Syphilis Documentary. Rather good.

[mistermack]

I clicked on this expecting to watch a couple of seconds of it, but I ended up watching it right through which is rare for me.

It follows the mystery of where syphilis came from. Did it come from the Americas, as has long been thought, or did we give it to the Americas ? There's plenty of proper scientific detective work on off in the documentary.

The answer given in the film is interesting, and the film also gives an insight into the horrendous suffering that people went through in the past, and how lucky we are, to have modern health care. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I found it well worth a watch :

Apologies if there is some rule against recommending viewing. Just delete the thread. 

 

 

[CharonY]

I am not sure whether that is the same video but I remember an interesting article criticizing documentaries on this precise question. I think Armelagos was one of the authors, must have it somewhere.

Found it:  Evol Anthropol. 2012 Mar; 21(2): 50–57.The Science behind Pre-Columbian Evidence of Syphilis in Europe: Research by Documentary 

The criticised doc is from PBS, which is a pity as I generally like their docs.

 

[mistermack]

One day, someone will show you how to paste a link. It's very easy : 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3413456/  

I didn't take the conclusions of the documentary as gospel, only thought provoking, and came away with the feeling that their answer was interesting, but I didn't see them claiming it as scientific fact. The lady examining the bones was pretty definite that she was looking at a clear case of syphilis, and I took that as being her professional opinion and probably right. Later, they gave George Armelagos a spot to make the case for Syphilis coming from the Americas, so they did give both sides of the argument. He actually agreed that it was a clear case of syphilis, so I took that as a pretty definite diagnosis. If you accept it as a genuine case then it boils down to the dating.

I don't think they claimed their conclusion at the end as a scientific certainty, although they certainly put it over as what THEY thought was right. 

As far as the criticism goes, I felt that their point about an alleged seafood diet affecting the carbon dating was a bit weak, they don't give any justification for concluding a 30% seafood diet for the alleged sufferer, and I find that number a bit hard to take, but anyway, it's enough to disregard the carbon dating, which I always view with caution anyway. 

They DID give the impression that the skeleton was linked directly to the coffins, without actually saying it outright, and that was a bit naughty. 

My main question, at the back of my mind while watching it, was why there is nothing in writing about syphilis before these dates, if it was about. You would think that somebody would have mentioned it, especially as it's sexually transmitted.  

 

As far as their main point goes, about peer review, I think they are living in the past. The days of peer review being something you can rely on are long gone. You have to look at who is reviewing what these days, and what is THEIR motivation. 

 

 

[CharonY]

48 minutes ago, mistermack said:

One day, someone will show you how to paste a link. It's very easy : 

It is one of the quirks I picked up in order to make my students less lazy. If I can find a reference for them, I expect them to be able to at least google it. Over time it spawns the habit of actually looking at and following up on resources. It combats the ongoing trend of looking at one link and think that is sufficient to understand the concept.

50 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I felt that their point about an alleged seafood diet affecting the carbon dating was a bit weak, they don't give any justification for concluding a 30% seafood diet for the alleged sufferer,

They  actually did:

Quote

To correct for this effect, the relative proportion of marine content in the organism’s diet is assessed, typically using δ¹³C values, as marine foods are typically enriched in δ¹³C (relative to terrestrial protein sources).

You can follow the provided references as to the details and uncertainties of the process. It does show, as a whole that the presented evidence is very weak or at least uncertain. The authors made an excellent point that as a peer-reviewed publication those weaknesses would have been picked up quickly and discussed. Whereas as a documentary the faulty information would circulate much longer.  We actually can see that being used for all types of pseudoscientific claims, which is why a peer-review environment of formal publications are important as a discussion platform. Scrutiny of papers do not end with peer review. They start with it.

[mistermack]

Some of the adjusted dating is clearly impossible. The friary was dissolved in 1539 so the skeleton in question can't be from 1611 or 1657 as quoted for the higher end adjusted dates. The safest thing you can say about the carbon dating, is that it's useless in this case, whatever percentage of fish the guy ate. (30% is a lot of fish though).

That leaves the coffins, that certainly were overhyped as evidence, if the skeleton in question wasn't actually found INSIDE one of them, which is the impression they gave. The dating of the coffins I would take as very reliable, given that the wood came from the same area, and the tree rings matched up. Without tying the skeleton to a coffin though, it's just a weak indication. 

They did talk briefly about pottery dating and written matter about the friary, but that's not a lot of help.

One thing that they did mention was the flagellation evidence, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the mode of transmission of the bacteria to such a high proportion of the burials. If they used the same whip on each other, it's not very hygienic. 

All in all, Columbus came back in 1493 I believe, and this guy is showing clear syphilis on his bones, no later than 1539 in Hull in the North of England. It's not a lot of time to spread, but if he had been a sailor in his past, it's possible he brought it with him, or somebody did.

Edit : 

I suppose it's relevant to ask, how long would it take for syphilis to get to the stage shown on that skeleton? They didn't go into that, but it wouldn't happen overnight.

Edited October 4, 2019 by mistermack

[CharonY]

25 minutes ago, mistermack said:

They did talk briefly about pottery dating and written matter about the friary, but that's not a lot of help.

Yes, that is the main gist of the paper. I.e. the documentary overselling evidence. In itself it is not a huge issue, but this one seemed to have become quite influential which, I assume, is quite frustrating for the experts in the field. 

 

27 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I suppose it's relevant to ask, how long would it take for syphilis to get to the stage shown on that skeleton? They didn't go into that, but it wouldn't happen overnight.

So that is a bit tricky as, the last stages of the disease can occur (relatively) fast, but also with a decade or more  of dormancy. There is evidence that this is driven by the immune status of the patients. For example in HIV positive patients, lesions started to occur in early-stage patients (5-15 weeks post infection).  In otherwise more healthier patients lesions occur in the late (tertiary) stage which can happen after a year after infection but there are also reports of more than  three decades of dormancy. The progression itself once it starts can be relatively fast, if not treated. It is unclear if the person in question was poor in health, which could have accelerated the timeline. IIRC for the most part of the infection process the bacterium in question does generally not have really high titer and it is also somewhat fragile. So flagellation may be a mode of transmission so unsure how likely it is.

Of note, minor pitting of the skeleton can be mistaken for syphilis which was also criticized by the authors (i.e. how many of those were indeed syphilic?).