incredibly antivaccine. Thus, I found out that two of Yarnell’s harshest critics on the topic of vaccines happened to be “naturopathic oncologists.” (My fingers seized up as I typed those words, demanding scare quotes.) Indeed, Michael Uzick ND (for “not a doctor) even sports the dreaded “FABNO” after his name, which among naturopaths stands for “Fellow of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology.” Personally, I like to change “FABNO” to “FAB? NO!”
Be that as it may, I’ve written about the quackery that is naturopathic oncology on many occasions, such as how the Cancer Treatment Centers of America have naturopaths on staff to ply their quackery, the disconnect between “naturopathic oncology” and science and reality, and what happens when a dying celebrity chooses naturopathic care. Perhaps what irritates me the most about “naturopathic oncology” is how its members took part in drafting guidelines for “integrative” oncology caring for breast cancer, thanks to the Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO). Even more irritating, the SIO takes great umbrage when accused of not being science- and evidence-based even as it allows naturopaths as members. Perhaps the most amusing (and, again, depressing) part of the SIO is that it will howl to high heaven when anyone criticizes homeopathy as part of “integrative cancer care,” denying that its members could ever, ever use such pseudoscience, all apparently blissfully unaware that naturopaths not only train extensively in homeopathy but have to pass a section of their licensing examination, the NPLEX, on homeopathy. Basically, you can’t have naturopathy without homeopathy, and many of those naturopaths who are members of the SIO do use homeopathy. Heck, as I pointed out, one of them, Dugald Seely, was even principal investigator on a clinical trial of homeopathy!
He was also a major contributor to the SIO’s breast cancer care guidelines.
Seeing Michael Uzick’s name and knowing that he sports the dreaded FABNO after his name, I was curious. What sort of care does he offer his cancer patients? I was particularly interested, after seeing this post to NatChat by him in the wake of the Eric Yarnell Inquisition, excommunication, and reinstatement. First, he attacks Britt Hermes again:
We are having a strange little drama in our profession which I think is really about one or two individual naturopaths and their own issues with themselves and each other that has become attached with this horrific betrayal of a naturopath resigning from the profession, joining the quackbusters and trying to severely damage us. These quackbuster/”science based” Nazi’s originated from a vicious criminal conspiracy of a medical profession – the Chiropractors – in this US in the 1970’s.
This is no imagined vaccine conspiracy, in case you don’t know, the AMA was found guilty of conspiring to damage the Chiropractic profession by our US Federal courts in the 70’s. These court battles led to the national licensure of the Chiropractors.
Or, perhaps Britt just came to her senses and joined team science. In fact, that’s just what she did. Of course, naturoquacks like to rant on about the American Medical Association as being this all-powerful force that got slapped down for its efforts against chiropractors back in the 1960s, when what really happened was a lot more complicated than that and the antitrust suit aainst the AMA by chiropractors was in no way a vindication of chiropractic. The lawsuit did, unfortunately, make the AMA too gun shy to go very far in taking on quacks afterward, an unfortunate outcome.
Mr. Uzick once again repeats the claim that we are somehow “terrorizing” naturopaths:
They are talking to themselves. Most people either hate them or dislike them. Most people easily identify what they are about and no one is interested in “paid bias.” People are generally repulsed by it and them. They are also terrorizing us. So we are talking all about it. I think that’s very natural. But the truth is the majority of people are aligned with us. All human beings know that diet matters and inherently distrust those who deny it or are antagonistic to the natural world.
Of course, no one—and I mean no one—among the “quackbusters” claims that “diet doesn’t matter.” Mr. Uzick is truly delusional if he actually believes that that is the message we are sending. It is clear, however, that naturopaths vastly overestimate and oversell the effect of diet on health, to the point of seemingly viewing it as the be-all and end-all of health. Let’s just put it this way. You can’t cure cancer with diet alone, but I’ve seen quite a few naturopaths make that claim or come very close to that claim. As for “terrorizing Mr. Uzick,” that is the farthest thing from my mind as I write this. Rather, my sole intent is to exercise my constitutional right to free speech to express my opinion on the quackery that is naturopathy.
Let’s just put it this way again: Writing snarky criticism on the Internet ≠ “terrorism.”
