
Investigating Jeanne Calment’s Longevity Record - nkurz
https://www.leafscience.org/valery-novoselov-investigating-jeanne-calments-longevity-record/
======
apo
The interview cites this passage from the 2007 book Insurance and Its Secrets:

 _Everyone remembers Jeanne Calment, who has officially died at age 122 on
August 4, 1997. It was said at the time that this lady had benefited from
having a life annuity, which was true. This was paid by a large French company
that was not happy at all with this exceptional longevity. The company was
even more upset as it knew that it had been paying not Jeanne Calment, but her
daughter. In reality, after the death of the real Jeanne Calment, her daughter
who obviously was no longer a child, had taken her mother’s identity to keep
receiving the annuity. The insurance company had discovered identity theft,
but in agreement with – or on the demand of? – the public authorities, it had
not wished to reveal the truth, given how much the character of the
“grandmother of the French” had become legendary._

It seems that any investigation into this case should involve the insurance
company. It would be surprising if Valery Novoselov had not at least started
interviewing those involved with the insurance company.

Could it be that these investigations actually were made but turned up nothing
to support the claim made in the book?

~~~
fanfantm
However something from this book passage does not seem to fit: most sources
indicate that the "viager" annuity started to be paid in 1965 (by a local
notary, not by a large French company), while Yvonne (or Jeanne?)'s death was
in 1934, so if fraud happened at that time it was not to keep receiving the
annuity.

~~~
mahkeiro
Exactly the house was sold to a notary (which and this history was well known
in France as he died a few years before her, and had to pay it for 32 years.
Here an article from the main French economical newspaper in 1995 about it:
[https://www.lesechos.fr/27/12/1995/LesEchos/17052-109-ECH_l-...](https://www.lesechos.fr/27/12/1995/LesEchos/17052-109-ECH_l-
acheteur-en-viager-de-la-maison-de-jeanne-calment-est-decede.htm))

This article contains so many basic error on know fact, like naming Arles as a
big city which it is clearly not, that it question just how serious it really
is.

------
ernesth
> [Yvonne's] kid, by the way, was calling Jeanne “mamzanne”, that is, Mom
> Jeanne.

Most french children call their grandmother mamie + something differentiating
from their other grandmother. Mamie Jeanne? No child use mom + first name.

> Arles was one of the biggest French communes at that time with 38 thousand
> people (even now, not every Moscow satellite city has that many people)

Arles was and still is far from being one of the biggest french communes. It
is not among the 100 most crowded cities in France.

> Jeanne was the first (by birth date) validated supercentenarian in France
> and that she is also the most long-lived person in the world. It is a very
> unlikely combination of events from the point of view of statistics.

Isn't it exactly as unlikely that the 1st is the most long-lived, as the 17th
being the longest-lived?

This hypothesis of Jeanne Calment dying in 1934 may be true, but this article
does not really convince me.

~~~
btilly
The most convincing point to me is that she doesn't fit in the statistical
models. After people get to a certain age, their odds of surviving should be
describable with an exponential curve. We can fit these curves to people who
survive past an old age, like 105 or 110 or 115. And most of the distribution
fits just fine. But Jeanne Calment and Sarah Knauss don't. They are both
extremely unlikely outliers.

At which point you have to ask the question. What theory do you consider most
likely? That the model is wrong, that we happen to be lucky enough to have
seen these two extraordinary data points very early, or that these two data
points are fraudulent?

From a Bayesian point of view, this is a very strong argument in support of
fraud. And when specific evidence emerges, including from photos, that there
was fraud, it should be instantly believable.

~~~
littlestymaar
The statistical model only makes sense if we consider the people to have an
homogeneous genetic “potential”. Of course that make sense in average, but
that makes no sense for outliers.

Jeanne Calment and Sarah Knauss could share a specific (and really rare)
individual mutation that makes their expected lifespan way higher than the
average human and comparing them to others just doesn't make sense.

If you look at the distribution of human sizes, Robert Wadlow and John F
Carroll are also outliers but nobody is questioning their size ;).

~~~
btilly
You are arguing that the model is wrong. Which is not impossible, and is a
theory that the statistical evidence also supports. You gave as an example
human size.

It could also be a non-linear interaction effect between genes. Kind of like
how most waves follow the linear wave model, but there is a separate
distribution of very rare non-linear waves called rogue waves. (Very rare as
in one every several months at a given spot.) When you combine rogue waves and
a heavy sea, you get waves with a size that should be seen only once every
10,000 years or so anywhere on Earth.

So yes, we can come up with all sorts of possibilities. However when you
combine statistical models with specific photographic evidence pointing
towards fraud, the fraud theory is a lot more believable than it would
otherwise be.

