Re: [tips] Darwin's illness revisited
I had noted that two notable recent papers on Darwin's mysterious debilitating illness, Campbell and Matthews (2005) and Hayman (2009) both claimed that Darwin's illness started before he sailed on the Beagle at the end of 1831. Allen Esterson gave it his usual thorough going-over, and argued against this claim. So I went back to Campbell and Matthews and to Hayman to see what they said and why. It turns out that their pronouncement is poorly supported, as far as I can tell. They cite only the non-specific sources of Darwin's autobiography and his letters in support; not much help from them there. When I searched these sources on-line, I found little persuasive evidence for their claim. So I now agree with Allen that there is scant indication that he suffered since childhood with his mystery ailment. Once again, it seems there's a disconnect between what people say is in the literature, and what's actually there. And at the risk of getting things further tangled up, I'd like to comment on two interesting points from Beth Benoit: The first was that we don't have to stick to one disease in explaining everything that happened to poor Darwin. I agree. To clarify, when I was referring to Hayman writing to me that he thought it possible that Darwin may have had an allergy to milk protein, he was suggesting this in addition to his primary published hypothesis of cyclical vomiting syndrome. He did not think that milk protein allergy alone could explain the severity and range of his symptoms. Second, Beth said this in arguing that Darwin would have died young if he had suffered from milk protein allergy: I'm responding here with a testimonial/account of only one, but my nephew is allergic to milk protein. It's a life-threatening condition. He's 25 and has had numerous visits to an ER if, for example, the same spatula that flips his grilled chicken breast was used earlier for taking a cheeseburger off the grill. His tongue swells, his throat closes. This kind of description is all too familiar to me, as my younger daughter has suffered from peanut allergy from a very early age, and we also experienced numerous frantic dashes to the ER as a consequence. Yet while peanut allergy is becoming increasingly common, deaths from it are fortunately still rare (Wiki gives 1 death per 830,000 children with all food allergies). I doubt that timely medical care can be given all the credit. This is by way of saying that food allergies differ substantially in severity in different people. Most people do survive them. Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Darwin's illness revisited
On 17 Dec 2009 at 22:15, Jim Clark wrote: The level of lactose intolerance (in modern times at least) is quite low for UK (presumably Caucasians?), which leads one to wonder about its a priori probability as a disorder for Darwin. When I said while he [John Hayman, the author of the recent BMJ article on Darwin's illness] seems to agree that the lactose (or milk protein) intolerance theory does have merit, I wasn't erroneously claiming that lactose is milk protein, because lactose is, of course, milk sugar. But I was too brief to be understandable. What Hayman said in his note to me was that he thought that Darwin may have had an allergy to milk protein rather than to lactose. It's regrettable he couldn't find a place for his views on this in his published paper. It also allows one to make the point that genetic does NOT equal immutable, perhaps another factor in student resistance to genetic hypotheses. I must demur, although perhaps only to the way this is expressed. Genetic causation does mean immutable. It is possible to reduce or prevent the secondary consequences of the genetic specification (a trivial example would be hair dye for people suffering from red hair; a non-trivial example the special diet used to treat PKU) but the genetic basis remains unchanged. It's still red under the blonde hair dye; the individual with PKU still can't metabolize phenylalanine. It is true that we are on the cusp of real genetic change through gene therapy; it may already be here in a few extraordinary cases. But in general, while we can ameliorate the consequences of a genetic specification, we cannot change the specification nor its direct consequence. Cautious note to the red-haired. I joke. I have nothing against red hair. Indeed, some of my best friends have red hair. Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Darwin's illness revisited
I'm responding here with a testimonial/account of only one, but my nephew is allergic to milk protein. It's a life-threatening condition. He's 25 and has had numerous visits to an ER if, for example, the same spatula that flips his grilled chicken breast was used earlier for taking a cheeseburger off the grill. His tongue swells, his throat closes. It's not for the faint of heart to see. He carries emergency medication but his symptoms are so severe that that medication is mostly designed to keep him alive long enough to get to a hospital. When he was younger, my sister found that just accidentally touching a drop of milk to his skin resulted in a huge hive. I'd think that if Darwin had been allergic to milk protein, and not been diagnosed because they may not have been aware of it, he wouldn't have lived long enough to make that trip on the *Beagle.* * * Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Darwin's illness revisited
