From: Ian A. York
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Human meat
Date: 21 Aug 1999 15:46:42 -0400

In article <LIzv3.1073$5D.199562@news1.epix.net>,
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D. <utzj@auhs.edu> wrote:

>Plus,there would be big problems with illnesses. For example, in some
>populations where people ate their dead as part of the funeral ritual, kuru,

Just because this is a pet peeve of mine:  The evidence that the Fore
actually ate their dead is surprisingly thin.  Many people think that kuru
is somehow evidence for cannibalism; in fact, that's not so.  If you go
back and trace the papers from Gajdusek and others which led to that
conclusion, you'll find that in fact not one of them observed cannibalism.
(Cannibalism had always been conveniently suppressed by the missionaries
just before they got there.)  More, in Gajdusek's first papers (1957) on
the subject, he didn't talk about cannibalism at all.  Not until 1967 did
he consider that, and then only to rule it out for several reasons.
Cannibalism didn't become accepted as the cause until well after 1968,
when another group (who, by the way, had not seen cannibalism either)
published a speculative paper linking the two.

But, if kuru wasn't spread by cannibalism, how was it spread?  After all,
it's spread by consumption of brains, right?  No, actually, it's not.
Spreading kuru orally to lab animals turns out to be very difficult.  On
the other hand, it's not particularly difficult to spread kuru by
injection.  And one thing that no one disputes is that the Fore did have
elaborate funerary rites involving breaking bones among other things.  As
you undoubtedly know, broken bones can have sharp edges, and even in
autopsies in careful conditions it's uncomfortably easy to cut oneself.
It's nearly certain, then, that the Fore would have cut themselves and
involuntarily injected themselves with kuru during their funerary rituals.

And in fact, that was Gajdusek's thought, too.  Even as late as 1972, he
was suggesting that cannibalism or *infection through cuts during funerary
rites* was the cause. By 1982, he doesn't mention the possibility of cuts;
he only mentions the cannibalism.  As far as I can find, and I looked
pretty carefully, there is no intermediate material--no further
evidence--supporting the hypothesis which could lead to its widespread
acceptance.

So here we have a hypothesis which really doesn't have any strong evidence
for it, which has some mild evidence against it (the poor infectibility by
oral route of lab animals), and on the other hand there's a highly
plausible alternative hypothesis (cuts) which has very good support.

The cannibalism theory is sexy.  Everyone knows it, even if they can't
spell kuru or Fore (let alone Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease).  I have little
doubt that's why Gajdusek let it take over, especially as he certainly
seems convinced that the Fore did in fact practice cannibalism.  But in
the spirit of scientific accuracy, I have to say it's not a particularly
good theory.

Ian
--
    Ian York   (iayork@panix.com)  <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
    "-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
     very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England

From: Ian A. York
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Human meat
Date: 21 Aug 1999 23:07:37 -0400

In article <37bf3982.10212013@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz>,
Kerry <kerryd@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>What about the Fore people that told researchers that they remember
>eating human flesh?

I don't believe Deadly Feasts, because I've tried to find the primary
research.

What happened is that lots of the Fore told researchers they remembered
THEIR NEIGHBOURS eating human meat.  And, for that matter, burying it and
digging it up again because maggots were especially tasty.  A typical
"those people over the hill" story.

Ian
--
    Ian York   (iayork@panix.com)  <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
    "-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
     very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England