Gudger analyzed these accounts, but he still remained skeptical overall. Yet,
he listed the names of eight men whom he could accept as eye witnesses, admitting that just because something seems improbable does not mean it does not exist. Reexamining the material for this paper, the various accounts, especially original documents (de Castelnau,[9] von den Steinen,[11, 12] Pellegrin,[13] Jobert,[21] and Boulenger[22]), illustrate that most reports are, in fact, repeated again and again based on the same stories already described elsewhere. Therefore, after careful distillation, very little remains and of that little, even accounts sounding like first-hand descriptions become suspect. H.H. Rusby had claimed that “evidence is abundant and confirmed,” but he failed to provide proof.[16] In retrospect, it is almost impossible to identify genuine eye witnesses of candiru “attacks” and we just have to trust Cabozantinib that some reports may, indeed, be true. A number of critical comments shall be made here, not only because it is important
to http://www.selleckchem.com/products/azd9291.html interpret the literature mindfully but because it is the basis of current medical advice. These comments relate to the exoticism of the topic, local language issues, and the translation of original accounts. Modern travel, even to the most remote places, has no parallel in early voyages. It is difficult today to appreciate fully the physical and mental challenges these explorers faced. Devoted to their particular field of interest, they traveled through unknown, often hostile, environments, collecting astonishing objects and information along the way. Something as bizarre as a fish swimming up people’s urethra must have been one of the most exhilarating stories of the time. Of adventurous spirit and in exotic surroundings, it is easy to get carried away. In such circumstances, a first report, relayed with caution, can quickly take
on a life of its own and, embellished with more and more gruesome details, eventually becomes a fact. It would have taken little to keep the stories alive. The smallest rumor, added to the “body of knowledge,” simply confirmed now preconceived expectations. On the other hand, despite their captivating accounts, it appears that many explorers’ verdict remains one of skepticism because of the absence of scientific proof. Another Methocarbamol point of caution is the use of local languages in obtaining reports from indigenous tribes. Some explorers studied local languages and would have been able to converse with local informants to some degree. However, others and those who traveled for long periods of time and over considerable distances would not have been in a position to speak all the languages encountered. Despite the use of língua geral,[23] a unifying language based on Old Tupi, there is still a great potential for misinterpretation of language, postures, and gestures.