aads

Identify Saturn near moon on August 2

Tonight – August 2, 2017 – the moon and the ringed planet Saturn pair up together at nightfall. In the same vicinity of sky, note another bright celestial beauty: the ruddy star Antares, the brightest star in the constellation Scorpius.

Clouded out tonight? Watch for them tomorrow night, too …

Saturn and Antares are bright, both exhibiting 1st-magnitude brightness. However, you can distinguish these two celestial luminaries by color. Saturn displays a golden hue while Antares has a ruddy complexion. If it’s hard for you to discern color, try observing Saturn and Antares with binoculars.

Better yet, try observing Saturn with a telescope. You can view Saturn’s glorious rings even with a modest backyard variety.

Patrick Prokop of Savannah, Georgia caught this shot of Saturn on July 31, 2017, using a 6-inch Celestron telescope at f10 focal length and magnified about 200X (“… about the limit for this size scope,” he said). Thanks for sharing, Patrick!

Did you know that, as seen from Earth, the orientation of Saturn’s rings appears to shift regularly, over time? This happens as we orbit the sun yearly, while Saturn orbits once every 29.5 years. In 2017 – as we gaze across space to Saturn – we are seeing the north face of Saturn’s rings. Saturn’s rings are inclined at 27o toward Earth in 2017, which is about as wide open as they ever appear to us from our world.

We see the north face of the rings for about 15 years and 9 months, then the south face for about 13 years and 9 months. The difference is due to Saturn’s eccentric orbit, with the planet traveling most swiftly at perihelion and most slowly at aphelion.

The north side of Saturn’s rings will open up most fully on October 26, 2017, to exhibit a maximum inclination of 27o.

Thereafter, the inclination of Saturn’s rings will slowly but surely diminish until the rings appear edge-on in the year 2025. At this juncture, Saturn’s rings will appear invisible to earthly observers for about one and one-half months. That’s because the rings are so thin, in contrast to their width.

View larger. .Saturn oppositions from 2001 to 2019 simulated by a computer program written by Tom Ruen.

View larger. .Saturn oppositions from 2001 to 2019 simulated by a computer program written by Tom Ruen.

This animation demonstrates the 29 year period for oppositions of Saturn from 2001 to 2029, taken from the 28 images of Saturn above.

This animation demonstrates the 29 year period for oppositions of Saturn from 2001 to 2029, taken from the 28 images of Saturn above.

After the year 2025, the south side of Saturn’s rings will start to show. Then some seven years later – on May 12, 2032 – the south side of Saturn’s rings will become maximally inclined (27o) toward Earth.

Some seven years after the south side of Saturn’s rings opens up most fully, the rings will appear edge-on and return to invisibility in 2039. Some seven years after that, the north side of Saturn’s rings will become maximally inclined (27o) toward Earth on November 15, 2046.

Contrasting the size of Saturn and its rings with our planet Earth via Hubble Heritage Team.

Contrasting the size of Saturn and its rings with our planet Earth via Hubble Heritage Team.

Saturn’s rotational axis is inclined at 27o to its orbital plane, and – as we said above – this planet takes nearly 29.5 Earth-years to orbit the sun. Therefore, the maximum inclination of Saturn’s rings recurs in a cycle of about 29.5 years, as is shown in the table and diagram below:

Maximum inclination of Saturn’s rings in the 21st century (2001 to 2100)

2003 Apr. 7: South face inclined 27o 01’
2017 Oct. 16: North face inclined 26o 59’
2032 May 12: South face inclined 26o 58’
2046 Nov. 15: North face inclined 26o 56’
2062 Mar. 31: South face inclined 27o 01’
2076 Oct. 9: North face inclined 27o 00’
2091 May 4: South face inclined 26o 59’

Source: page 295 of More Mathematical Astronomy Morsels by Jean Meeus

View larger. The astronomer Christian Huygens (1629 to 1695) explanation for the periodic disappearance of Saturn's rings in Systemma Saturnium 1659

View larger. The astronomer Christian Huygens (1629 to 1695) explanation for the periodic disappearance of Saturn’s rings in Systemma Saturnium 1659

Bottom line: On August 2, 2017, use the moon to locate the ringed planet Saturn as darkness falls. Miss ’em tonight? Try again tomorrow night.



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2vh0PMk

Tonight – August 2, 2017 – the moon and the ringed planet Saturn pair up together at nightfall. In the same vicinity of sky, note another bright celestial beauty: the ruddy star Antares, the brightest star in the constellation Scorpius.

Clouded out tonight? Watch for them tomorrow night, too …

Saturn and Antares are bright, both exhibiting 1st-magnitude brightness. However, you can distinguish these two celestial luminaries by color. Saturn displays a golden hue while Antares has a ruddy complexion. If it’s hard for you to discern color, try observing Saturn and Antares with binoculars.

Better yet, try observing Saturn with a telescope. You can view Saturn’s glorious rings even with a modest backyard variety.

Patrick Prokop of Savannah, Georgia caught this shot of Saturn on July 31, 2017, using a 6-inch Celestron telescope at f10 focal length and magnified about 200X (“… about the limit for this size scope,” he said). Thanks for sharing, Patrick!

Did you know that, as seen from Earth, the orientation of Saturn’s rings appears to shift regularly, over time? This happens as we orbit the sun yearly, while Saturn orbits once every 29.5 years. In 2017 – as we gaze across space to Saturn – we are seeing the north face of Saturn’s rings. Saturn’s rings are inclined at 27o toward Earth in 2017, which is about as wide open as they ever appear to us from our world.

We see the north face of the rings for about 15 years and 9 months, then the south face for about 13 years and 9 months. The difference is due to Saturn’s eccentric orbit, with the planet traveling most swiftly at perihelion and most slowly at aphelion.

The north side of Saturn’s rings will open up most fully on October 26, 2017, to exhibit a maximum inclination of 27o.

Thereafter, the inclination of Saturn’s rings will slowly but surely diminish until the rings appear edge-on in the year 2025. At this juncture, Saturn’s rings will appear invisible to earthly observers for about one and one-half months. That’s because the rings are so thin, in contrast to their width.

View larger. .Saturn oppositions from 2001 to 2019 simulated by a computer program written by Tom Ruen.

View larger. .Saturn oppositions from 2001 to 2019 simulated by a computer program written by Tom Ruen.

This animation demonstrates the 29 year period for oppositions of Saturn from 2001 to 2029, taken from the 28 images of Saturn above.

This animation demonstrates the 29 year period for oppositions of Saturn from 2001 to 2029, taken from the 28 images of Saturn above.

After the year 2025, the south side of Saturn’s rings will start to show. Then some seven years later – on May 12, 2032 – the south side of Saturn’s rings will become maximally inclined (27o) toward Earth.

Some seven years after the south side of Saturn’s rings opens up most fully, the rings will appear edge-on and return to invisibility in 2039. Some seven years after that, the north side of Saturn’s rings will become maximally inclined (27o) toward Earth on November 15, 2046.

Contrasting the size of Saturn and its rings with our planet Earth via Hubble Heritage Team.

Contrasting the size of Saturn and its rings with our planet Earth via Hubble Heritage Team.

Saturn’s rotational axis is inclined at 27o to its orbital plane, and – as we said above – this planet takes nearly 29.5 Earth-years to orbit the sun. Therefore, the maximum inclination of Saturn’s rings recurs in a cycle of about 29.5 years, as is shown in the table and diagram below:

Maximum inclination of Saturn’s rings in the 21st century (2001 to 2100)

2003 Apr. 7: South face inclined 27o 01’
2017 Oct. 16: North face inclined 26o 59’
2032 May 12: South face inclined 26o 58’
2046 Nov. 15: North face inclined 26o 56’
2062 Mar. 31: South face inclined 27o 01’
2076 Oct. 9: North face inclined 27o 00’
2091 May 4: South face inclined 26o 59’

Source: page 295 of More Mathematical Astronomy Morsels by Jean Meeus

View larger. The astronomer Christian Huygens (1629 to 1695) explanation for the periodic disappearance of Saturn's rings in Systemma Saturnium 1659

View larger. The astronomer Christian Huygens (1629 to 1695) explanation for the periodic disappearance of Saturn’s rings in Systemma Saturnium 1659

Bottom line: On August 2, 2017, use the moon to locate the ringed planet Saturn as darkness falls. Miss ’em tonight? Try again tomorrow night.