Neither does lobbying state legislatures not to license naturopaths (another constitutional right), to allow them to become primary care providers (a role for which they are completely unqualified), or to expand their scope of practice. As I pointed out again last time, it’s the naturopaths who have the advantage. They have the money. They have the advocates. They have the motivation. Meanwhile in most states the various state medical organizations just don’t seem to care very much. In our state, for instance, the Michigan State Medical Society is far more concerned about preventing the expansion of the scope of practice for advanced practice nurses than it is over licensing naturopaths. It’s pathetic. So hearing someone like Mr. Uzick whine about being terrorized and persecuted leads to nothing from me but utter contempt for him.
Now here’s where things get interesting:
Today, the quackbusters/science based scum appear on their own blogs, “internet magazines” they tweet, they take claim for unsuccessful legislative efforts. Today, no one cares about them. They appear no where. I’ve been told with confidence by those involved in our licensing efforts that Britt has no impact. Did I say hated and not believed? They can trick some people momentarily and terrorize a bunch of naturopaths. But beyond that, we thousands are making meaningful differences in peoples lives on a daily basis. We truly care about people, true science based medicine and everyone can tell we are genuine in our efforts. Their agenda is paid for and there’s no lie or dark deed that’s too low for them. They have no meaningful impact, because they have nothing meaningful to offer.
Compare coming to the aid of a terminal cancer patient and their desperate family, with Britt doing everything in her power to prevent that man from receiving his only hope. She was the doctor of these of his 3 beautiful children aged 7 through 11 and she did everything in her power to stop their father from receiving treatment and closing the clinic where he and so many patients with cancer come for received help. A treatment his oncologist said was a miracle. How do those two doctors compare? That’s the difference between Britt and myself. As well as, the difference between Britt and every human being with a soul.
Hmmm. I wondered. What could this be about? Then I remembered from my previous post a reference to a RationalWiki entry on Michael Uzick. This entry pointed out that Mr. Uzick was reprimanded by the Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board about a year ago:
Consent Agreement for Letter of Reprimand From October 2013 through April 21, 2014, Respondent intravenously administered the nutrient Ukrain as part of his medical practice. Respondent obtained the Ukrain from a source not registered by the United States Food and Drug Administration or compounded by a pharmacy licensed with the State Board of Pharmacy. Respondent discontinued use of Ukrain in his medical practice before a complaint was made to the Board. A violation of A.R.S. 32-1501(31) (r ), (any conduct or practice that is contrary to recognized standards of eithics of the naturoapthic profession, any conduct or practice that does or might constitute a danger to the health, welfare or safety of the patient or the public, or any conduct, practicie or condition that does or might impair the ability to safely and skillfully practice as a doctor of naturopathic medicine.) A.R.S. 32-1501(31)(s) (failure to observe any federal, state, county or municiple law relating to public health as a physician in this state)., The practice of naturopathic medicine does not include the intravenous administration of nutrients which are not manufactured and supplied for intravenous use by a manufacturer registered with the United States Food and Drug Administration or compounded by a pharmacy licsned by the State Board of Pharmacy. A.R.S. 32-1501(15) and (28).
I had never heard of Ukrain before this; so I was curious. A bit of Googling lead me to learn that Ukrain sometimes goes by the designation NSC-631570. It didn’t take me long to discover a systematic review from 11 years ago about the drug. Basically, ukrain is a natural product derived from the extract of Chelidonium majus (commonly known as greater celandine or tetterwort, nipplewort,[3] or swallowwort). It is a semisynthetic chemical based on alkaloids from greater celandine and Thiotepa, an anticancer agent used for several malignancies, originally created in 1978 by a Ukrainian chemist named Vasyl Novytskyi (also spelled Wassil Nowicky), who claimed to have cured his brother of testicular cancer using it.
Currently, it is sold with rather overblown claims, such as that ukrain “is the first and only anticancer drug accumulating during minutes after administration in cancer cells” and that because “it triggers apoptosis in cancer cells this drug is only toxic against cancer cells while, in contrast to chemotherapy, at therapeutic dose it leaves healthy cells undamaged.” This is, of course, nonsense, because many chemotherapeutic agents trigger apoptosis in cancer cells. That’s one way potential anticancer compounds are screened, for their ability to induce apoptosis in cancer cells. That doesn’t mean they don’t also harm normal cells. Given that ukrain is a natural product modified using thiotepa, an actual anticancer compound, it is not entirely implausible that it has anticancer activity. It is quite implausible that it would be the only compound that could save a terminal cancer patient, particularly if that patient had pancreatic cancer, which is one cancer ukrain seems to be sold for a lot. There’s even a quote by Robert C. Atkins, M.D. (yes, that Robert Atkins, of the Atkins diet) that says, “Ukrain could replace chemotherapy in treating almost all cancers.”
There’s a huge red flag right there for any cancer therapy, the claim that it can treat all cancers and replace chemotherapy, not to mention the claim that it has no toxicity and “regenerates the immune system.” It’s also expensive, with costs for intravenous therapy estimated to run as high as €3,000 per week.
If you’re familiar with a lot of alternative cancer treatments you won’t be surprised at the story of ukrain: Case reports, some with miraculous cures of terminal patients, and some small clinical trials that seemed promising. Unlike a lot of compounds, there is a fair amount of preclinical evidence in cell culture that ukrain exhibits selective toxicity against several cancer cell lines and animal tumor models, all of which is good. However, many are the compounds that seem promising in preclinical models but fail when used in humans.
Edzard Ernst’s systematic review discusses the issues with ukrain. He notes that the preclinical and existing clinical trial evidence, on the surface, appear very promising. However, the clinical trial evidence, upon closer inspection, leaves much to be desired:
None of the RCTs in this systematic review is without serious methodological limitations. The Jadad score [119] of most RCTs was low. Their sample size was usually small, and a sample size calculation to define the number of patients required was lacking in most cases. Even though most RCTs were non-inferiority studies by design and purpose, their statistical approach was that of a superiority trial. The majority of RCTs were conducted in Ukrainian research institutes and published in only two different journals. In several trials, there are clear signs of involvement of the manufacturer of Ukrain. Most RCTs have generally been poorly evaluated and reported, which possibly reflects the poverty of clinical science in Eastern Europe. Independent replications are not available. The only German study [125] has also been heavily criticised: its sample size (30 patients in each group) is minute, the report lacks statistical detail and there is an inequality of treatment cycles between groups [127]. It was also noted that this study (the only RCT not published in the same two journals as all the other RCTs) was published in a journal for which the senior author served as editor [127]. No RCTs were found showing negative or near neutral results; this might suggest the existence of publication bias for which we did, however, find no definite proof.
In other words, the clinical evidence is mildly promising, but weak. Certainly there is no evidence that ukrain is the miracle drug that Mr. Uzick seemed to think it was in his rant. Ernst elaborated on his own blog, ruefully noting that his systematic review, which basically concluded that there were too many problems with the existing evidence to recommend ukrain, although there was enough evidence to warrant larger, more rigorous randomized clinical trials, had an unintended effect:
Despite our caution, this article became much cited, and cancer centres around the world began to wonder whether they should take Ukrain more seriously; many integrative cancer clinics even started using the drug in their clinical routine. Dr Nowicky, who meanwhile had established his base in Vienna from where he marketed his drug, must have been delighted.
Soon, numerous websites sprang up praising Ukrain: “It is the first medicament in the world that accumulates in the cores of cancer cells very quickly after administration and kills only cancer cells while leaving healthy cells undamaged. Its inventor and patent holder Dr Wassil Nowicky was nominated for the Nobel Prize for this medicament in 2005…”
I’ve found that another red flag for quackery is the claim that the creator of a treatment was “nominated” for the Nobel Prize. Being nominated says nothing about how close one comes to actually winning, and the list of what the Nobel Prize Committee considers “qualified nominators” is fairly generous. For example, in medicine nominators can include holders of “established posts as full professors at the faculties of medicine in Sweden and holders of similar posts at the faculties of medicine or similar institutions in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway” and holders of “similar posts at no fewer than six other faculties of medicine at universities around the world, selected by the Nobel Assembly, with a view to ensuring the appropriate distribution of the task among various countries.”
So basically Mr. Uzick was busted for importing a drug that was not FDA-approved and giving it to desperate cancer patients. It’s a drug that might have some promise but has not yet been validated and is certainly not a cure, contrary to Mr. Uzick’s tirade against Britt Hermes for apparently having done all in her power to stop him from administering it to a terminally ill cancer patient. Because the regulation of naturopaths in Arizona is a joke, he appears to have gotten off with a slap on the wrist in the form of a reprimand, as long as he promised to be good in the future and stop administering the drug.
On his website, Uzick states:
I combine the best research supported Natural therapies from Nutritional, Botanical, Homeopathic and when required, incorporate conventional medications – often in safer, innovative forms.