Hi I actually use the PKU example as well to address the perceived immutability of genetically determined characteristics. As to my admittedly cryptic phrasing, I was referring to the immutability of the genetic influence on the manifested characteristic, as elaborated by Stephen. If I can quote a more credible source than myself for my wording, Plomin writes: The example of PKU serves as an antidote to the mistaken notion that genetics implies immutability, as discussed later. For the article go to http://www.uth.tmc.edu/clinicalneuro/institute/2005/Mazzocco's%20pdf's/Plomin%20Walker.pdf Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca Department of Psychology University of Winnipeg Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 CANADA sbl...@ubishops.ca 18-Dec-09 12:46 PM On 17 Dec 2009 at 22:15, Jim Clark wrote: It also allows one to make the point that genetic does NOT equal immutable, perhaps another factor in student resistance to genetic hypotheses. I must demur, although perhaps only to the way this is expressed. Genetic causation does mean immutable. It is possible to reduce or prevent the secondary consequences of the genetic specification (a trivial example would be hair dye for people suffering from red hair; a non-trivial example the special diet used to treat PKU) but the genetic basis remains unchanged. It's still red under the blonde hair dye; the individual with PKU still can't metabolize phenylalanine. It is true that we are on the cusp of real genetic change through gene therapy; it may already be here in a few extraordinary cases. But in general, while we can ameliorate the consequences of a genetic specification, we cannot change the specification nor its direct consequence. Cautious note to the red-haired. I joke. I have nothing against red hair. Indeed, some of my best friends have red hair. Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Darwin's illness revisited
On 18 Dec 2009 at 15:36, Jim Clark wrote: If I can quote a more credible source than myself for my wording, Plomin writes: The example of PKU serves as an antidote to the mistaken notion that genetics implies immutability, as discussed later. Well, it does hurt to be on the wrong side of the justly-eminent Robert Plomin. But if I must, I must. Plomin also says in the article to which Jim directed us: This form of mental retardation has been largely prevented, not by high-tech solutions such as correcting the mutant DNA or by eugenic programmes or by drugs, but rather by a change in diet that prevents the mutant DNA from having its damaging effects. and As the example of PKU shows, even a disorder caused by a single gene can be circumvented by environmental intervention. Note the phrases prevents the mutant DNA from having its damaging effects' and can be circumvented. Both of these indicate that it is not the genetic disorder itself which can be altered but that its consequences can be dealt with by other means. The use of the term immutability is unfortunate, because if it is not immutable, then it must be mutable, and that term is normally understood to refer to changes in the genetic material itself (a mutation). For clarity and to avoid misleading students, I'd think it best to avoid the M-word in this context, and save it for correcting the mutant DNA (gene therapy) as mentioned by Plomin. The important concept which Jim wants to convey to his students might be expressed by saying that the consequences of a genetic disorder can sometimes be reduced by appropriate treatment. Not as catchy, I'm willing to admit, but more accurate. BTW, _Science_ magazine has just announced today that gene therapy is one of the runners-up for breakthrough of the year. They cite three kinds: a) treatment of a rare form of inherited blindness in four children; b) X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy in two 7-year-olds, and c) Bubble-boy disease, with eight children successfully treated. These are the genetic diseases which we can say with precision are no longer immutable. Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Darwin's illness revisited
On 16 Dec 2009 at 11:40, Allen Esterson wrote, concerning my complaint that a new article by Hayman (2009) on Darwin's affliction didn't consider the previous most recent paper on the topic in 2005: Stephen has missed (vacationing?) what I find the most likely explanation, cited on TIPS on 5 October this year: Darwin's illness: a final diagnosis (2007) Fernando Orrego and Carlos Quintana Notes and Records of the Royal Society 2007: 61, 23-29 http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/61/1/23.full.pdf+html Yes, I was rash to assert that without checking. As it happens, I was startled and pleased to receive an e-mail yesterday from none other than John Hayman himself, which once again should remind us that our postings are public. Dr. Hayman also pointed out that there have been a number of other recent diagnoses, including a resurgence of Crohn's disease and mercury poisoning...and Helicobacter. He told me that the original version of his paper did address the lactose intolerance theory, but was cut from the paper due to space limitation. He sent me a copy of his views on the lactose question, possibly the material edited out from his article, and while he seems to agree that the lactose (or milk protein) intolerance theory does have merit, it fails to adequately explain the severity and range of his symptoms. As for Allen's nomination of the Orrego and Quintana hypothesis of Crohn's disease as most likely, I'm not so sure. O Q argue that the precipitating circumstance was a bacterial infection contracted in Chile. But both Campbell and Mathews (2005) and Hayman (2009) argue that there were signs of the illness before Darwin set sail. That would seem to rule it out, or at least O Q's version. Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
Re: [tips] Darwin's illness revisited