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2vh0PMk

An Earth-like atmosphere for Proxima b?

Artist’s concept of the surface of the Proxima b, nearest known exoplanet. It orbits the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri, closest star to our solar system. The double star Alpha Centauri AB also appears in the image to the upper-right of Proxima itself. Image via NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

In August 2016, when scientists announced the discovery of a planet orbiting the nearest known star, Proxima Centauri, people got excited. That’s largely because it’s not just any planet: it’s a planet similar in size to Earth, orbiting in its star’s habitable zone. At 4.2 light-years or 25 trillion miles from Earth, Proxima b is vastly too far away to be explored in our lifetimes (although that hasn’t stopped dreamers and visionaries like those at Breakthough Initiatives from devising plans to explore it). Still, theoretical studies are the order of the day for Proxima b. A recent one suggests that Proxima b:

…may not be able to keep a grip on its atmosphere, leaving the surface exposed to harmful stellar radiation and reducing its potential for habitability.

Habitable zone, to astronomers, means the potential for liquid water to exist on a planet’s surface. Life, as we know it, needs water. But an atmosphere is another essential ingredient for life. The team’s statement said:

Having the right atmosphere allows for climate regulation, the maintenance of a water-friendly surface pressure, shielding from hazardous space weather, and the housing of life’s chemical building blocks.

This new computer model – which was part of a NASA study, published on July 24, 2017, in the peer-reviewed Astrophysical Journal Letters – considered what would happen if Earth orbited Proxima Centauri. The study suggests Earth’s atmosphere wouldn’t survive in such close proximity to Proxima, which is an active red dwarf star that emits high-energy extreme ultraviolet radiation. This radiation has the potential to ionize gases in a planet’s atmosphere; that is, it knocks electrons off atoms and produces a swath of electrically charged particles. In this process, the newly formed electrons gain enough energy that they can readily escape a planet’s gravity and race out of the atmosphere.

On Earth, this clearly isn’t happening, but our sun is a more sedate star than Proxima. Katherine Garcia-Sage, a space scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, is lead author of the new study. She and her colleagues’ computer model used Earth’s atmosphere, magnetic field and gravity as proxies for Proxima b’s.

They also calculated how much radiation Proxima Centauri produces on average, based on observations from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory.

Stars within 12 light-years of the sun, via Guy Ottewell's Astronomical Companion. Click to view larger, Guy says:

Click to view larger. This illustration shows stars within 12 light-years of our sun, including Proxima Centauri. The lines on the grid are 4 light-years apart. Diagram via Guy Ottewell’s Astronomical Companion. Used with permission. Read more from Guy Ottewell: Where is Proxima Centauri?

In Proxima Centauri’s habitable zone, Proxima b encounters bouts of extreme ultraviolet radiation hundreds of times greater than Earth does from the sun. That radiation generates enough energy to strip away not just the lightest molecules — hydrogen — but also, over time, heavier elements such as oxygen and nitrogen. Ofer Cohen, a space scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell and co-author of the study, said:

The question is, how much of the atmosphere is lost, and how quickly does that process occur?

If we estimate that time, we can calculate how long it takes the atmosphere to completely escape — and compare that to the planet’s lifetime.

The model shows Proxima Centauri’s powerful radiation drains the Earth-like atmosphere as much as 10,000 times faster than what happens at Earth. Garcia-Sage said:

This was a simple calculation based on average activity from the host star. It doesn’t consider variations like extreme heating in the star’s atmosphere or violent stellar disturbances to the exoplanet’s magnetic field — things we’d expect provide even more ionizing radiation and atmospheric escape.

At its orbital distance from its star Proxima Centauri, the exoplanet Proxima b – nearest known exoplanet to Earth – likely couldn’t sustain an Earth-like atmosphere, according to a new theoretical study. Image via NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/ Mary Pat Hrybyk-Keith.

Shawn Domagal-Goldman, a Goddard space scientist not involved in the study, said:

This study looks at an under-appreciated aspect of habitability, which is atmospheric loss in the context of stellar physics. Planets have lots of different interacting systems, and it’s important to make sure we include these interactions in our models.

The scientists show that with the highest thermosphere temperatures and a completely open magnetic field, Proxima b could lose an amount equal to the entirety of Earth’s atmosphere in 100 million years — that’s just a fraction of Proxima b’s 4 billion years thus far. When the scientists assumed the lowest temperatures and a closed magnetic field, that much mass escapes over 2 billion years. Jeremy Drake, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-author of the study, said:

Things can get interesting if an exoplanet holds on to its atmosphere, but Proxima b’s atmospheric loss rates here are so high that habitability is implausible. This questions the habitability of planets around such red dwarfs in general.

Another red dwarf star recently in the news is the star TRAPPIST-1. Such stars are often the target of exoplanet hunts, because they are the coolest, smallest and most common stars in the galaxy. Because they are cooler and dimmer, planets have to maintain tight orbits for liquid water to be present.

But unless the atmospheric loss is counteracted by some other process — such as a massive amount of volcanic activity or comet bombardment — this close proximity, scientists are finding more often, is not promising for an atmosphere’s survival or sustainability, these scientists say.

Bottom line: Proxima b is the nearest known exoplanet and orbits in its star’s habitable zone. But a new study suggests it might not be able to hold onto its atmosphere long enough for life to develop.

Via NASA



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2vgbLKj

Artist’s concept of the surface of the Proxima b, nearest known exoplanet. It orbits the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri, closest star to our solar system. The double star Alpha Centauri AB also appears in the image to the upper-right of Proxima itself. Image via NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

In August 2016, when scientists announced the discovery of a planet orbiting the nearest known star, Proxima Centauri, people got excited. That’s largely because it’s not just any planet: it’s a planet similar in size to Earth, orbiting in its star’s habitable zone. At 4.2 light-years or 25 trillion miles from Earth, Proxima b is vastly too far away to be explored in our lifetimes (although that hasn’t stopped dreamers and visionaries like those at Breakthough Initiatives from devising plans to explore it). Still, theoretical studies are the order of the day for Proxima b. A recent one suggests that Proxima b:

…may not be able to keep a grip on its atmosphere, leaving the surface exposed to harmful stellar radiation and reducing its potential for habitability.

Habitable zone, to astronomers, means the potential for liquid water to exist on a planet’s surface. Life, as we know it, needs water. But an atmosphere is another essential ingredient for life. The team’s statement said:

Having the right atmosphere allows for climate regulation, the maintenance of a water-friendly surface pressure, shielding from hazardous space weather, and the housing of life’s chemical building blocks.

This new computer model – which was part of a NASA study, published on July 24, 2017, in the peer-reviewed Astrophysical Journal Letters – considered what would happen if Earth orbited Proxima Centauri. The study suggests Earth’s atmosphere wouldn’t survive in such close proximity to Proxima, which is an active red dwarf star that emits high-energy extreme ultraviolet radiation. This radiation has the potential to ionize gases in a planet’s atmosphere; that is, it knocks electrons off atoms and produces a swath of electrically charged particles. In this process, the newly formed electrons gain enough energy that they can readily escape a planet’s gravity and race out of the atmosphere.

On Earth, this clearly isn’t happening, but our sun is a more sedate star than Proxima. Katherine Garcia-Sage, a space scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, is lead author of the new study. She and her colleagues’ computer model used Earth’s atmosphere, magnetic field and gravity as proxies for Proxima b’s.

They also calculated how much radiation Proxima Centauri produces on average, based on observations from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory.

Stars within 12 light-years of the sun, via Guy Ottewell's Astronomical Companion. Click to view larger, Guy says:

Click to view larger. This illustration shows stars within 12 light-years of our sun, including Proxima Centauri. The lines on the grid are 4 light-years apart. Diagram via Guy Ottewell’s Astronomical Companion. Used with permission. Read more from Guy Ottewell: Where is Proxima Centauri?