So we know right away that Mr. Uzick uses what I consider to be The One Quackery To Rule Them All, homeopathy. He also uses:
At his Genesis Natural Medicine Center, which he founded, Uzick also offers chiropractic, acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine (of course), colon hydrotherapy, far infrared sauna, and many other forms of naturopathic “medicine,” if you can call it that.
If you want to know why I get so worked up when I read about “naturopathic oncology,” look no further than Mr. Uzick and his clinic. I was relieved to be unable to find any evidence that he is a member of the Society for Integrative Oncology, but depressed to contemplate that he is certainly eligible to join if he ever decided to. He is not an outlier, either; he is apparently pretty famous and well-respected among naturopaths and “naturopathic oncologists,” having served on the board of directors of the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (OncANP) and been vice president of the organization. He’s even won awards and done a fawning interview with Thomas Seyfried, whose work I have deconstructed before.
“Integrating” naturopathy into oncology or any other branch of medicine does not make medicine better. Naturopathic oncologists like Mr. Uzick demonstrate that very well. And don’t get me started on Colleen Huber.
Or maybe do. I can always use more blogging material for later this week.
Last week, I revisited a topic I first discussed in 2014 a couple of times. It is a topic that I find simultaneously amusing and depressing at the same time, specifically a private discussion forum known as Naturopathic Chat, or NatChat for short—or, as I like to say, Sh*t Naturopaths Say When They Think No One Is Listening.
Except, of course, as we know now, someone is listening—and has been for nearly a year and a half.
It was that person listening, who goes by the ‘nym NaturoWhat, who originally allowed me a peak at the rank quackery regularly recommended by naturopaths for their patients. Most recently, he (she or it?) allowed me to see how naturopaths react to that rarest of rare beasts, the pro-vaccine naturopath, in this case a man named Eric Yarnell. Let’s just say that the reaction was one of suspicion to the point that more than one NatChat member suspected him of being the member leaking all that juicy information to skeptics and managed to persuade the hapless founder and moderator of the list, a naturopath named Mona Morstein, to temporarily ban him. The uproar was such that eventually she had to reinstate him, but it certainly wasn’t evidence that the vast majority of naturopaths were particularly accepting of pro-vaccine views. Rather, it seemed to me from their discussion that Yarnell is well enough liked by his peers that his pro-vaccine opinions are viewed more or less as a quirk of his personality to be ignored when possible and barely tolerated when not.
When I last wrote about Yarnell’s temporary excommunication (word choice intentional) from the NatChat church, I also learned three things. First, the naturopaths there really, really hate Britt Hermes, the former naturopath turned science advocate who has been revealing a lot about just how quacky naturopathy and naturopaths are on her blog Naturopathic Diaries. When the leaks from NatChat first appeared, she was the number one suspect of being the leaker, but she clearly is not. Second, I discovered that one of the two naturopaths most critical of Yarnell included Britt’s former boss, Michael Uzick, who, NaturoWhat’s transcripts revealed, was one of the naturopaths who had written to Morstein about Yarnell. Second, I learned that Colleen Huber is a “naturopathic oncologist” just like Michael Uzick. She’s also incredibly antivaccine. Thus, I found out that two of Yarnell’s harshest critics on the topic of vaccines happened to be “naturopathic oncologists.” (My fingers seized up as I typed those words, demanding scare quotes.) Indeed, Michael Uzick ND (for “not a doctor) even sports the dreaded “FABNO” after his name, which among naturopaths stands for “Fellow of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology.” Personally, I like to change “FABNO” to “FAB? NO!”
Be that as it may, I’ve written about the quackery that is naturopathic oncology on many occasions, such as how the Cancer Treatment Centers of America have naturopaths on staff to ply their quackery, the disconnect between “naturopathic oncology” and science and reality, and what happens when a dying celebrity chooses naturopathic care. Perhaps what irritates me the most about “naturopathic oncology” is how its members took part in drafting guidelines for “integrative” oncology caring for breast cancer, thanks to the Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO). Even more irritating, the SIO takes great umbrage when accused of not being science- and evidence-based even as it allows naturopaths as members. Perhaps the most amusing (and, again, depressing) part of the SIO is that it will howl to high heaven when anyone criticizes homeopathy as part of “integrative cancer care,” denying that its members could ever, ever use such pseudoscience, all apparently blissfully unaware that naturopaths not only train extensively in homeopathy but have to pass a section of their licensing examination, the NPLEX, on homeopathy. Basically, you can’t have naturopathy without homeopathy, and many of those naturopaths who are members of the SIO do use homeopathy. Heck, as I pointed out, one of them, Dugald Seely, was even principal investigator on a clinical trial of homeopathy!
