Re: diseases and immunity
Gerold Firl (firstname.lastname@example.org)
22 Jul 1996 20:13:16 GMT
In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org(Mary Beth Williams) writes:
|> In <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Gerold Firl)
|> >In article <email@example.com>,
|> firstname.lastname@example.org(Mary Beth Williams) writes:
|> >|> In <email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org (Gerold Firl)
|> >|> writes:
|> >|> Wrong, wrong, wrong... Haven't you read _anything_ I've posted? TB
|> >|> does _not_ reside only in the lungs in *immunilogically
|> >|> populations!
|> >Thanks for clarifying that, MB. You're right. TB does not reside
|> >exclusively in the lungs among immunologically experienced
|> >TB is, however, primarily a pulmonary disorder - unless we're talking
|> >about virgin-soil epidemics.
|> So, what you're saying is that within these *virgin soil* TB epidemics,
|> people are dying of *skeletal TB* in a week or two?????
The dubos reference cited by macneill stated that an epidemic of TB in
an immunologically inexperienced indian tribe produced symptoms of
meningitis and showed evidence of bacterial colonization of other
internal organs, as I've repeatedly informed you. It says nothing about
|> Or are they
|> cannabilizing infected Europeans and thus developing the rare form of
|> intestinal and mesenteric lymphatic TB?
Charming hypothesis, but I'll let you develop that one on your own.
|> Or do you have some *new and
|> previously unrecognised* form of the disease to which only you are
|> >|> Skeletal TB effects 3-5% of ALL cases of TB, not only in *virgin
|> soil* populations.
|> OK????? But you just said that in virgin-soil epidemics, pulmonary TB
|> was NOT the culprit... Thus, one would be left to believe that you were
|> hence describing skeletal TB as the perpetrator.
No. You claim that skeletal TB shows up in a very low percentage of
cases: 3-5%. I am accepting your claim, in the absense of further data.
It does not, however change this discussion in a material way. I had
stated that TB, which is usually a pulmonary infection in experienced
populations, spread to other parts of the body in the case cited by
macneill and dubos. You seem to be unable to digest this information,
for whatever reason, and go on to suggest that I believe that *skeletal
TB* was a major cause of death among indian populations - where do you
get this stuff?
|> >Whereas, in dubos and macneill are to be believed, TB in a
|> >virgin-soil epidemic killed much more quickly.
|> You've yet to give any supportive evidence to these citations (and its
|> not _my_ job to look this stuff up for you -- they're your citations,
|> you should know the primary research from which they derive.)
I wasn't suggesting that it was "your job" to look up things "for me".
You claim to be an anthropologist who has done forensic-type field work
on northwest indianm populations, including surveys of skeletal
evidence of TB infection, and yet when I provide you with a reference
describing unusual data (the TB epidemic manifesting as meningitis in
the first generation, settling down to the familiar pulmonary pattern
two generations later) you don't want anything to do with it. This is
consistant with your previous pattern: you are simply not interested in
new information, especially if it conflicts with your pre-set ideas.
|> >One problem I see with you is your
|> >extreme ethnocentric chauvinism (a characteristic you share with eric
|> >brunner); any fact which could in any way, no matter how remotely, be
|> >construed as indicating amerindian "inferiority" vis-a-vis europeans
|> >provokes an exagerated reaction: whether we're talking about
|> >density (you claim that the amerinds of the northeast had a population
|> >density equal to england at the time of contact), HLA-mediated immune
|> >response (you claim no genetic difference in disease resistance
|> >old world populations which had suffered from repeated epidemics and
|> >massive die-offs compared to amerinds who had never in their
|> >evolutionary past seen any exposure)
|> You've yet to post a shred of evidence to support your claims of
|> genetic differential in Old World versus New World immunity,
|> particularly in light of the negative evidence which has been provided.
|> European 5-year-olds and their Indian counterparts were equally
|> susceptible to smallpox, and their mortality rates the same.
How do you know this? What evidence exists to support this claim?
|> and even our lamentable cannibalism
|> >thread from a few months ago, where you stubbornly denied, in the face
|> >of multifactorial evidence, that your beloved iroquois ate manflesh.
|> Gerold, you shoot yourself in the foot with this one... I guess you're
|> not at all familiar with the long-term animosity between the Abenakis
|> (Algonquins like me) and the Mohawks (the purported *cannibals* of
|> European ethnohistory.)
No. We've gone over this before. It wasn't just the mohawks. The
iroquois and huron were also cannibals.
Not only are you resistant to new data, you also selectively edit any
information which does manage to penetrate your defenses.
Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf