Anyone else see this show on Discovery last night? The arguments were pretty convincing, to me at least, that we can't be certain that what is known as the Black Death was actually bubonic plague. Here are the arguments against it:
1. Bubonic Plague is spread by rats. The only species of rat in Europe in the 1300s was the black rat. The black rat was a good climbing rat but not very prone to venturing out of its holes and safe places.
2. Black rats were native to the warmer, Mediterranian climates like southern Italy and Spain. There is no evidence (and they've looked pretty hard) that there were any black rats in England or Germany, and the plague ravaged these places as much as anywhere else.
3. It's possible that a rat could die near a person, the fleas would "jump ship," and if the person had people fleas (as opposed to rat fleas) the people fleas would then become infected and might move from their dead host to another human host. But people fleas don't regurgitate blood when they suck, which means that they'd have to have fresh (15 minutes old or less) blood on their mouths when they bit a new person in order to infect the new host. Not all that likely.
4. According to one town's very detailed records, the Black Death was spreading in families and among acquaintences, not randomly as fleas spread by rats would predict.
5. The Black Death spread extremely quickly all throughout Europe, even to areas with low populations. This would suggest that an infected person was spreading the disease to his or her neighbors without knowing he or she was infected. With bubonic plague, you get sick way too fast for that.
6. Records of symptoms sometimes refer to things that might be bubos, but only a few records refer to these at all. Other records refer to the patient vomiting up blood, and one referred to the patient developing small sores all over his body. Neither of these symptoms has ever been observed in bubonic plague.
The scientists quoted in the show said that nothing like the Black Death is currently known on earth, but they suspect it was actually more like Ebola. A virus that you would be infected with but would stay latent for three weeks before killing you, giving you plenty of time to spread it to everyone you came in contact with.
Now, this scares me. I've always been afraid of Ebola, but knowing that something like Ebola might have been what ravaged Europe so thoroughly . . . well, it kind of freaks me out, frankly. I've been thinking about this a lot ever since.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I don't know how prevelant it was, but there was definitely a varient of the bubonic plague that became airborn. I think that it was flea based in its early introduction to europe, but became more contagious as it spread.
That said, it's been a while since I've seen anything on the black plague so I may be rememboring incorrectly.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Pneumonic Plague is caused by the same organism (Yersinia Pestis), but is highly contagious from person to person. No fleas required.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Yes, if the show didn't mention pneumonic variety of plague, then it was a very poorly done show. The theory is, the organism sometimes goes to the lungs, and when it does that, it become extremely contagious from person to person. Those people could spread it to a whole town and some people might flee in terror, some already with the pneumonic variety, and spread it further. That makes me wonder just how important the rats were, actually. Hmmm.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
A bit off topic, but:
quote:1. Bubonic Plague is spread by rats. The only species of rat in Europe in the 1300s was the black rat. The black rat was a good climbing rat but not very prone to venturing out of its holes and safe places.
2. Black rats were native to the warmer, Mediterranian climates like southern Italy and Spain. There is no evidence (and they've looked pretty hard) that there were any black rats in England or Germany, and the plague ravaged these places as much as anywhere else.
So in essence, they are saying there were next to no rats in England up till the 14th century at least?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:3. It's possible that a rat could die near a person, the fleas would "jump ship," and if the person had people fleas (as opposed to rat fleas) the people fleas would then become infected and might move from their dead host to another human host. But people fleas don't regurgitate blood when they suck, which means that they'd have to have fresh (15 minutes old or less) blood on their mouths when they bit a new person in order to infect the new host. Not all that likely.
As someone who has had fleas, let me tell you that the host doesn't have to die for the fleast to jump off and seek another host.
quote:6. Records of symptoms sometimes refer to things that might be bubos, but only a few records refer to these at all. Other records refer to the patient vomiting up blood, and one referred to the patient developing small sores all over his body. Neither of these symptoms has ever been observed in bubonic plague.
I don't know the actual facts, but the way you presented them here sounds just silly. There's a grand total of one account of somebody developing small sores? Statistically insignificant. Perhaps that person didn't even have the black plague. Perhaps he had two diseases.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: A bit off topic, but:
quote:1. Bubonic Plague is spread by rats. The only species of rat in Europe in the 1300s was the black rat. The black rat was a good climbing rat but not very prone to venturing out of its holes and safe places.
2. Black rats were native to the warmer, Mediterranian climates like southern Italy and Spain. There is no evidence (and they've looked pretty hard) that there were any black rats in England or Germany, and the plague ravaged these places as much as anywhere else.
So in essence, they are saying there were next to no rats in England up till the 14th century at least?
That does seem pretty unbelievable, considering how fast rats spread to the new world.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Patients could easily cough or vomit blood with plague, as far as I know. So that part is also incorrect.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
My reading suggests the the sick fleas kept biting new victims, trying to get some nice blood, but the organism blocks it from digesting the blood, so it keeps changing hosts, each time regurgitating blood into the new host.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Rats have been with humans forever, I thought. Sounds like your show was not taking any pains to be accurate and complete.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Exactly. There are passing records of abnormally large rats in English mills, usually as little cautionary notes, and [searching] I think Chauncer made a passing mention of rats being plentiful in Canterbury Tales, though I can't seem to find it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
All in all, I've been pretty dissapointed with the Discovery Channel. Too much hype, not enough science.
Posted by Diosmel Duda (Member # 2180) on :
I love Hatrack. Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
Europeans have a 10% rate of natural immunity to HIV that is caused by a mutation that dates back to the Great Mortality. Furthermore, several tests have not been able to duplicate the one instance where plague DNA was found in a victim's body. I kind of think that there may have been a one-two punch: a rapid-moving airborne form of HIV that would weaken people's resistance to things like flu, anthrax, plague, and whatever else.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Uhhh... Do you have anything to back that up?
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
quote: I think Chauncer made a passing mention of rats being plentiful in Canterbury Tales, though I can't seem to find it.
The Pardoner's Tale:
quote: And prayed of him that he'd prepare and sell Some poison for his rats, and some as well For a polecat that in his yard had lain, The which, he said, his capons there had slain, And fain he was to rid him, if he might, Of vermin that thus damaged him by night.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
KQ: I found this article to support WM's claim. One of many articles actually.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That doesn't support the claim that airborne HIV was around back then.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
No, just his first statement. Rats are mentioned as well.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Right. I was asking about the other part of the claim, too.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
Thank, Val. I was merely speculating (which is a fancy way of saying 'tossing around completely unfounded ideas which are most likely completely impossible').
Ah. Okay, completely unfounded speculation sounds better than assertion. Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
The 10% immunity is a fact, however.
"The mutation, which affects a protein called CCR5 on the surface of white blood cells, prevents HIV from entering these cells and damaging the immune system."
Read Connie Willis' The Doomsday Book.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Bubonic plague is not uncommon in the southwest united states. There are a couple of cases a year. It's carried by ground squirrels and mice in that regions, not just rats.
If the absense of a particular rat species in Europe is a particularly important part of their case, I'd say they need to do more research on Bubonic plague.
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
Regarding the HIV/plague thing, when I was in AP Bio a few years ago the teacher showed us a PBS documentry (I think it was a NOVA but I could be wrong) about the plauge. Apparentally it functions very simmilarly to HIV so the mutation provides immunity for both.
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
A virus that you would be infected with but would stay latent for three weeks before killing you, giving you plenty of time to spread it to everyone you came in contact with.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)