He was also a major contributor to the SIO’s breast cancer care guidelines.
Seeing Michael Uzick’s name and knowing that he sports the dreaded FABNO after his name, I was curious. What sort of care does he offer his cancer patients? I was particularly interested, after seeing this post to NatChat by him in the wake of the Eric Yarnell Inquisition, excommunication, and reinstatement. First, he attacks Britt Hermes again:
We are having a strange little drama in our profession which I think is really about one or two individual naturopaths and their own issues with themselves and each other that has become attached with this horrific betrayal of a naturopath resigning from the profession, joining the quackbusters and trying to severely damage us. These quackbuster/”science based” Nazi’s originated from a vicious criminal conspiracy of a medical profession – the Chiropractors – in this US in the 1970’s.
This is no imagined vaccine conspiracy, in case you don’t know, the AMA was found guilty of conspiring to damage the Chiropractic profession by our US Federal courts in the 70’s. These court battles led to the national licensure of the Chiropractors.
Or, perhaps Britt just came to her senses and joined team science. In fact, that’s just what she did. Of course, naturoquacks like to rant on about the American Medical Association as being this all-powerful force that got slapped down for its efforts against chiropractors back in the 1960s, when what really happened was a lot more complicated than that and the antitrust suit aainst the AMA by chiropractors was in no way a vindication of chiropractic. The lawsuit did, unfortunately, make the AMA too gun shy to go very far in taking on quacks afterward, an unfortunate outcome.
Mr. Uzick once again repeats the claim that we are somehow “terrorizing” naturopaths:
They are talking to themselves. Most people either hate them or dislike them. Most people easily identify what they are about and no one is interested in “paid bias.” People are generally repulsed by it and them. They are also terrorizing us. So we are talking all about it. I think that’s very natural. But the truth is the majority of people are aligned with us. All human beings know that diet matters and inherently distrust those who deny it or are antagonistic to the natural world.
Of course, no one—and I mean no one—among the “quackbusters” claims that “diet doesn’t matter.” Mr. Uzick is truly delusional if he actually believes that that is the message we are sending. It is clear, however, that naturopaths vastly overestimate and oversell the effect of diet on health, to the point of seemingly viewing it as the be-all and end-all of health. Let’s just put it this way. You can’t cure cancer with diet alone, but I’ve seen quite a few naturopaths make that claim or come very close to that claim. As for “terrorizing Mr. Uzick,” that is the farthest thing from my mind as I write this. Rather, my sole intent is to exercise my constitutional right to free speech to express my opinion on the quackery that is naturopathy.
Let’s just put it this way again: Writing snarky criticism on the Internet ≠ “terrorism.”
Neither does lobbying state legislatures not to license naturopaths (another constitutional right), to allow them to become primary care providers (a role for which they are completely unqualified), or to expand their scope of practice. As I pointed out again last time, it’s the naturopaths who have the advantage. They have the money. They have the advocates. They have the motivation. Meanwhile in most states the various state medical organizations just don’t seem to care very much. In our state, for instance, the Michigan State Medical Society is far more concerned about preventing the expansion of the scope of practice for advanced practice nurses than it is over licensing naturopaths. It’s pathetic. So hearing someone like Mr. Uzick whine about being terrorized and persecuted leads to nothing from me but utter contempt for him.
Now here’s where things get interesting:
Today, the quackbusters/science based scum appear on their own blogs, “internet magazines” they tweet, they take claim for unsuccessful legislative efforts. Today, no one cares about them. They appear no where. I’ve been told with confidence by those involved in our licensing efforts that Britt has no impact. Did I say hated and not believed? They can trick some people momentarily and terrorize a bunch of naturopaths. But beyond that, we thousands are making meaningful differences in peoples lives on a daily basis. We truly care about people, true science based medicine and everyone can tell we are genuine in our efforts. Their agenda is paid for and there’s no lie or dark deed that’s too low for them. They have no meaningful impact, because they have nothing meaningful to offer.
