Just yesterday I wrote about the drive in New Zealand to integrate indigenous medicine (Rongoā Māori, or RM) with modern (often called “Western”) medicine. The problem is that RM not only uses spiritual treatments (prayer, singing, dunking the sufferer in water) but also herbal remedies, and neither of these have been tested for efficacy using randomized, controlled, double-blind testing. This is the gold standard used in modern medicine to test the efficacy of drugs and (sometimes) surgery. Without such tests, we simply can’t say that a medical intervention actually works.
But the drive to sacralize indigenous “ways of knowing” is strong, and has spread from New Zealand across the Pacific, where it is growing in both Canada and the United States. Although it’s one thing—and still a bad thing—to prevent scientists from examining bones and artifacts found on land claimed to be “owned” by indigenous people, it’s a different thing entirely to start treating people with indigenous medicine. Although everyone can decide whether or not they want to be treated with scientifically tried-and-true procedures versus quackery like homeopathy, or even seek religious “cures,” children can’t make such decisions. They are subject to the whims and faiths of their parents, and in Faith Versus Fact I document some horrible deaths of children propagandized into religious healing by their parents. (Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, are forbidden to receive blood transfusions because of a wonky interpretation of the Bible.) At least when you take your kids for their vaccinations, you can be almost certain that they’ll acquire immunity to infection.
As I said, this kind of harmful sacralization of medical “ways of knowing” is on our doorstep, and below is an op-ed from the WSJ (by the editorial board) reporting that the Biden Administration has approved funding for “traditional health care practices of Indigenous people.” And it doesn’t seem to matter exactly what those healthcare practices are! It can be herbs, prayer, touch, chanting, and so on. The government will pay for it!
Click below to read the short piece, which I’ve reproduced almost in its entirety, or find it archived here.
The “housing” bit is tangential, reporting that “the Administration is letting states use federal Medicaid dollars to pay for low-income housing, mini-refrigerators and food. A Biden executive order last month gave states a green light to use Medicaid to pay for ‘gun violence prevention’ counseling.” I don’t have such strong feelings about that, though it does seem a tad outisde the ambit of what Medicaid is for.
But main part of the article, given below, is about government funding for what seems like quackery. And if you want to argue that this op-ed is “fake news” because it comes from the op-ed section of the paper (yes, that section leans right), you can find the same information in an NPR article from October 19 of this year.
A long excerpt (bolding is mine):
The Biden Administration is trying to woo Native Americans whose votes could be pivotal in Western states. One pre-election gambit is to let Medicaid pay for Native American “traditional medicine.”
The Health and Human Services Department last month approved requests by Arizona, California, New Mexico and Oregon to use federal Medicaid funds to cover “traditional health care practices” of indigenous people. “We are extending access to culturally appropriate, quality health care in Tribal communities,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra.
HHS says the Medicaid approvals are “the latest action demonstrating the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to support and invest in Indigenous communities across the country.” In short, this looks like another income redistribution scheme.
HHS doesn’t plan to restrict the types of traditional medicine that Medicaid will cover, nor the types of “healers.” Each tribal “facility can tailor provider qualifications for their traditional health care practitioners,” HHS says.
An American Medical Association brief on the state Medicaid proposals says “traditional healers are often identified in their Tribal community by their innate gift of healing” and “typically work informally.” Their “healing services” could include sweat lodges, prayers, purification rituals, songs, dance, herbal remedies and shamanism.
One healer who advocated for Medicaid coverage told the Salt Lake Tribune in February that he sometimes prescribes a “special ceremony against the negative energy of diabetes.” Herbs, he said, are also a favorite remedy for chronic illnesses including cancer plus a “special expression of prayer to the deities that made those herbs.”
Herbal remedies may have their uses, but Medicaid is supposed to cover evidence-based treatments. HHS says “demonstration projects” can determine if traditional medicine improves health outcomes. But lack of access to modern medical care—not lack of traditional remedies—is why Native Americans suffer more disease and worse health outcomes.
The last paragraph is correct in both assertions: Medicaid isn’t supposed to pay for quackery (seriously: “sweat lodges, songs, dance and shamanism”?) and Native Americans do lack sufficient access to modern health care. The first bit is documented here:
Alternative treatments that haven’t been proven in scientific studies usually aren’t covered by Medicaid. Some procedures, such as chiropractic treatments and acupuncture, are sometimes covered. These treatments are more likely to be covered if they are recommended or prescribed by a doctor. Other alternative treatments that are occasionally covered include massage, pain treatments, and nutrition therapy. Some treatments, such as herbal and homeopathic therapies, are usually not approved for Medicaid payment.