Hi Lactose intolerance is definitely unevenly distributed across different populations, as Beth indicates. Here are some statistics and maps showing its distribution. http://www.foodreactions.org/intolerance/lactose/prevalence.html The level of lactose intolerance (in modern times at least) is quite low for UK (presumably Caucasians?), which leads one to wonder about its a priori probability as a disorder for Darwin. The story in Africa is more complicated because lactose tolerance appears to have evolved in parts of East Africa independent of its evolution in Europe. See: http://darwinstudents.blogspot.com/2009/02/evolution-of-lactose-tolerance.html I've also seen other sites arguing for the fairly rapid evolution of lactose tolerance once milk is introduced, but I'm not sure where. So incidence statistics may vary across generations. I talk about this and a number of other genetic determined disorders that vary across ethnicity (e.g., sickle cell anemia) in my culture and psychology class. Students appear more receptive to genetic explanations for physical disorders than for psychological traits, in part perhaps because the mechanisms for some physical disorders are well understood. It also allows one to make the point that genetic does NOT equal immutable, perhaps another factor in student resistance to genetic hypotheses. Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca Beth Benoit beth.ben...@gmail.com 17-Dec-09 4:32:30 PM People who have bowel problems such as Crohn's, colitis and inflammatory bowel disease, are often also lactose intolerant, at least in my own and many family members' experience. Lactose intolerance is also a lot more common in the world than many realize. (Asians, Africans, African-Americans and Native Americans are almost 100% lactose intolerant, and worldwide, about 75% of adults are unable to tolerate lactose.) So lactose intolerance could have been just one of the many intestinal problems that poor Darwin endured. He was probably encouraged to drink milk to settle his stomach, as my poor grandmother was urged to do. She had bleeding ulcers, but it was before lactose intolerance was understood, and she was encouraged to drink milk all day to soothe her tortured stomach. It's a marvel she lived as long as she did, albeit with most of her stomach removed and lots of other things as well... Secondly, we don't have to stick to just one disease to explain his skin problems. They don't *have* to be explained by the same disorder that caused his bowel problems. Beth Benoit Granite State College Plymouth State University New Hampshire On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:34 PM, sbl...@ubishops.ca wrote: On 16 Dec 2009 at 11:40, Allen Esterson wrote, concerning my complaint that a new article by Hayman (2009) on Darwin's affliction didn't consider the previous most recent paper on the topic in 2005: Stephen has missed (vacationing?) what I find the most likely explanation, cited on TIPS on 5 October this year: Darwin's illness: a final diagnosis (2007) Fernando Orrego and Carlos Quintana Notes and Records of the Royal Society 2007: 61, 23-29 http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/61/1/23.full.pdf+html Yes, I was rash to assert that without checking. As it happens, I was startled and pleased to receive an e-mail yesterday from none other than John Hayman himself, which once again should remind us that our postings are public. Dr. Hayman also pointed out that there have been a number of other recent diagnoses, including a resurgence of Crohn's disease and mercury poisoning...and Helicobacter. He told me that the original version of his paper did address the lactose intolerance theory, but was cut from the paper due to space limitation. He sent me a copy of his views on the lactose question, possibly the material edited out from his article, and while he seems to agree that the lactose (or milk protein) intolerance theory does have merit, it fails to adequately explain the severity and range of his symptoms. As for Allen's nomination of the Orrego and Quintana hypothesis of Crohn's disease as most likely, I'm not so sure. O Q argue that the precipitating circumstance was a bacterial infection contracted in Chile. But both Campbell and Mathews (2005) and Hayman (2009) argue that there were signs of the illness before Darwin set sail. That would seem to rule it out, or at least O Q's version. Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu) --- To make changes to your subscription contact:
Re: [tips] Darwin's illness revisited
���Re the recent article in the Guardian about an article positing yet another solution to Darwin's illness, Stephen Black writes: I find it curious that he does not mention the most recent, Campbell and Matthews (2005), published in the sister publication of the BMJ, the Postgraduate Medical Journal. They cover much of the same ground as Hayman in rejecting other possibilities, but argue that the cause was lactose intolerance. Stephen has missed (vacationing?) what I find the most likely explanation, cited on TIPS on 5 October this year: Darwin's illness: a final diagnosis (2007) Fernando Orrego (Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile) and Carlos Quintana (Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago, Chile; Department of Gastroenterology, School of Medicine, Catholic University of Chile) Notes and Records of the Royal Society 2007: 61, 23-29 http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/61/1/23.full.pdf+html Abstract We have re-examined many of the abundant publications on the illness that afflicted Charles Darwin during most of his life, including some of the 416 health-related letters in his correspondence, as well as his autobiographical writings. We have concluded that he suffered from Crohn’s disease, located mainly in his upper small intestine. This explains his upper abdominal pain, his flatulence and vomiting, as well as his articular and neurological symptoms, his ‘extreme fatigue’, low fever and especially the chronic, relapsing course of his illness that evolved in bouts, did not affect his life expectancy and decreased with old