~~~
littlestymaar
I find the whole article quite convincing actually (including the picture
thing). I was just arguing that the statistical model isn't a strong evidence
per se.

------
lordnacho
I'm not entirely convinced of the statistical argument. I mean outliers
happen. Did Don Bradman cheat? I doubt it:

[https://www.statslife.org.uk/sports/1989-did-don-bradman-
s-c...](https://www.statslife.org.uk/sports/1989-did-don-bradman-s-cricketing-
genius-make-him-a-statistical-outlier)

The guy was apparently an > 6 sigma (insert joke here) batter.

As for how the outlier happens, it's pretty hard to make a case. If it were
easy to bat 100 more people would have done it. Same goes with anything at the
extremes of a distribution. Who's to say that whatever ageing process occurs
in the body did not simply slow for JC? Any evidence to the contrary ("it
can't happen") is supported by observations of averages. All you'd be saying
is "we haven't seen this happen".

Of course I'm not saying everything that's unlikely actually happened the way
it was purported to.

Put together with some of the circumstantial evidence, I might be convinced.
The fact that there was a pension involved is certainly incentive.

~~~
littlestymaar
The pension couldn't be an incentive in 1934 because it was contracted in
1965.

The case of Bradman is really interesting, thanks.

------
bluedevil2k
I had always found it fascinating/suspicious that she outlived the next
closest long-lifers by so much. Beginning at age 105, there's a 50/50 chance
you'll make it to your next birthday (1). So Jeanne was a super outlier in
this model, a 2^17 outlier (1:131,072)

1 - [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-
science/wp/2...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-
science/wp/2018/06/28/new-study-questions-a-limit-to-the-human-life-
span/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bddf8960a83f)

~~~
mpweiher
On the other hand, with 6-7 Billion people, a 1:130K chance is not going to be
much of a hindrance, statistically.

~~~
pedrocr
This lists only 500k people 100+:

[https://www.populationpyramid.net/](https://www.populationpyramid.net/)

But even at that scale you'd expect there to be one or two people reach that
age and the article claims this case is actually well outside any of the
statistical models. So the 50/50 statistic probably understates the odds as
I'm sure those percentages keep getting worse every year.

~~~
bluedevil2k
Agreed, cause the article states the 50/50 statistic only really applies to
ages 105-110. After that, I suspect they would start getting worse, but
there's probably not enough of a sample size to provide an accurate estimate.

------
mpweiher
Hmm...looks like a lot of seemingly miraculous longevity turns out to
be...less than miraculous.

First one I heard of were the Japanese, who actually weren't long-lived but
scamming the state for pensions:

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-
pacific-11258071](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11258071)

And so of course the health benefits of the Japanese diet turned out to be,
not as beneficial. Still delicious, though.

Last I checked there were similar issues with the so-called Mediterranean
diet, though I can't find the reference now.

Sixth Sense, anyone?

------
mr_overalls
> You see, there are Blue Zones where there are many centenarians, and the
> data about their lifestyle can probably explain their longevity. However,
> most of Russia is located in a totally different climate zone, and what is
> known about the life-extending lifestyles of, say, Mediterranean countries
> cannot be applied to our latitude.

The book "Blue Zones" referenced nine lifestyle factors that were associated
with longevity. They are:

1\. Moderate, regular physical activity. 2\. Life purpose. 3\. Stress
reduction. 4\. Moderate caloric intake. 5\. Plant-based diet. 6\. Moderate
alcohol intake, especially wine. 7\. Engagement in spirituality or religion.
8\. Engagement in family life. 9\. Engagement in social life.

I find it pretty incredible that a researcher would reject these very general
principles out of hand, simply because Russia's landmass is located at higher
latitudes.

~~~
chongli
_6\. Moderate alcohol intake, especially wine._

The position that moderate alcohol consumption promotes health has been
overturned [1]. Data now shows that the only safe level of alcohol consumption
is zero. Every single drink increases your risks of alcohol-related disease.
The previous data showing a benefit to moderate alcohol use may have been a
result of some confounder such as social economic status or reverse causation
(diseased people quit drinking).

[1]
[https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(18\)31310-2/fulltext)

~~~
jayalpha
Others would disagree:

The Truth We Won’t Admit: Drinking Is Healthy

[https://psmag.com/social-justice/truth-wont-admit-
drinking-h...](https://psmag.com/social-justice/truth-wont-admit-drinking-
healthy-87891)

(Before you downvote, google the author Stanton Peele)

~~~
littlestymaar
Refuting a peer-reviewed study (in the Lancet, no less) with an opinion post
in “Pacific standard” is _interesting_.

An the argument of authority never holds, we've seen Nobel prize winners
beeing fond of conspiracy theories or other bullshit before…

~~~
jayalpha
ONE Study? I am sure I can google you a dozen other studies that show that
moderate alcohol consumption, red wine consumption oder resveratrol
consumption (must be the resveratrol, can't be the alcohol) is healthy.

And had you actually read the article and not just vomited here into the forum
then you would have realized that Pele cites and discusses many studies in the
article.

~~~
littlestymaar
That's obviously how science works: just counting how many studies there is on
each side, without paying attention to the publication or the methodology
(preferably without even reading the abstract), and the truth is the one with
the higher score…

I've read your article (as well as the study cited above, did you ?) And it
doesn't _discuss_ several studies: it cherry-picks some that go in his
direction and dismisses the others … Had you read the study, you'd have
realized that:

\- the study came 4 years _after_ the opinion post you shared.

\- the main argument of the post “a little amount of red wine is beneficial”,
which is what we though in the past, has been refuted since: it's an artifact
due to a co-founder (social status) and if you control for it, this surprising
effect disappear (an so does the argument).

On a historical note, you can find scores of this kind of article published in
the 50s but talking about the absence of health impact of tobacco. Including
many big scientific names of the time, most of them were smokers btw :).

~~~
jayalpha
"That's obviously how science works: just counting how many studies there is
on each side, without paying attention to the publication or the methodology
(preferably without even reading the abstract), and the truth is the one with
the higher score…"

The truth. Obviously. Kary Banks Mullis hast still the rejection letters from
Nature and Science and kept them for his Noble price winning works. I don't
know how much you know about science but looks to me you can't tell your ass
from your elbow.

------
jl6
Am I the only one creeped out by the “interview” style where the interviewer
is just facilitating the viewpoint of the investigator? Like it’s all a setup
paid for by someone with an agenda?

“I have a crazy friend who says it’s wrong to eat meat...”

------
gumby
What great work. In addition I like the scientist's view of the result: "You
see, the current buzz around longevity records can be easily distracting us
from the goals that are truly important." The interviewer is looking for drama
and moral clarity. The actual clarity is the scientist's interest in the
larger, human, goal.

------
learc83
This is interesting, but I get the feeling that the investigator decided that
his hypothesis was true and then went searching for proof.

This is a very dangerous approach, particularly when it comes to history--it's
very easy to cherry pick your supporting documents, and it's even easier to
interpret events in a way that supports your narrative if that's your goal.
It's also important to remember that none of this research has been reviewed
yet.

------
ginko
I would guess this would be relatively easy to check if you exhumed her and a
few members of her family to do DNA checks.

~~~
mabbo
After this long, would DNA be retrievable in sufficient quality that you could
do DNA analysis of this kind?

~~~
gwern
Absolutely. Forensics and archaeological DNA recovers DNA from hundreds or
hundreds of thousands of years ago easily. The real question is whether the
family would cooperate and provide or give permission for samples from
themselves and Calment's corpse. It's easy to see why they might decide to
ignore this and stonewall.

------
chasingthewind
It seems to me like the Sagan Standard ("extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence") [0] should be applied here but I'm not sure whether
to apply it to the claims of Calment's longevity or this researcher :)

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard)

------
fouc
This was a well-written interview format.

I quite enjoyed Valery Novoselov's speaking style.

------
jamisteven
This is why science drives me mad sometimes, the premise of so many different
theories in Longevity "based on science" having been rooted in "science"
derived from this women, who may turn out to be this woman's daughter, mind
blowing. And I can hear it now "Well technically the science itself was
correct..."

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
As a scientist myself, you don’t really want to see how the sausage is made
for a lot of science. Which is why I don’t hold it to the almost religious
level I see lots of modern people hold it to. Science is still made by humans
and humans run a huge spectrum from imbecile to genius. We all work with
idiots in our buildings that lie and twist facts or are just generally bad
scientists. Your best bet is if the science is replicated in other labs. A
great read is Feynman’s Cargo Cult Science essay, to think about how hard it
is to design an experiment that answers exactly what you are asking as a
scientist.

[http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm](http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm)