Compare coming to the aid of a terminal cancer patient and their desperate family, with Britt doing everything in her power to prevent that man from receiving his only hope. She was the doctor of these of his 3 beautiful children aged 7 through 11 and she did everything in her power to stop their father from receiving treatment and closing the clinic where he and so many patients with cancer come for received help. A treatment his oncologist said was a miracle. How do those two doctors compare? That’s the difference between Britt and myself. As well as, the difference between Britt and every human being with a soul.
Hmmm. I wondered. What could this be about? Then I remembered from my previous post a reference to a RationalWiki entry on Michael Uzick. This entry pointed out that Mr. Uzick was reprimanded by the Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board about a year ago:
Consent Agreement for Letter of Reprimand From October 2013 through April 21, 2014, Respondent intravenously administered the nutrient Ukrain as part of his medical practice. Respondent obtained the Ukrain from a source not registered by the United States Food and Drug Administration or compounded by a pharmacy licensed with the State Board of Pharmacy. Respondent discontinued use of Ukrain in his medical practice before a complaint was made to the Board. A violation of A.R.S. 32-1501(31) (r ), (any conduct or practice that is contrary to recognized standards of eithics of the naturoapthic profession, any conduct or practice that does or might constitute a danger to the health, welfare or safety of the patient or the public, or any conduct, practicie or condition that does or might impair the ability to safely and skillfully practice as a doctor of naturopathic medicine.) A.R.S. 32-1501(31)(s) (failure to observe any federal, state, county or municiple law relating to public health as a physician in this state)., The practice of naturopathic medicine does not include the intravenous administration of nutrients which are not manufactured and supplied for intravenous use by a manufacturer registered with the United States Food and Drug Administration or compounded by a pharmacy licsned by the State Board of Pharmacy. A.R.S. 32-1501(15) and (28).
I had never heard of Ukrain before this; so I was curious. A bit of Googling lead me to learn that Ukrain sometimes goes by the designation NSC-631570. It didn’t take me long to discover a systematic review from 11 years ago about the drug. Basically, ukrain is a natural product derived from the extract of Chelidonium majus (commonly known as greater celandine or tetterwort, nipplewort,[3] or swallowwort). It is a semisynthetic chemical based on alkaloids from greater celandine and Thiotepa, an anticancer agent used for several malignancies, originally created in 1978 by a Ukrainian chemist named Vasyl Novytskyi (also spelled Wassil Nowicky), who claimed to have cured his brother of testicular cancer using it.
Currently, it is sold with rather overblown claims, such as that ukrain “is the first and only anticancer drug accumulating during minutes after administration in cancer cells” and that because “it triggers apoptosis in cancer cells this drug is only toxic against cancer cells while, in contrast to chemotherapy, at therapeutic dose it leaves healthy cells undamaged.” This is, of course, nonsense, because many chemotherapeutic agents trigger apoptosis in cancer cells. That’s one way potential anticancer compounds are screened, for their ability to induce apoptosis in cancer cells. That doesn’t mean they don’t also harm normal cells. Given that ukrain is a natural product modified using thiotepa, an actual anticancer compound, it is not entirely implausible that it has anticancer activity. It is quite implausible that it would be the only compound that could save a terminal cancer patient, particularly if that patient had pancreatic cancer, which is one cancer ukrain seems to be sold for a lot. There’s even a quote by Robert C. Atkins, M.D. (yes, that Robert Atkins, of the Atkins diet) that says, “Ukrain could replace chemotherapy in treating almost all cancers.”
There’s a huge red flag right there for any cancer therapy, the claim that it can treat all cancers and replace chemotherapy, not to mention the claim that it has no toxicity and “regenerates the immune system.” It’s also expensive, with costs for intravenous therapy estimated to run as high as €3,000 per week.
If you’re familiar with a lot of alternative cancer treatments you won’t be surprised at the story of ukrain: Case reports, some with miraculous cures of terminal patients, and some small clinical trials that seemed promising. Unlike a lot of compounds, there is a fair amount of preclinical evidence in cell culture that ukrain exhibits selective toxicity against several cancer cell lines and animal tumor models, all of which is good. However, many are the compounds that seem promising in preclinical models but fail when used in humans.