In Proxima Centauri’s habitable zone, Proxima b encounters bouts of extreme ultraviolet radiation hundreds of times greater than Earth does from the sun. That radiation generates enough energy to strip away not just the lightest molecules — hydrogen — but also, over time, heavier elements such as oxygen and nitrogen. Ofer Cohen, a space scientist at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell and co-author of the study, said:

The question is, how much of the atmosphere is lost, and how quickly does that process occur?

If we estimate that time, we can calculate how long it takes the atmosphere to completely escape — and compare that to the planet’s lifetime.

The model shows Proxima Centauri’s powerful radiation drains the Earth-like atmosphere as much as 10,000 times faster than what happens at Earth. Garcia-Sage said:

This was a simple calculation based on average activity from the host star. It doesn’t consider variations like extreme heating in the star’s atmosphere or violent stellar disturbances to the exoplanet’s magnetic field — things we’d expect provide even more ionizing radiation and atmospheric escape.

At its orbital distance from its star Proxima Centauri, the exoplanet Proxima b – nearest known exoplanet to Earth – likely couldn’t sustain an Earth-like atmosphere, according to a new theoretical study. Image via NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/ Mary Pat Hrybyk-Keith.

Shawn Domagal-Goldman, a Goddard space scientist not involved in the study, said:

This study looks at an under-appreciated aspect of habitability, which is atmospheric loss in the context of stellar physics. Planets have lots of different interacting systems, and it’s important to make sure we include these interactions in our models.

The scientists show that with the highest thermosphere temperatures and a completely open magnetic field, Proxima b could lose an amount equal to the entirety of Earth’s atmosphere in 100 million years — that’s just a fraction of Proxima b’s 4 billion years thus far. When the scientists assumed the lowest temperatures and a closed magnetic field, that much mass escapes over 2 billion years. Jeremy Drake, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-author of the study, said:

Things can get interesting if an exoplanet holds on to its atmosphere, but Proxima b’s atmospheric loss rates here are so high that habitability is implausible. This questions the habitability of planets around such red dwarfs in general.

Another red dwarf star recently in the news is the star TRAPPIST-1. Such stars are often the target of exoplanet hunts, because they are the coolest, smallest and most common stars in the galaxy. Because they are cooler and dimmer, planets have to maintain tight orbits for liquid water to be present.

But unless the atmospheric loss is counteracted by some other process — such as a massive amount of volcanic activity or comet bombardment — this close proximity, scientists are finding more often, is not promising for an atmosphere’s survival or sustainability, these scientists say.

Bottom line: Proxima b is the nearest known exoplanet and orbits in its star’s habitable zone. But a new study suggests it might not be able to hold onto its atmosphere long enough for life to develop.

Via NASA



from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2vgbLKj

Maryam Mirzakhani, A Candle Illuminating The Dark (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“I think it’s rarely about what you actually learn in class. It’s mostly about things that you stay motivated to go and continue to do on your own.” -Maryam Mirzakhani, on success in mathematics

Only a few weeks ago, pioneering mathematician and the first (and only) woman to win the Fields Medal, Maryam Mirzakhani, tragically died of cancer at the young age of 40. Her brilliant work had applications to a huge variety of problems, from the periodic and/or chaotic motions of billiard balls to the question of designing a room that, even if completely covered by mirrors, could never be illuminated by a single candle.

A room where the walls, even if completely covered with mirrors, would never have every location illuminated, was a mathematically interesting conjecture that was only solved recently. Image credit: Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI) / Numberphile / Brady Haran / Howard Masur.

Her life and her work were cut short by disease, but the story of both is truly an inspiration, as well as a testament to the power of creative thinking and the capabilities of the human mind. The pursuit of knowledge knows no national, racial, or gendered borders, and Maryam Mirzakhani’s life was a testament to that.

As a young girl, Maryam Mirzakhani was more interested in reading and literature than she was in mathematics. Once she discovered her true love for mathematics, however, she couldn’t be kept from it. Image credit: Family photo from Maryam Mirzakhani’s childhood.

Paul Halpern, in his own unique style, has written a beautiful testament to the late Maryam Mirzakhani. Get to know her, and her groundbreaking work, today!



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2hk5ckg

“I think it’s rarely about what you actually learn in class. It’s mostly about things that you stay motivated to go and continue to do on your own.” -Maryam Mirzakhani, on success in mathematics

Only a few weeks ago, pioneering mathematician and the first (and only) woman to win the Fields Medal, Maryam Mirzakhani, tragically died of cancer at the young age of 40. Her brilliant work had applications to a huge variety of problems, from the periodic and/or chaotic motions of billiard balls to the question of designing a room that, even if completely covered by mirrors, could never be illuminated by a single candle.

A room where the walls, even if completely covered with mirrors, would never have every location illuminated, was a mathematically interesting conjecture that was only solved recently. Image credit: Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI) / Numberphile / Brady Haran / Howard Masur.

Her life and her work were cut short by disease, but the story of both is truly an inspiration, as well as a testament to the power of creative thinking and the capabilities of the human mind. The pursuit of knowledge knows no national, racial, or gendered borders, and Maryam Mirzakhani’s life was a testament to that.

As a young girl, Maryam Mirzakhani was more interested in reading and literature than she was in mathematics. Once she discovered her true love for mathematics, however, she couldn’t be kept from it. Image credit: Family photo from Maryam Mirzakhani’s childhood.

Paul Halpern, in his own unique style, has written a beautiful testament to the late Maryam Mirzakhani. Get to know her, and her groundbreaking work, today!



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2hk5ckg

No alternative medicine ever disappears when shown to be ineffective: The case of laetrile [Respectful Insolence]

Everything old is new again, or so it always seems with alternative medicine.

Before I explain what I’m talking about a bit more, let me just preface my remarks with an explanation for why there was no post tomorrow. I realize that most people probably don’t care that much if I miss a day or two, but I care. Basically, I was in Chicago from Thursday through Sunday taking a rather grueling review course in general surgery offered by the American College of Surgeons. The reason is that I have to take my board recertification examination in general surgery in December. It was an amazing course, and I was stunned at how much outside of my specialty had changed in the decade since I last had to recertify, just as, I’m sure, those who don’t specialize in breast surgery were shocked at how much has changed in how the surgical care of breast cancer has changed in the last decade. (I might have more to say about this in a later post.) The primary reason I’m mentioning now (other than because it explains why I didn’t manage to get a new post for this blog) is because this change in the standard of care in response to new scientific evidence is one of the greatest features of science-based medicine. It’s also one of the biggest contrasts between science-based medicine and alternative medicine; i.e., what I like to call quackery, mainly because it is.

I was reminded of this contrast by an article I came across on Buzzfeed yesterday, These People Are Making Money Off A Bogus Cancer Cure That Doctors Say Could Poison You. Of course, I knew right away what the article was about just from the title, without even having to note that the blurb for the article mentioned apricot seeds. Yes, we’re talking laetrile here, and apparently there are still quacks who are partying like it’s 1979, which was laetrile’s heyday as an alternative cancer cure:

The San Francisco Bay Area doctor had been giving patients a therapy that is essentially a chemical compound found in apricot kernels and known by several names — laetrile, amygdalin, vitamin B17. Richardson had been told it could attack tumors, naturally and precisely. It can also convert into potentially poisonous amounts of cyanide when eaten. But Richardson was a true believer.

“Yes, the evidence that Vitamin B17 is nature’s control for cancer is quite overwhelming,” he wrote in his book. “So the next time you hear an official spokesman for orthodox medicine proclaim that there is none, you might tell him that such a statement is a ‘self-evident absurdity’ and suggest that he do his homework before posing as an expert.”

Less convinced were the police who, on June 2, 1972, barged into Richardson’s clinic and jailed him on charges of medical quackery. He eventually lost his medical license and was charged with smuggling laetrile, an illegal drug, into the country.

It turns out that Richardson’s son is continuing the family business, so to speak:

Now, three decades after Richardson’s death, his son, John Richardson Jr., is no stranger to apricot seeds. Through Apricot Power, his thriving e-commerce store, he sells bitter seeds ($32.99 for 1,500), seed extract-based tablets (up to $97.99 a bottle), and B17-infused anti-aging cream ($49.99). Recipes for apricot-seed pesto, egg nog, and marzipan offer a “delicious and easy” way to work the supposed superfood into your diet, and videos explain why the site’s mission is to “get B17 into every body!” Though Richardson Jr. won’t reveal revenue numbers, he says his family operation of around 10 employees has served “thousands” of customers all over the world since it launched in 1999.