age, and also the time of life at which it started. It apparently does not explain, however, many of his cutaneous symptoms. We do not support other diagnoses such as Chagas’ disease, lactose intolerance or the many psychiatric conditions that have been postulated. Conclusion In summary, virtually all of the symptoms of Darwin’s ‘mysterious illness’ may be explained by Crohn’s disease, with the possible exception of some of the numerous skin alterations (eczema, rash, erythema and boils) that he suffered, part of which seem to have been present before the Beagle voyage. It is also known that eczema is increased by stress, which Darwin suffered abundantly, and that in inflammatory bowel disease the response to stressors is enhanced. In retrospect, it is of interest that the most accurate diagnosis made during Darwin’s life was that by Dr Edward Lane, who said he suffered from ‘dyspepsia of an aggravated character’, which, at the time, was the closest he could get to Crohn’s disease… Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org -- [tips] Darwin's illness revisited sblack Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:27:58 -0800 Chris Green drew my attention on another list to an article in The Guardian on yet another theory to explain Darwin's curious set of ailments (see http://tinyurl.com/ydyommv ). We've discussed this matter on a number of previous occasions. The best-known theory is that his condition was psychosomatic, brought on by anxiety associated with writing and promoting his Godless theory. The smart money says this theory is nonsense. The Guardian article is based on a report in the current Christmas edition of the BMJ, where they traditionally publish funny or quirky items saved up over the year (this year more quirky than funny). The article is Darwin's illness revisited by John Hayman. It's available at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/339/dec11_2/b4968 (says extract only, but it lies) Hayman claims the disorder from which Darwin periodically suffered (and he really did suffer) is something called cyclical vomiting syndrome which is as nasty as it sounds. Two things strike me about Hayman's account. First, he reproduces from Darwin's diary a description of the early onset of seasickness on setting sail in the Beagle. Darwin says it caused him great unceasing suffering. Hayman comments, Darwin's seasickness was clearly more severe than that normally experienced. As someone who gets sick on a ferrry ride, I can speak from experience. Darwin's description is about what one would expect for a sailing ship in the north Atlantic. I suspect that Hayman has himself never experienced this charming phenomenon. He should try it. Second, while Hayman lists and rules out a number of other possible diagnoses, I find it curious that he does not mention the most recent, Campbell and Matthews (2005), published in the sister publication of the BMJ, the Postgraduate Medical Journal. They cover much of the same ground as Hayman in rejecting other possibilities, but argue that the cause was lactose intolerance. See http://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/954/248.abstract and click on free pdf (may possibly require free registration if that doesn't work). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any
[tips] Darwin's illness revisited
Chris Green drew my attention on another list to an article in The Guardian on yet another theory to explain Darwin's curious set of ailments (see http://tinyurl.com/ydyommv ). We've discussed this matter on a number of previous occasions. The best-known theory is that his condition was psychosomatic, brought on by anxiety associated with writing and promoting his Godless theory. The smart money says this theory is nonsense. The Guardian article is based on a report in the current Christmas edition of the BMJ, where they traditionally publish funny or quirky items saved up over the year (this year more quirky than funny). The article is Darwin's illness revisited by John Hayman. It's available at http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/339/dec11_2/b4968 (says extract only, but it lies) Hayman claims the disorder from which Darwin periodically suffered (and he really did suffer) is something called cyclical vomiting syndrome which is as nasty as it sounds. Two things strike me about Hayman's account. First, he reproduces from Darwin's diary a description of the early onset of seasickness on setting sail in the Beagle. Darwin says it caused him great unceasing suffering. Hayman comments, Darwin's seasickness was clearly more severe than that normally experienced. As someone who gets sick on a ferrry ride, I can speak from experience. Darwin's description is about what one would expect for a sailing ship in the north Atlantic. I suspect that Hayman has himself never experienced this charming phenomenon. He should try it. Second, while Hayman lists and rules out a number of other possible diagnoses, I find it curious that he does not mention the most recent, Campbell and Matthews (2005), published in the sister publication of the BMJ, the Postgraduate Medical Journal. They cover much of the same ground as Hayman in rejecting other possibilities, but argue that the cause was lactose intolerance. See http://pmj.bmj.com/content/81/954/248.abstract and click on free pdf (may possibly require free registration if that doesn't work). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any way to decide who's right. Digging Darwin up might help, but who's going to approve that, eh? I recall that the same tactic was proposed to solve controversy over Rene Descarte's bones, and his exhumation was initially allowed, but then later blocked by city officials. Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sbl...@ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