Edzard Ernst’s systematic review discusses the issues with ukrain. He notes that the preclinical and existing clinical trial evidence, on the surface, appear very promising. However, the clinical trial evidence, upon closer inspection, leaves much to be desired:
None of the RCTs in this systematic review is without serious methodological limitations. The Jadad score [119] of most RCTs was low. Their sample size was usually small, and a sample size calculation to define the number of patients required was lacking in most cases. Even though most RCTs were non-inferiority studies by design and purpose, their statistical approach was that of a superiority trial. The majority of RCTs were conducted in Ukrainian research institutes and published in only two different journals. In several trials, there are clear signs of involvement of the manufacturer of Ukrain. Most RCTs have generally been poorly evaluated and reported, which possibly reflects the poverty of clinical science in Eastern Europe. Independent replications are not available. The only German study [125] has also been heavily criticised: its sample size (30 patients in each group) is minute, the report lacks statistical detail and there is an inequality of treatment cycles between groups [127]. It was also noted that this study (the only RCT not published in the same two journals as all the other RCTs) was published in a journal for which the senior author served as editor [127]. No RCTs were found showing negative or near neutral results; this might suggest the existence of publication bias for which we did, however, find no definite proof.
In other words, the clinical evidence is mildly promising, but weak. Certainly there is no evidence that ukrain is the miracle drug that Mr. Uzick seemed to think it was in his rant. Ernst elaborated on his own blog, ruefully noting that his systematic review, which basically concluded that there were too many problems with the existing evidence to recommend ukrain, although there was enough evidence to warrant larger, more rigorous randomized clinical trials, had an unintended effect:
Despite our caution, this article became much cited, and cancer centres around the world began to wonder whether they should take Ukrain more seriously; many integrative cancer clinics even started using the drug in their clinical routine. Dr Nowicky, who meanwhile had established his base in Vienna from where he marketed his drug, must have been delighted.
Soon, numerous websites sprang up praising Ukrain: “It is the first medicament in the world that accumulates in the cores of cancer cells very quickly after administration and kills only cancer cells while leaving healthy cells undamaged. Its inventor and patent holder Dr Wassil Nowicky was nominated for the Nobel Prize for this medicament in 2005…”
I’ve found that another red flag for quackery is the claim that the creator of a treatment was “nominated” for the Nobel Prize. Being nominated says nothing about how close one comes to actually winning, and the list of what the Nobel Prize Committee considers “qualified nominators” is fairly generous. For example, in medicine nominators can include holders of “established posts as full professors at the faculties of medicine in Sweden and holders of similar posts at the faculties of medicine or similar institutions in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway” and holders of “similar posts at no fewer than six other faculties of medicine at universities around the world, selected by the Nobel Assembly, with a view to ensuring the appropriate distribution of the task among various countries.”
So basically Mr. Uzick was busted for importing a drug that was not FDA-approved and giving it to desperate cancer patients. It’s a drug that might have some promise but has not yet been validated and is certainly not a cure, contrary to Mr. Uzick’s tirade against Britt Hermes for apparently having done all in her power to stop him from administering it to a terminally ill cancer patient. Because the regulation of naturopaths in Arizona is a joke, he appears to have gotten off with a slap on the wrist in the form of a reprimand, as long as he promised to be good in the future and stop administering the drug.
On his website, Uzick states:
I combine the best research supported Natural therapies from Nutritional, Botanical, Homeopathic and when required, incorporate conventional medications – often in safer, innovative forms.
So we know right away that Mr. Uzick uses what I consider to be The One Quackery To Rule Them All, homeopathy. He also uses:
At his Genesis Natural Medicine Center, which he founded, Uzick also offers chiropractic, acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine (of course), colon hydrotherapy, far infrared sauna, and many other forms of naturopathic “medicine,” if you can call it that.
If you want to know why I get so worked up when I read about “naturopathic oncology,” look no further than Mr. Uzick and his clinic. I was relieved to be unable to find any evidence that he is a member of the Society for Integrative Oncology, but depressed to contemplate that he is certainly eligible to join if he ever decided to. He is not an outlier, either; he is apparently pretty famous and well-respected among naturopaths and “naturopathic oncologists,” having served on the board of directors of the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (OncANP) and been vice president of the organization. He’s even won awards and done a fawning interview with Thomas Seyfried, whose work I have deconstructed before.
“Integrating” naturopathy into oncology or any other branch of medicine does not make medicine better. Naturopathic oncologists like Mr. Uzick demonstrate that very well. And don’t get me started on Colleen Huber.
Or maybe do. I can always use more blogging material for later this week.