See what I mean? In the early 1980s, clinical trials showed that laetrile had no appreciable anticancer effect in humans and that it was also toxic. (The reason, of course, is the cyanide.) In science-based medicine, that would have been that. The treatment would have abandoned. But that’s not how alternative medicine works. True, laetrile did fade in popularity for a couple of decades after that, but of late it appears to be undergoing somewhat of a resurgence and “renaissance” (if you can call the revival of dangerous quackery a “renaissance”). I first noticed it three years ago when Eric Merola, the man behind two propaganda films promoting Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer quackery, decided to shift topics to—you guessed it—laetrile. He directed a documentary entitled Second Opinion: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering, which, like his films on Burzynski were full of misinformation, obvious bias and spin, and just plain quackery and pseudoscience. Basically, as I discussed in my deconstruction of his film, the central idea being that Ralph Moss, who was a science writer of some sort at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and is now laetrile’s foremost popularizer, along with other MSKCC employees, “leaked” documents “proving” that laetrile/amygdalin had incredible anticancer activity. It was the same old thing. According to Merola, the negative clinical trials were “rigged not to work.” According to Merola, Laetrile “tested positively” in preclinical studies but that those results were “covered up” (of course). Other works supposedly showing the efficacy of laetrile was “suppressed.”\

You get the idea.

It turns out that Richardson is a bit more canny in that he states very,.”We don’t mention the C-word in our company,” the “C-word” being cancer. The Buzzfeed article also notes:

If a customer review on Apricot Power’s website even mentions the term, the company leaves a comment pointing out that it doesn’t make any disease or illness-related claims about its products. Legally, it can’t: The FDA prohibits companies from selling laetrile, under any name, as a cancer treatment, because studies have found it to be at best ineffective, and at worst toxic.

Holy quack Miranda warning, Batman! I’ve never seen a company actually respond to any mention of cancer on its social media pages with a pre-emptive quack Miranda before!

And, thanks to that same social media, everything old is new yet again:

In laetrile’s heyday in 1981, a doctor called it “the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history.” Three decades later, the internet has only spread the gospel, creating an unstoppable, hydra-headed ecosystem of buyers and sellers.

I’ve discussed this before, of course, but I’ll briefly cover it again, mainly because there are likely to be newbies reading this. Basically, according to this article, the idea behind laetrile is that the body is lacking in a nutrient that proponents call “vitamin B17.” That’s sort of true, but only the latest iteration in the ever-morphing scientific “explanations” for how laetrile/amygdalin/vitamin B17 “works.” Basically, “Laetrile” is the trade name for laevo-mandelonitrile-beta-glucuronoside, a substance allegedly synthesized by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. in the 1920s. It’s chemically related to amygdalin, a substance found naturally in the pits of apricots and some other fruits. Again, most proponents of Laetrile for the treatment of cancer use the terms “Laetrile” and amygdalin interchangeably, and I generally do as well. Historically, amygdalin was tried as an anticancer agent as early as 1892, but was abandoned because it was ineffective and toxic, its toxicity deriving from how it can break down in the body into glucose, benzaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide.

Like the rationale for many forms of quackery, the rationale for Laetrile has shifted over the decades. In the 1950s, Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. claimed that cancer tissues are rich in an enzyme that causes amygdalin to release cyanide, which would destroy the cancer cells. Supposedly noncancerous tissues are protected by another enzyme. Later, Krebs claimed that Laetrile/amygdalin is a vitamin (B17) and, of course, cancer is due to a deficiency in that particular vitamin. Other claims have shifted, from Laetrile being a cancer cure to being able to “control” cancer to being a cancer “preventative.” Then, like so many alternative medicines, the indications for its use went what the military might call “mission creep” in that it was advocated for more and more conditions. These days, amygdalin/vitamin B17/laetrile is advocated for almost anything that ails you, just like the snake oil peddled by wandering salesmen 150 years ago.

So how did Richardson’s father get involved with selling amygdalin? He met up with Krebs, of course:

A successful salesperson must buy into what they’re selling, and Richardson Jr. is all in. Growing up in the Bay Area suburb of Orinda, he and his seven siblings weren’t fed sugar or processed wheat, an abstention he keeps up to this day. He says he started eating apricot seeds for his health at age 5. Now 52, he’s up to 40 a day.

The seeds contain amygdalin, a compound also found in apple seeds and almonds. In the 1950s, Ernst T. Krebs Jr., a self-described doctor and biochemist with no medical degree, patented a purified form of amygdalin that he called “laetrile.” He also promoted it as “vitamin B17,” although it’s not an officially recognized vitamin.

In 1971, Krebs Jr. shared with the elder Richardson his theory of how this nutrient could stop cancer growth. As Richardson later summarized: “[N]ature’s mechanism will not work if one fails to eat the foods that contain this necessary vitamin, which is exactly what has happened to modern man, whose food supply has become further and further removed from the natural state.”

Also, presaging how the antivaccine movement and other supporters of quackery have become more associated with anti-government conservative/libertarian movements, here’s what happened when the elder Richardson was arrested in 1972 for selling laetrile:

When the elder Richardson was arrested in 1972 (on charges that were dropped), it prompted his fellow members of the John Birch Society, the far-right conspiracist group of the era, to start a lobbying group to legalize laetrile. Later, Richardson was fined $20,000 and placed on probation on charges of conspiracy to smuggle laetrile from Mexico to the US. Indictments against him and 18 other accused promoters noted that he had deposited $2.5 million in his bank account over two years.

Laetrile isn’t being called laetrile much any more, but rather vitamin B17 or amygdalin, or it’s being sold in the form of apricot seeds. It’s a rather obvious “rebranding” to avoid the FDA and FTC’s ban on advertising laetrile for cancer. Avoid the “C-word,” throw in the liberal use of the quack Miranda warning, and start marketing laetrile as a dietary supplement, the better to avoid having to demonstrate efficacy and safety.

Another feature of this sort of marketing is that the companies selling supplements like amygdalin don’t actually have to make health claims. They can outsource it to the internet communities of believers who trade alternative cancer cure testimonials, to believers who have written books, made videos and movies, and write blogs. Of course, as I’ve said so many times before, dead patients don’t give testimonials; so of course only the patients who are still alive and doing relatively well are the ones promoting amygdalin with their stories. People you don’t hear about are cancer patients like this:

Campbell had a daughter who, not long after she was born, developed a rare, aggressive brain cancer and died. More than five years later, Campbell developed cancer, too, in her breast. Having watched her daughter undergo chemotherapy and radiation, she was determined to avoid them herself. So she started juicing, eating an all-vegetarian diet, and ordering cannabis oil and apricot seeds online. “She said, ‘This is my journey, it’s my body, I have to do it on my own,’” recalled Beggs, who lives in Northern Ireland. “‘You’re either with me or against me.’”

Beggs understood why Campbell distrusted conventional therapies, but “at the same time, we were so fearful,” she said. Campbell’s tumor kept growing until she finally agreed to have a mastectomy. Then new tumors sprouted in her liver and spine.

Campbell died in October 2015, soon after her 33rd birthday. By the end, she was up to 40 apricot kernels a day, her aunt said.

In quackery, be it cancer quackery or quackery used for other diseases, no treatment, no matter how ineffective and even toxic, ever disappears. No treatment ever disappears after being shown by science to be ineffective. The story of laetrile shows us that. The difference between quackery and science-based medicine could not be clearer.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2uTk8ch

Everything old is new again, or so it always seems with alternative medicine.

Before I explain what I’m talking about a bit more, let me just preface my remarks with an explanation for why there was no post tomorrow. I realize that most people probably don’t care that much if I miss a day or two, but I care. Basically, I was in Chicago from Thursday through Sunday taking a rather grueling review course in general surgery offered by the American College of Surgeons. The reason is that I have to take my board recertification examination in general surgery in December. It was an amazing course, and I was stunned at how much outside of my specialty had changed in the decade since I last had to recertify, just as, I’m sure, those who don’t specialize in breast surgery were shocked at how much has changed in how the surgical care of breast cancer has changed in the last decade. (I might have more to say about this in a later post.) The primary reason I’m mentioning now (other than because it explains why I didn’t manage to get a new post for this blog) is because this change in the standard of care in response to new scientific evidence is one of the greatest features of science-based medicine. It’s also one of the biggest contrasts between science-based medicine and alternative medicine; i.e., what I like to call quackery, mainly because it is.

