There's a non-zero chance that we're about to experience another huge population bottleneck due to misfolded proteins. Prions bioaccumulating in the environment for untold years is the terrifying part.
I read this book years ago. Fascinating and scary subject. At the time I read this book, I was wondering about plants - now I have the answer - yes - it is transmissible via plants.
In this brilliant and gripping medical detective story. Richard Rhodes follows virus hunters on three continents as they track the emergence of a deadly new brain disease that first kills cannibals in New Guinea, then cattle and young people in Britain and France -- and that has already been traced to food animals in the United States. In a new Afterword for the paperback, Rhodes reports the latest U.S. and worldwide developments of a burgeoning global threat.
Stone Age Herbalist, a few aspects of your summary don't seem to fit with the explanation for kuru. First, was the rate of kuru in the 1950s-70s an increase over what occurred in prior eras? The way you described it makes it sound as if the incidence in the postwar period was an abrupt increase over prior times. If that's so, what would account for it? Had the Fore given up cannibalism before the war, but then returned to it after the war? And why would they have restarted cannibalism then? Second, the rate of fatal disease (>10%) is extremely high, even for a homozygous condition. By your description, it had a major impact on social behavior (e.g., marriage patterns), which implies that this rate of kuru was very unusual for the Fore. The rate might be so high as to threaten extinction. In contrast, the prevalence of homozygous sickle cell disease (not trait) seems to be about 1-3% in west Africa. That seems like a much more evolutionary stable proportion.
I think Kathleen Lowrey's comment about the second-hand nature of reports of cannibalism also deserves discussion.
On whether cannibalism is implicated, whatever causes kuru, I'd recommend
Review: Kuru and Cannibalism?
Reviewed Work(s): Kuru: Early Letters and Field-Notes from the Collection of D.
Carleton Gajdusek by Judith Farquhar and D. Carleton Gajdusek
Review by: Lyle B. Steadman and Charles F. Merbs
Source:
American Anthropologist , Sep., 1982, New Series, Vol. 84, No. 3 (Sep., 1982), pp.
611-627
It cites Arens, whom I consider unreliable (Arens thought cannibalism has basically never been practiced anywhere, my own view is that he was totally wrong about this -- there are lots of examples in the whole human record). But leaving that aside, the review makes a very good and specifically documented case that all of the accounts of cannibalistic practices of the sort that would explain the pattern of kuru (mortuary cannibalism by women) are second-hand anecdotes.
Finally, if Gadjusek had been an all-round stand up guy, it would be easier to suppose he never played fast and loose with evidence. That's just not the case with Gadjusek... at all. Maybe mentioning this part of Gadjusek's history didn't seem relevant? But it is relevant to assessing whether we should take challenges to his work seriously. Was he generally a person of high integrity? Nope.
Not to be too pedantic, but it's not beneficial to my offspring for me (and later them) to die. It's beneficial to the wider society, potentially, to nip the problem in the bud. But in this case me and my offspring are the problem being nipped, which is definitely not helpful.
I don't quite understand how being heterozygote could act as selection for future generations since heterozygote individuals could presumably have homozygote descendants by chance (e. g. ab mating with ab can produce ab, aa or bb).
Thank you for your detailed response. However, the main questions I posed remain. If kuru didn't arise until the late 1800s, then presumably cannibalism didn't occur in meaningful frequency until then -- very recently in evolutionary time. What happened in the Highlands to cause such a shift in behavior? In addition, a 2% annual death rate, producing a 12.5% (2,500/20,000) decline in population within a generation, is not sustainable demographically for very long. Sickle cell disease produces orders of magnitude less mortality. If what you describe is accurate, the Australian prohibition of cannibalism saved the Fore from extinction. Furthermore, the integrity of researchers and their research is extremely important. If Gajdusek's scientific character is questionable, then the case here might begin to crumble. As Kathleen Lowrey has noted, it's tough to make a "watertight" case if there are no credible direct and detailed observations of the behavior responsible for transmission by multiple independent observers. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another infectious condition that lacks such critical evidence.
Very interesting, but I do not fully understand how a population can remain heterozygotic. Surely mixing between fully heterozygotic individuals will lead to a 50:50 hetero-homo split in the next generation. At least if men and women are both heterozygotic, order of pairs doesn't matter, and my very rudimentary GCSE level understanding of this holds up.
There's a non-zero chance that we're about to experience another huge population bottleneck due to misfolded proteins. Prions bioaccumulating in the environment for untold years is the terrifying part.
I read this book years ago. Fascinating and scary subject. At the time I read this book, I was wondering about plants - now I have the answer - yes - it is transmissible via plants.