Well, I’m not so sure that many chiropractic therapies, or any form of acupuncture, has been “proven in scientific studies”. But your tax dollars are paying for it! Now get ready for your tax dollars to pay for sweat lodges, songs, dances, and ceremonies. And you don’t even have to live in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Oregon to be dunned for quackery. The fund for Medicaid comes from all of us.
h/t: Frau Katze
One thing we’ve learned in recent decades is that exoplanets are surprisingly common. So far, we’ve confirmed nearly 6,000 planets, and we have evidence for thousands more. Most of these planets were discovered using the transit method. though we there are other methods as well. Many stars are known to have multiple planets, such as the TRAPPIST-1 system with seven Earth-sized worlds. But even within known planetary systems there could be planets we’ve overlooked. Perhaps their orbit doesn’t pass in front of the star from our vantage point, or the evidence of their presence is buried in data noise. How might we find them? A recent paper on the arXiv has an interesting approach.
Rather than combing through the observational data trying to extract more planets from the noise, the authors suggest that we look at the orbital dynamics of known systems to see if planets might be possible between the planets we know. Established systems are millions or billions of years old, so their planetary orbits must be stable on those timescales. If the planets of a system are “closely packed,” then adding new planets to the mix would cause the system to go all akilter. If the system is “loosely packed,” then we could add hypothetical planets between the others, and the system would still be dynamically stable.
The seven planetary systems considered. Credit: Horner, et alTo show how this would work, the authors consider seven planetary systems discovered by the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) known to have two planets. Since it isn’t likely that a system has only two planets, there is a good chance they have others. The team then ran thousands of simulations of these systems with hypothetical planets, calculating if they could remain stable over millions of years. They found that for two of the systems, extra planets (other than planets much more distant than the known ones) could be ruled out on dynamical grounds. Extra planets would almost certainly destabilize the systems. But five of the systems could remain stable with more planets. That doesn’t mean those systems have more planets, only that they could.
One of the things this work shows is that most of the currently known exoplanetary systems likely have yet-undiscovered worlds. This approach could also help us sort systems to determine which ones might deserve a further look. We are still in the early stages of discovery, and we are gathering data with incredible speed. We need tools like this so we aren’t overwhelmed by piles of new data.
Reference: Horner, Jonathan, et al. “The Search for the Inbetweeners: How packed are TESS planetary systems?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00245 (2024).
The post How Many Additional Exoplanets are in Known Systems? appeared first on Universe Today.
Reader Thomas Webber is a new contributor, but his photos of flowers are lovely. Tom’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them. The images have been stacked, but I removed that information from the captions. On to Tom:
The University of Florida owns and manages a large pine forest near Gainesville for teaching and research. Much of it is a commercial-type pine plantation, with smallish trees all the same age growing in close-packed straight rows.
Another part is managed to restore something like the native pre-settlement forest; in this section the trees are relatively old and widely spaced, and the canopy is fairly open, allowing plenty of light to reach the understory. This forest type has evolved under the influence of fire, and the wildfires have now been replaced by managed burns. The understory is host to an impressive variety of shrubs, grasses, and forbs, many of which are adept at exploiting burned- or other periodically disturbed patches of the landscape. Here is a just a small sample of the wildflowers I’ve encountered there in late summer and early fall this year.
I think I’ve identified all of them correctly to genus, and most to species, but I have put the qualifier “cf.” before some of the species epithets I’m not so sure of. I invite corrections.
Prairie clover, Dalea cf. pinnata. 1 cm.:
Spurred butterfly pea, Centrosema virginianum. 3.5 cm across the long side:
Hempvine, Mikania cf. scandens. 2.5 cm. This one has not fully opened:
Blackroot, Pterocaulon pycnostachyum. 7 cm long. I was surprised to find these at this time of year; they are usually spring flowers, but a few emerged in one plot after the mid-summer burn:
Silkgrass, Pityopsis cf. graminifolia. 1.5 cm.:
Pineweed, Hypericum gentianoides. 3 mm. The flowers are tiny but the plants can be conspicuous; this year they covered a dirt road in one of the less-traveled parts of the forest:
Button eryngo, Eryngium yuccifolium. 1.5 cm.:
Azure sage, Salvia azurea. 1 cm across the lower lobe:
I especially like the next ones because they are uncommon, furtive, and take some finding.
Sensitive partridge pea, Chamaecrista nictitans. 7 mm across the lower lobe:
Ticktrefoil, Desmodium cf. paniculatum. 7 mm across the upper lobe:
Florida sensitive-briar, Mimosa quadrivalvis. 1 cm.:
Rustweed, Polypremum procumbens. 4 mm.:
Mouse melon, Melothria pendula. 3 mm.:
Axil-flower, Mecardonia acuminata. 5 mm.: