Comments on: Tuberculosis Detected in Bones from 9 kya Israeli Neolithic Site

By: stripey_cat

stripey_cat — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:29:31 +0000

I *think* that the assumed transmission was from cattle to humans via infected milk (which was the main transmission route in the historical period up until TT of dairy cattle). If you’re going with human-to-cattle transmission, or transmission from cattle to humans before dairy farming began, then you need a new mechanism for transmission (since droplet infection, which was the main human-to-human mechanism, is unlikely unless you live in the building that your stock winter in).

By: thadd

thadd — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:43:28 +0000

It still could ahve come from wild cattle.

By: Markk

Markk — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:26:59 +0000

No I was asking why there was surprise at the apparent non-animal origin of the TB found. Greg says he would like to see it confirmed, which is needed of course, but I was wondering why the thought it was of recent animal origin was so compelling, as opposed to this finding.

By: calvert

calvert — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:05:45 +0000

Markk, I think what you are saying is not a surprise is not what they say happened.

By: Markk

Markk — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:57:08 +0000

Why the surprise at the origin? Is it simply that there were a lot more animals than people, and thus chances are in general favoring animal sources or is there something else special about people and TB?