Survival of the sickest was, by far the most interesting
read yet. It was well written and very engaging, however, I did find some of
Moalem’s arguments to be taken out of context and reductionistic. For example, he talks about the Younger Dryas
and the evolution of diabetes and used very sound examples to support his
hypothesis. However, he argues that more people are diagnosed with diabetes
between November and February, than between June and September, which,
according to Moalem, is “tantalizing evidence to bolster the theory”. I’m not
sure that he sold me on this one; assuming every other factor involved with
this statistic is held constant, this would be very “tantalizing” but that just
is not the case. In summer months people are more active and metabolisms are in
super-drive. Conversely, in winter months, people are generally less active
and, in my case stuff my face, snuggle under the covers and watch oldies; it
would make sense that more people are diagnosed with diabetes in the months
where their metabolisms are less active.
Another example that made me question Moalem’s theory was
when he spoke of the evidence supporting the hemochromatosis theory and the
link to the bubonic plague. This theory itself is very insightful and is filled
with strong evidence supporting the link. However, one example that I had an
issue with was when he claimed that men between fifteen and forty-four killed
by the plague outnumbered women of the same age by a factor of two to one. He
explains this by saying that women were spared because menstration caused them
to have less iron and that children and elderly were malnourished, which
subsequently caused iron deprivation. Prior to this statement he says that
those thought to have the disease, witches and Jews were, at times burned --
people in those towns were obviously filled with panic and tried to find
answers. I think the reason why men were killed more frequently by the plague
than women and children, might of have had to do with iron, but was largely due
to exposure. Since men were out working near, burying and burning infected
people, I would think they were more vulnerable to contracting the illness, not
necessarily more vulnerable to die from it.
Also, what about all of the other diseases that plagued the
human race, why haven’t we been protected from them? What about smallpox, the
Spanish flu, cholera and typhus? are they so different from the bubonic plague? I
think what makes the hemochromatosis-bubonic plague theory so compelling is
that it fits… it originated just prior to the plague, which in my opinion helped
establish the link.
This post does a really great job of something that Professor Conley has encouraged us to do in this class, which is to be a sociological investigator. I like that Sammy here has tackled some of Moalem's points, including perhaps one of the most pertinent with the plague question, by looking at other factors that could be involved.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am not ready to throw out the theory of menstruation being a key factor in the survival rate of women as opposed to men in the bubonic plague. While it is true that men were exposed more, my understanding of the plague was that it was so contagious that basically everyone was exposed. The men still had to come home to their wives after burying and burning all of the dead.
Probably the thing that I like most about this theory is that it supports the cyclical nature of medicine, specifically that, while it is not by any means applicable in the way that it was two centuries ago, bleeding may actually be a legitimate medical practice. This made me think of a practice that was common in America in the eighteenth century to combat our own outbreak of the plague: inoculation. Dramatized in the HBO series John Adams, inoculation is a procedure similar in practice to immunization, a patient is infected with a small amount of the plague so that the body can develop a resistance to it. While extremely controversial, it actually might have worked. But recalling the absolutely disgusting scene from the show, I realized that there could be another factor at play. They didn't use a syringe in the procedure, but rather just made an incision and placed a spore directly on the skin. Perhaps the bleeding that resulted from this procedure helped with the iron deprivation problem.
I agree with Sammy's assessment of the book as well as some of William's revisions to it. I found the book to be very engaging and sometimes would get lost in it to the point that I had to step back and go, "what a second, I don't think he really proved that…". Some of it was a matter of being engaged and well written and following the argument and understanding it, but like Sammy, I found that when looked at closer some of the arguments were a little weak.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to books like Conley's which seems to second guess every theory due to the variety of possible factors that could be at play, this book tends to ignore the possibility of their existence.
Also, the point Sammy made about diagnosis months for diabetes doesn't mean the actual month when their diabetes began, just the month when they were diagnosed. Even assuming that there is a higher rate of onset of diabetes, Sammy's point about behavioral factors shouldn't have been glossed over in the book the way it was.
The hemochromatosis and bubonic plague link seemed one of the stronger arguments. I think that the menstruation factor is incredibly pertinent. Menstruation in our society still causes anemia quite frequently. So in a society with a less nutrient rich diet I'd imagine menstruating women to be anemic quite regularly. The part Sammy brings up about the Jews though I didn't totally understand how they were largely immune based on this theory. Do Jews have a high rate of hemochromatosis? Or did they have a high rate of anemia?
I would also be interested to see what Moalem would say about things like smallpox, Spanish flu, cholera and typhus.