DEADLY FEAST, Richard Rhodes.
https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Feasts-Controversy-Publics-Health/dp/0684844257/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2I8QM68IAH6II&keywords=deadly+feasts+richard+rhodes&qid=1707807734&sprefix=deadly+feast%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-1
Amazon's description
In this brilliant and gripping medical detective story. Richard Rhodes follows virus hunters on three continents as they track the emergence of a deadly new brain disease that first kills cannibals in New Guinea, then cattle and young people in Britain and France -- and that has already been traced to food animals in the United States. In a new Afterword for the paperback, Rhodes reports the latest U.S. and worldwide developments of a burgeoning global threat.
Stone Age Herbalist, a few aspects of your summary don't seem to fit with the explanation for kuru. First, was the rate of kuru in the 1950s-70s an increase over what occurred in prior eras? The way you described it makes it sound as if the incidence in the postwar period was an abrupt increase over prior times. If that's so, what would account for it? Had the Fore given up cannibalism before the war, but then returned to it after the war? And why would they have restarted cannibalism then? Second, the rate of fatal disease (>10%) is extremely high, even for a homozygous condition. By your description, it had a major impact on social behavior (e.g., marriage patterns), which implies that this rate of kuru was very unusual for the Fore. The rate might be so high as to threaten extinction. In contrast, the prevalence of homozygous sickle cell disease (not trait) seems to be about 1-3% in west Africa. That seems like a much more evolutionary stable proportion.
I think Kathleen Lowrey's comment about the second-hand nature of reports of cannibalism also deserves discussion.
Thank you for thought-provoking Substack!
I'd be down with being eaten. They're already inheriting all my stuff, might as well take the body, too!
Fascinating and horrifying piece of history. Thank you for sharing it.
On whether cannibalism is implicated, whatever causes kuru, I'd recommend
Review: Kuru and Cannibalism?
Reviewed Work(s): Kuru: Early Letters and Field-Notes from the Collection of D.
Carleton Gajdusek by Judith Farquhar and D. Carleton Gajdusek
Review by: Lyle B. Steadman and Charles F. Merbs
Source:
American Anthropologist , Sep., 1982, New Series, Vol. 84, No. 3 (Sep., 1982), pp.
611-627
It cites Arens, whom I consider unreliable (Arens thought cannibalism has basically never been practiced anywhere, my own view is that he was totally wrong about this -- there are lots of examples in the whole human record). But leaving that aside, the review makes a very good and specifically documented case that all of the accounts of cannibalistic practices of the sort that would explain the pattern of kuru (mortuary cannibalism by women) are second-hand anecdotes.
Finally, if Gadjusek had been an all-round stand up guy, it would be easier to suppose he never played fast and loose with evidence. That's just not the case with Gadjusek... at all. Maybe mentioning this part of Gadjusek's history didn't seem relevant? But it is relevant to assessing whether we should take challenges to his work seriously. Was he generally a person of high integrity? Nope.
He's controversial, but it's worth at least reading what Peter Duesberg has to say about kuru if this is a topic in which you are very interested.
Short version: he thinks the case for kuru being a disease transmitted by a virus-like agent is very weak.
Not to be too pedantic, but it's not beneficial to my offspring for me (and later them) to die. It's beneficial to the wider society, potentially, to nip the problem in the bud. But in this case me and my offspring are the problem being nipped, which is definitely not helpful.
I don't quite understand how being heterozygote could act as selection for future generations since heterozygote individuals could presumably have homozygote descendants by chance (e. g. ab mating with ab can produce ab, aa or bb).
Thank you for your detailed response. However, the main questions I posed remain. If kuru didn't arise until the late 1800s, then presumably cannibalism didn't occur in meaningful frequency until then -- very recently in evolutionary time. What happened in the Highlands to cause such a shift in behavior? In addition, a 2% annual death rate, producing a 12.5% (2,500/20,000) decline in population within a generation, is not sustainable demographically for very long. Sickle cell disease produces orders of magnitude less mortality. If what you describe is accurate, the Australian prohibition of cannibalism saved the Fore from extinction. Furthermore, the integrity of researchers and their research is extremely important. If Gajdusek's scientific character is questionable, then the case here might begin to crumble. As Kathleen Lowrey has noted, it's tough to make a "watertight" case if there are no credible direct and detailed observations of the behavior responsible for transmission by multiple independent observers. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another infectious condition that lacks such critical evidence.
Very interesting, but I do not fully understand how a population can remain heterozygotic. Surely mixing between fully heterozygotic individuals will lead to a 50:50 hetero-homo split in the next generation. At least if men and women are both heterozygotic, order of pairs doesn't matter, and my very rudimentary GCSE level understanding of this holds up.
Read Duesberg on that airtight case, not summaries of his work written by detractors. You might come away with doubts.
Could you please elaborate on this part of Gadjusek's history or give a link that has more information? Thank you!