I was reminded of this contrast by an article I came across on Buzzfeed yesterday, These People Are Making Money Off A Bogus Cancer Cure That Doctors Say Could Poison You. Of course, I knew right away what the article was about just from the title, without even having to note that the blurb for the article mentioned apricot seeds. Yes, we’re talking laetrile here, and apparently there are still quacks who are partying like it’s 1979, which was laetrile’s heyday as an alternative cancer cure:

The San Francisco Bay Area doctor had been giving patients a therapy that is essentially a chemical compound found in apricot kernels and known by several names — laetrile, amygdalin, vitamin B17. Richardson had been told it could attack tumors, naturally and precisely. It can also convert into potentially poisonous amounts of cyanide when eaten. But Richardson was a true believer.

“Yes, the evidence that Vitamin B17 is nature’s control for cancer is quite overwhelming,” he wrote in his book. “So the next time you hear an official spokesman for orthodox medicine proclaim that there is none, you might tell him that such a statement is a ‘self-evident absurdity’ and suggest that he do his homework before posing as an expert.”

Less convinced were the police who, on June 2, 1972, barged into Richardson’s clinic and jailed him on charges of medical quackery. He eventually lost his medical license and was charged with smuggling laetrile, an illegal drug, into the country.

It turns out that Richardson’s son is continuing the family business, so to speak:

Now, three decades after Richardson’s death, his son, John Richardson Jr., is no stranger to apricot seeds. Through Apricot Power, his thriving e-commerce store, he sells bitter seeds ($32.99 for 1,500), seed extract-based tablets (up to $97.99 a bottle), and B17-infused anti-aging cream ($49.99). Recipes for apricot-seed pesto, egg nog, and marzipan offer a “delicious and easy” way to work the supposed superfood into your diet, and videos explain why the site’s mission is to “get B17 into every body!” Though Richardson Jr. won’t reveal revenue numbers, he says his family operation of around 10 employees has served “thousands” of customers all over the world since it launched in 1999.

See what I mean? In the early 1980s, clinical trials showed that laetrile had no appreciable anticancer effect in humans and that it was also toxic. (The reason, of course, is the cyanide.) In science-based medicine, that would have been that. The treatment would have abandoned. But that’s not how alternative medicine works. True, laetrile did fade in popularity for a couple of decades after that, but of late it appears to be undergoing somewhat of a resurgence and “renaissance” (if you can call the revival of dangerous quackery a “renaissance”). I first noticed it three years ago when Eric Merola, the man behind two propaganda films promoting Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer quackery, decided to shift topics to—you guessed it—laetrile. He directed a documentary entitled Second Opinion: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering, which, like his films on Burzynski were full of misinformation, obvious bias and spin, and just plain quackery and pseudoscience. Basically, as I discussed in my deconstruction of his film, the central idea being that Ralph Moss, who was a science writer of some sort at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and is now laetrile’s foremost popularizer, along with other MSKCC employees, “leaked” documents “proving” that laetrile/amygdalin had incredible anticancer activity. It was the same old thing. According to Merola, the negative clinical trials were “rigged not to work.” According to Merola, Laetrile “tested positively” in preclinical studies but that those results were “covered up” (of course). Other works supposedly showing the efficacy of laetrile was “suppressed.”\

You get the idea.

It turns out that Richardson is a bit more canny in that he states very,.”We don’t mention the C-word in our company,” the “C-word” being cancer. The Buzzfeed article also notes:

If a customer review on Apricot Power’s website even mentions the term, the company leaves a comment pointing out that it doesn’t make any disease or illness-related claims about its products. Legally, it can’t: The FDA prohibits companies from selling laetrile, under any name, as a cancer treatment, because studies have found it to be at best ineffective, and at worst toxic.

Holy quack Miranda warning, Batman! I’ve never seen a company actually respond to any mention of cancer on its social media pages with a pre-emptive quack Miranda before!

And, thanks to that same social media, everything old is new yet again:

In laetrile’s heyday in 1981, a doctor called it “the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history.” Three decades later, the internet has only spread the gospel, creating an unstoppable, hydra-headed ecosystem of buyers and sellers.

I’ve discussed this before, of course, but I’ll briefly cover it again, mainly because there are likely to be newbies reading this. Basically, according to this article, the idea behind laetrile is that the body is lacking in a nutrient that proponents call “vitamin B17.” That’s sort of true, but only the latest iteration in the ever-morphing scientific “explanations” for how laetrile/amygdalin/vitamin B17 “works.” Basically, “Laetrile” is the trade name for laevo-mandelonitrile-beta-glucuronoside, a substance allegedly synthesized by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. in the 1920s. It’s chemically related to amygdalin, a substance found naturally in the pits of apricots and some other fruits. Again, most proponents of Laetrile for the treatment of cancer use the terms “Laetrile” and amygdalin interchangeably, and I generally do as well. Historically, amygdalin was tried as an anticancer agent as early as 1892, but was abandoned because it was ineffective and toxic, its toxicity deriving from how it can break down in the body into glucose, benzaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide.

Like the rationale for many forms of quackery, the rationale for Laetrile has shifted over the decades. In the 1950s, Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. claimed that cancer tissues are rich in an enzyme that causes amygdalin to release cyanide, which would destroy the cancer cells. Supposedly noncancerous tissues are protected by another enzyme. Later, Krebs claimed that Laetrile/amygdalin is a vitamin (B17) and, of course, cancer is due to a deficiency in that particular vitamin. Other claims have shifted, from Laetrile being a cancer cure to being able to “control” cancer to being a cancer “preventative.” Then, like so many alternative medicines, the indications for its use went what the military might call “mission creep” in that it was advocated for more and more conditions. These days, amygdalin/vitamin B17/laetrile is advocated for almost anything that ails you, just like the snake oil peddled by wandering salesmen 150 years ago.

So how did Richardson’s father get involved with selling amygdalin? He met up with Krebs, of course:

A successful salesperson must buy into what they’re selling, and Richardson Jr. is all in. Growing up in the Bay Area suburb of Orinda, he and his seven siblings weren’t fed sugar or processed wheat, an abstention he keeps up to this day. He says he started eating apricot seeds for his health at age 5. Now 52, he’s up to 40 a day.

The seeds contain amygdalin, a compound also found in apple seeds and almonds. In the 1950s, Ernst T. Krebs Jr., a self-described doctor and biochemist with no medical degree, patented a purified form of amygdalin that he called “laetrile.” He also promoted it as “vitamin B17,” although it’s not an officially recognized vitamin.

In 1971, Krebs Jr. shared with the elder Richardson his theory of how this nutrient could stop cancer growth. As Richardson later summarized: “[N]ature’s mechanism will not work if one fails to eat the foods that contain this necessary vitamin, which is exactly what has happened to modern man, whose food supply has become further and further removed from the natural state.”

Also, presaging how the antivaccine movement and other supporters of quackery have become more associated with anti-government conservative/libertarian movements, here’s what happened when the elder Richardson was arrested in 1972 for selling laetrile:

When the elder Richardson was arrested in 1972 (on charges that were dropped), it prompted his fellow members of the John Birch Society, the far-right conspiracist group of the era, to start a lobbying group to legalize laetrile. Later, Richardson was fined $20,000 and placed on probation on charges of conspiracy to smuggle laetrile from Mexico to the US. Indictments against him and 18 other accused promoters noted that he had deposited $2.5 million in his bank account over two years.

Laetrile isn’t being called laetrile much any more, but rather vitamin B17 or amygdalin, or it’s being sold in the form of apricot seeds. It’s a rather obvious “rebranding” to avoid the FDA and FTC’s ban on advertising laetrile for cancer. Avoid the “C-word,” throw in the liberal use of the quack Miranda warning, and start marketing laetrile as a dietary supplement, the better to avoid having to demonstrate efficacy and safety.

Another feature of this sort of marketing is that the companies selling supplements like amygdalin don’t actually have to make health claims. They can outsource it to the internet communities of believers who trade alternative cancer cure testimonials, to believers who have written books, made videos and movies, and write blogs. Of course, as I’ve said so many times before, dead patients don’t give testimonials; so of course only the patients who are still alive and doing relatively well are the ones promoting amygdalin with their stories. People you don’t hear about are cancer patients like this:

Campbell had a daughter who, not long after she was born, developed a rare, aggressive brain cancer and died. More than five years later, Campbell developed cancer, too, in her breast. Having watched her daughter undergo chemotherapy and radiation, she was determined to avoid them herself. So she started juicing, eating an all-vegetarian diet, and ordering cannabis oil and apricot seeds online. “She said, ‘This is my journey, it’s my body, I have to do it on my own,’” recalled Beggs, who lives in Northern Ireland. “‘You’re either with me or against me.’”

Beggs understood why Campbell distrusted conventional therapies, but “at the same time, we were so fearful,” she said. Campbell’s tumor kept growing until she finally agreed to have a mastectomy. Then new tumors sprouted in her liver and spine.

Campbell died in October 2015, soon after her 33rd birthday. By the end, she was up to 40 apricot kernels a day, her aunt said.

In quackery, be it cancer quackery or quackery used for other diseases, no treatment, no matter how ineffective and even toxic, ever disappears. No treatment ever disappears after being shown by science to be ineffective. The story of laetrile shows us that. The difference between quackery and science-based medicine could not be clearer.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2uTk8ch

Did 13 Reasons Spark A Spike In Suicides? [Greg Laden's Blog]

We do not know if the airing of “13 Reasons Why” caused an increase in suicide or not, and that in and of itself is astonishing. In the world of very advanced techniques for collecting and monitoring data, and in a world that we are led to believe is on the edge of the next epidemic, you would think the suicide rate could be estimated on the fly, with minor corrections later. Climate scientists are able to assimilate tens of thousands of data readings taken multiple times a day around the world into estimates of global surface temperatures. There is a daily ongoing estimate that I assume uses only part of the data, and at the end of every month, the data are crunched and the estimate spilled out, and only rarely is there a correction needed.

Anyway, we don’t have that information but there are two pieces of information we do have. One is from an older study.

There is evidence to suggest that some of the variation in suicide rates is accounted for by some of the variation in internet search rate. (This is not a causal statement, but a statistical statement.) From the abstract of the study:

… a set of suicide-related search terms, the trends of which either temporally coincided or preceded trends of suicide data, were associated with suicide death. These search factors varied among different suicide samples. Searches for “major depression” and “divorce” accounted for, at most, 30.2% of the variance in suicide data. When considering only leading suicide trends, searches for “divorce” and the pro-suicide term “complete guide of suicide,” accounted for 22.7% of variance in suicide data.

A recent piece by Madhumita Murgia in the Washington Post reported the connection between that older work and a current study showing that Internet search activity in relation to suicide spiked at the time that the Netflix series “13 Reasons” (based on this book) was released.

The 13-episode series, which was released all at once, chronicles 13 tapes that Hannah sends to those she blames for her actions. The series has captured the imagination of kids across the country. In April, it set a record for the most-tweeted-about show in 2017, when it was mentioned more than 11 million times within three weeks of its March 31 launch.

The jump is documented in a study published in JAMA by John Ayers, and others, called “Internet Searches for Suicide Following the Release of 13 Reasons Why.: The study results:

All suicide queries were cumulatively 19% (95% CI, 14%-24%) higher for the 19 days following the release of 13 Reasons Why, reflecting 900 000 to 1.5 million more searches than expected (Figure). For 12 of the 19 days studied, suicide queries were significantly greater than expected, ranging from 15% (95% CI, 3%-32%) higher on April 15, 2017, to 44% (95% CI, 28%-65%) higher on April 18, 2017.

Seventeen of the top 20 related queries were higher than expected, with most rising queries focused on suicidal ideation. For instance, “how to commit suicide” (26%; 95% CI, 12%-42%), “commit suicide” (18%; 95% CI, 11%-26%), and “how to kill yourself” (9%; 95% CI, 4%-14%) were all significantly higher. Queries for suicide hotlines were also elevated, including “suicide hotline number” (21%; 95% CI, 1%-44%) and “suicide hotline” (12%; 95% CI, 5%-19%). Last, public awareness indicative searches, such as “suicide prevention” (23%; 95% CI, 6%-40%) or “teen suicide” (34%; 95% CI, 17%-52%), were elevated.

Additional surveillance will clarify our findings, including estimating changes in suicide attempts or calls to national suicide hotlines. Nonetheless, our analyses suggest 13 Reasons Why, in its present form, has both increased suicide awareness while unintentionally increasing suicidal ideation.

So, yes, “13 Reasons” may have had the effect in spiking suicide rates for a short term, but until we know we should not make too much of it. But generally I would like to see mortality and morbidity data more frequently updated.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2vmUK1r

We do not know if the airing of “13 Reasons Why” caused an increase in suicide or not, and that in and of itself is astonishing. In the world of very advanced techniques for collecting and monitoring data, and in a world that we are led to believe is on the edge of the next epidemic, you would think the suicide rate could be estimated on the fly, with minor corrections later. Climate scientists are able to assimilate tens of thousands of data readings taken multiple times a day around the world into estimates of global surface temperatures. There is a daily ongoing estimate that I assume uses only part of the data, and at the end of every month, the data are crunched and the estimate spilled out, and only rarely is there a correction needed.

Anyway, we don’t have that information but there are two pieces of information we do have. One is from an older study.

There is evidence to suggest that some of the variation in suicide rates is accounted for by some of the variation in internet search rate. (This is not a causal statement, but a statistical statement.) From the abstract of the study:

… a set of suicide-related search terms, the trends of which either temporally coincided or preceded trends of suicide data, were associated with suicide death. These search factors varied among different suicide samples. Searches for “major depression” and “divorce” accounted for, at most, 30.2% of the variance in suicide data. When considering only leading suicide trends, searches for “divorce” and the pro-suicide term “complete guide of suicide,” accounted for 22.7% of variance in suicide data.

A recent piece by Madhumita Murgia in the Washington Post reported the connection between that older work and a current study showing that Internet search activity in relation to suicide spiked at the time that the Netflix series “13 Reasons” (based on this book) was released.

The 13-episode series, which was released all at once, chronicles 13 tapes that Hannah sends to those she blames for her actions. The series has captured the imagination of kids across the country. In April, it set a record for the most-tweeted-about show in 2017, when it was mentioned more than 11 million times within three weeks of its March 31 launch.

The jump is documented in a study published in JAMA by John Ayers, and others, called “Internet Searches for Suicide Following the Release of 13 Reasons Why.: The study results:

All suicide queries were cumulatively 19% (95% CI, 14%-24%) higher for the 19 days following the release of 13 Reasons Why, reflecting 900 000 to 1.5 million more searches than expected (Figure). For 12 of the 19 days studied, suicide queries were significantly greater than expected, ranging from 15% (95% CI, 3%-32%) higher on April 15, 2017, to 44% (95% CI, 28%-65%) higher on April 18, 2017.

Seventeen of the top 20 related queries were higher than expected, with most rising queries focused on suicidal ideation. For instance, “how to commit suicide” (26%; 95% CI, 12%-42%), “commit suicide” (18%; 95% CI, 11%-26%), and “how to kill yourself” (9%; 95% CI, 4%-14%) were all significantly higher. Queries for suicide hotlines were also elevated, including “suicide hotline number” (21%; 95% CI, 1%-44%) and “suicide hotline” (12%; 95% CI, 5%-19%). Last, public awareness indicative searches, such as “suicide prevention” (23%; 95% CI, 6%-40%) or “teen suicide” (34%; 95% CI, 17%-52%), were elevated.

Additional surveillance will clarify our findings, including estimating changes in suicide attempts or calls to national suicide hotlines. Nonetheless, our analyses suggest 13 Reasons Why, in its present form, has both increased suicide awareness while unintentionally increasing suicidal ideation.

So, yes, “13 Reasons” may have had the effect in spiking suicide rates for a short term, but until we know we should not make too much of it. But generally I would like to see mortality and morbidity data more frequently updated.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2vmUK1r

Focus on one thing, do not be distracted by anything else. Oh look tacos! [Greg Laden's Blog]

I don’t use clickbait titles very often, but this was one, because I want to talk to people who think that nine out of ten things that the collective known as Donald Trump, his white house staff, and the Republicans in Congress do is a distraction from … whatever.

Yes, distractions can happen, but most of what happens is not a distraction. The Trump administration is incapable of that much forethought and planning. When Trump throws trans people under the bus, telling that is a distraction is YOU throwing trans people under the bus. Here are some examples of the distraction meme playing out on Twitter:

This theme plays out in other ways as well. I recently wrote a Facebook post bout the 2020 election. Something like 9 out of 10 commenters told me to stop talking bout 2020, and to focus on 2018. Some told me to focus on other things.

I’ve got news for you. Every week I carry out a number of focused acts related to the climate change crisis. Everything else is a distraction.

I also carry out an act or two to work towards replacing my Republican representative in Congress because he is vulnerable, we can switch this seat, and that may be part of changing Congress from Red to Blue. Everything else is a distraction.

I frequently expend effort helping in the campaign for who I think should be the next Governor of my state. My fellow staters tend to switch parties every two terms, and we’ve had a Democrat in office for what will be 8 years. I am focused like a laser beam on making sure my bone-headed compatriots don’t blindly put a Republican in office in 2018, and I’ve got my candidate. Everything else is a distraction.

My state house representative is a seriously red tea-bagger. I’ve not done much about that yet, I just moved to her district. But I’ve done a couple of things and I’ll do more. I’ll do what I can to make sure she is replaced by someone excellent, a Democrat, and I already know who it is. Everything else is a distraction.

Today, I started to process of encouraging someone in my school district to run for the board. I want to see more good people run for more offices. Everything else is a distraction.

Oh, and today, for dinner, I’m going to make tacos. Except they really aren’t tacos, they are more like burritos. We must defend the burrito, which is not a taco and not a wrap. Everything else is a …

Anyway, I’m not the only person who cringes when I see “No, that really important example of Trump and his Republican Minions taking away our rights and ruining the planet and garnering more and more wealth is just a distraction,” or who hates it when an attempt at a conversation about politics gets shut down by well meaning and smart people because it wasn’t what they were thinking about that day.

I an prove that with Twitter:

I urge you to walk. And I urge you to chew gum. Beyond that, I urge you to walk and chew gum at the same time. I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT!!!



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2uNZXOm

I don’t use clickbait titles very often, but this was one, because I want to talk to people who think that nine out of ten things that the collective known as Donald Trump, his white house staff, and the Republicans in Congress do is a distraction from … whatever.

Yes, distractions can happen, but most of what happens is not a distraction. The Trump administration is incapable of that much forethought and planning. When Trump throws trans people under the bus, telling that is a distraction is YOU throwing trans people under the bus. Here are some examples of the distraction meme playing out on Twitter:

This theme plays out in other ways as well. I recently wrote a Facebook post bout the 2020 election. Something like 9 out of 10 commenters told me to stop talking bout 2020, and to focus on 2018. Some told me to focus on other things.

I’ve got news for you. Every week I carry out a number of focused acts related to the climate change crisis. Everything else is a distraction.

I also carry out an act or two to work towards replacing my Republican representative in Congress because he is vulnerable, we can switch this seat, and that may be part of changing Congress from Red to Blue. Everything else is a distraction.

I frequently expend effort helping in the campaign for who I think should be the next Governor of my state. My fellow staters tend to switch parties every two terms, and we’ve had a Democrat in office for what will be 8 years. I am focused like a laser beam on making sure my bone-headed compatriots don’t blindly put a Republican in office in 2018, and I’ve got my candidate. Everything else is a distraction.

My state house representative is a seriously red tea-bagger. I’ve not done much about that yet, I just moved to her district. But I’ve done a couple of things and I’ll do more. I’ll do what I can to make sure she is replaced by someone excellent, a Democrat, and I already know who it is. Everything else is a distraction.

Today, I started to process of encouraging someone in my school district to run for the board. I want to see more good people run for more offices. Everything else is a distraction.

Oh, and today, for dinner, I’m going to make tacos. Except they really aren’t tacos, they are more like burritos. We must defend the burrito, which is not a taco and not a wrap. Everything else is a …

Anyway, I’m not the only person who cringes when I see “No, that really important example of Trump and his Republican Minions taking away our rights and ruining the planet and garnering more and more wealth is just a distraction,” or who hates it when an attempt at a conversation about politics gets shut down by well meaning and smart people because it wasn’t what they were thinking about that day.

I an prove that with Twitter:

I urge you to walk. And I urge you to chew gum. Beyond that, I urge you to walk and chew gum at the same time. I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT!!!



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2uNZXOm

Relief and trepidation on healthcare [The Pump Handle]

Like millions of others, I was hugely relieved to get the news early Friday morning that three Republican Senators had joined 48 of their Democratic and Independent colleagues to vote down the third Republican proposal to take healthcare away from millions of people. Now’s a good time to think about how we got here and what comes next.

 

The Affordable Care Act

For much of 2009, Democratic members of Congress spent months negotiating with Republican colleagues and one another on the legislation that would eventually become the Patient Protect and Affordable Care Act. Over many hours of debate, hearings, and bipartisan roundtables, Democrats worked to craft something that Republicans could live with. I suspect that if Mitch McConnell hadn’t been so committed to obstructionism, at least a couple of Republicans would have voted for it.

The ACA ended up looking a lot like the Massachusetts model that then-Governor Mitt Romney successfully enacted: a combination of existing employer-sponsored insurance, government-supported coverage for low-income residents, and a regulated and subsidized private market for those who didn’t have employer-sponsored insurance or Medicaid. The much-derided individual mandate, a mechanism also supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation, was the necessary evil to avoid a death spiral in the private market – because if you don’t require people to have insurance, they’ll only get it when they’re sick or injured, and costs will quickly soar and discourage healthier people from joining the risk pool.

The ACA had flaws, and was hobbled by the Supreme Court’s decision that the Medicaid expansion should be optional. Many of the problems Republicans have pointed to over the past seven years are real: Premiums and deductibles for individual marketplace plans still strain many families’ budgets, and insurers find some markets too volatile, unpredictable, or costly, leaving some areas with few – or no – insurers offering individual plans. These are things that could be fixed, but the plans Congressional Republicans have offered would make them worse for all but the healthiest insurance purchasers. Meanwhile, the ACA success that’s arguably most important – the Medicaid expansion – is something the Republican bills would undo and exacerbate with deep cuts and fundamental alterations to Medicaid.

 

Republicans’ approach and the backlash

Faced with a law that already represented a compromise, and given seven years to come up with alternatives, what did Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and their colleagues do? They tried to mislead the public about the ACA and about their own hastily cobbled-together bills, which primarily consisted of huge cuts to Medicaid and taxes with some ACA destruction thrown in. The Senate process represented a shocking departure from the norms that have governed that chamber: no hearings, bills crafted in secret, and text revealed mere hours before Senators were expected to vote on it. It wasn’t a process designed to legislate thoughtfully on something that accounts for one-sixth of the economy and profoundly affects all our lives – it was a process designed to get a political win before Senators could think too much about a bill’s contents.

They almost succeeded. Forty-eight Democratic and Independent Senators – including Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, who is fighting Stage 4 kidney cancer – held firm against the appalling process and bills. Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against each of the destructive proposals that McConnell brought to the chamber last week in quick succession. The third proposal, the so-called “skinny” repeal, came up for a vote in the early hours of Thursday morning. Senator John McCain, who flew back to Washington after surgery for what turned out to be brain cancer, cast the third Republican vote against it.

The three Republican Senators who voted down the last Senate bill faced pressure from their colleagues, including suggestions of violence against Collins and Murkowski and implied threats that a “no” from Murkowski would results in Trump administration retaliation against Alaska. But they, along with the other Senators, also heard from many constituents whose calls, letters, office visits, marches, and rallies clearly communicated their disapproval of the Republican approach. The Capitol switchboard logged its busiest day, while regular rallies outside the Capitol featured speakers from AFSCME, Center for American Progress, Indivisible, MoveOn, Planned Parenthood, SEIU, and UltraViolet, as well as several members of Congress. Office visits from Little Lobbyists and sit-ins by ADAPT drew attention to the devastation Medicaid cuts would spell for children with complex medical needs and people with disabilities. We might never know which, if any, of those actions influenced the three Republican “no” votes in the end, but there was no way any Senator could’ve claimed to be unaware of the substantial public opposition to their destructive process and proposals.

Rashelle Hibbard and her son Leo, who has cerebral palsy and benefits from Medicaid. “In the America I believe in, we take care of each other” Rashelle said.

What’s next

I wrote back in March about ways Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration have been sabotaging the ACA-created private market, including by cutting open enrollment outreach and continuing to withhold payments to insurers to offset the cost-sharing reductions the ACA mandated for lower-income enrollees. The Trump administration has been making these payments on a month-to-month basis, and the absence of a firm assurance that they’ll continue is worrying to insurers (and could lead to an average 19% rise in premiums). The administration’s decision to shorten the open enrollment window, its lack of commitment to enforcing the individual mandate, and its ending of contracts for “navigator” enrollment assistance are all likely to reduce the number of people – especially young, healthy people – who buy individual plans through state marketplaces.

(And, of course, ACA repeal isn’t completely dead yet; President Trump, despite displaying no understanding of how US health coverage works, is still pushing Republican Senators to pass something.)

If Congressional Republicans are really interested in fixing the premiums and deductibles they claim to worry about so much, they have the ability to do so. They could start with holding some bipartisan meetings and really listening to the healthcare providers, patient groups, hospitals, insurers, governors, and other experts who’ve been explaining why their recent bills are recipes for public-health disaster. Once they have some proposed legislative text, they could hold hearings on it and make improvements in response to concerns people raise. In other words, they could act like thoughtful legislators who care about their constituents’ health more than about undoing a signature achievement of the previous president. There’s a glimmer of hope here: In the House, the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus has released a proposal to stabilize the ACA marketplaces without torpedoing the law itself.

The ACA allowed 20 million people to gain insurance and freed millions more from the fear that they could be denied health insurance or coverage of needed care based on their gender or health history. I’m more hopeful than I was a week ago that those gains will remain, but I’m still worried about what else will happen over the next several months.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2uP5PXT

Like millions of others, I was hugely relieved to get the news early Friday morning that three Republican Senators had joined 48 of their Democratic and Independent colleagues to vote down the third Republican proposal to take healthcare away from millions of people. Now’s a good time to think about how we got here and what comes next.

 

The Affordable Care Act

For much of 2009, Democratic members of Congress spent months negotiating with Republican colleagues and one another on the legislation that would eventually become the Patient Protect and Affordable Care Act. Over many hours of debate, hearings, and bipartisan roundtables, Democrats worked to craft something that Republicans could live with. I suspect that if Mitch McConnell hadn’t been so committed to obstructionism, at least a couple of Republicans would have voted for it.

The ACA ended up looking a lot like the Massachusetts model that then-Governor Mitt Romney successfully enacted: a combination of existing employer-sponsored insurance, government-supported coverage for low-income residents, and a regulated and subsidized private market for those who didn’t have employer-sponsored insurance or Medicaid. The much-derided individual mandate, a mechanism also supported by the conservative Heritage Foundation, was the necessary evil to avoid a death spiral in the private market – because if you don’t require people to have insurance, they’ll only get it when they’re sick or injured, and costs will quickly soar and discourage healthier people from joining the risk pool.

The ACA had flaws, and was hobbled by the Supreme Court’s decision that the Medicaid expansion should be optional. Many of the problems Republicans have pointed to over the past seven years are real: Premiums and deductibles for individual marketplace plans still strain many families’ budgets, and insurers find some markets too volatile, unpredictable, or costly, leaving some areas with few – or no – insurers offering individual plans. These are things that could be fixed, but the plans Congressional Republicans have offered would make them worse for all but the healthiest insurance purchasers. Meanwhile, the ACA success that’s arguably most important – the Medicaid expansion – is something the Republican bills would undo and exacerbate with deep cuts and fundamental alterations to Medicaid.

 

Republicans’ approach and the backlash

Faced with a law that already represented a compromise, and given seven years to come up with alternatives, what did Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and their colleagues do? They tried to mislead the public about the ACA and about their own hastily cobbled-together bills, which primarily consisted of huge cuts to Medicaid and taxes with some ACA destruction thrown in. The Senate process represented a shocking departure from the norms that have governed that chamber: no hearings, bills crafted in secret, and text revealed mere hours before Senators were expected to vote on it. It wasn’t a process designed to legislate thoughtfully on something that accounts for one-sixth of the economy and profoundly affects all our lives – it was a process designed to get a political win before Senators could think too much about a bill’s contents.

They almost succeeded. Forty-eight Democratic and Independent Senators – including Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, who is fighting Stage 4 kidney cancer – held firm against the appalling process and bills. Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against each of the destructive proposals that McConnell brought to the chamber last week in quick succession. The third proposal, the so-called “skinny” repeal, came up for a vote in the early hours of Thursday morning. Senator John McCain, who flew back to Washington after surgery for what turned out to be brain cancer, cast the third Republican vote against it.

The three Republican Senators who voted down the last Senate bill faced pressure from their colleagues, including suggestions of violence against Collins and Murkowski and implied threats that a “no” from Murkowski would results in Trump administration retaliation against Alaska. But they, along with the other Senators, also heard from many constituents whose calls, letters, office visits, marches, and rallies clearly communicated their disapproval of the Republican approach. The Capitol switchboard logged its busiest day, while regular rallies outside the Capitol featured speakers from AFSCME, Center for American Progress, Indivisible, MoveOn, Planned Parenthood, SEIU, and UltraViolet, as well as several members of Congress. Office visits from Little Lobbyists and sit-ins by ADAPT drew attention to the devastation Medicaid cuts would spell for children with complex medical needs and people with disabilities. We might never know which, if any, of those actions influenced the three Republican “no” votes in the end, but there was no way any Senator could’ve claimed to be unaware of the substantial public opposition to their destructive process and proposals.

Rashelle Hibbard and her son Leo, who has cerebral palsy and benefits from Medicaid. “In the America I believe in, we take care of each other” Rashelle said.

What’s next

I wrote back in March about ways Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration have been sabotaging the ACA-created private market, including by cutting open enrollment outreach and continuing to withhold payments to insurers to offset the cost-sharing reductions the ACA mandated for lower-income enrollees. The Trump administration has been making these payments on a month-to-month basis, and the absence of a firm assurance that they’ll continue is worrying to insurers (and could lead to an average 19% rise in premiums). The administration’s decision to shorten the open enrollment window, its lack of commitment to enforcing the individual mandate, and its ending of contracts for “navigator” enrollment assistance are all likely to reduce the number of people – especially young, healthy people – who buy individual plans through state marketplaces.

(And, of course, ACA repeal isn’t completely dead yet; President Trump, despite displaying no understanding of how US health coverage works, is still pushing Republican Senators to pass something.)

If Congressional Republicans are really interested in fixing the premiums and deductibles they claim to worry about so much, they have the ability to do so. They could start with holding some bipartisan meetings and really listening to the healthcare providers, patient groups, hospitals, insurers, governors, and other experts who’ve been explaining why their recent bills are recipes for public-health disaster. Once they have some proposed legislative text, they could hold hearings on it and make improvements in response to concerns people raise. In other words, they could act like thoughtful legislators who care about their constituents’ health more than about undoing a signature achievement of the previous president. There’s a glimmer of hope here: In the House, the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus has released a proposal to stabilize the ACA marketplaces without torpedoing the law itself.

The ACA allowed 20 million people to gain insurance and freed millions more from the fear that they could be denied health insurance or coverage of needed care based on their gender or health history. I’m more hopeful than I was a week ago that those gains will remain, but I’m still worried about what else will happen over the next several months.



from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2uP5PXT

adds 2