Myths and Counterarguments Debunked

* ***The motives of the Pro-switch team are not genuine. They are involved in a conspiracy either to obtain Jeanne Calment’s DNA by underhand means for GAFA-funded life extension research, or they are being manipulated by Russian agencies with the goal of undermining Western Science. In short they are promoting “fake news” for malicious purposes.***

That is entirely untrue. We are genuine scientists motivated only by the search for scientific truth. These ridiculous conspiracy theories were concocted by moderators of the 110 club forum who easily convinced the validators and journalists. It is correct that the Calment DNA would have research value if her validation is confirmed, but that is not our interest.

* ***The pro-switch methods are unscientific. They publish in non-peer reviewed repositories and fringe journals. They display a negligent lack of rigour and objectivity. They are unknown investigators from a different field. They are seeking self-promotion by attacking a well-known case. In contrast the validation team comprises respected experts whose conclusions can be trusted.***

We are experienced scientists using a rigorous scientific method. It is common practice to submit unpublished preprints to scientific repositories such as ResearchGate for feedback and rapid dissemination. We published promptly in a peer-reviewed journal that has been used by validation teams such as GRG. The official validation of JC was first published in a popular book and was publicised in media years before it appeared in any peer-reviewed form. At the time the validators themselves were unknowns with very few scientific citations to their names. In general, most validation reports have appeared in non-reviewed monographs so our standard is higher than the norm. In contrast to the validation team we have not issued press releases that would suggest self-promotion. They are in fact projecting their own failings from 20 years ago onto us. Such ad hominem attacks and appeal from authority are universally viewed as the poorest form of scientific debate.

* ***The pro-switch case is based on rumour and hypothesis, whereas the validation case is based on numerous official documents.***

It is normal scientific practice to form a hypothesis which may be based on any kind of evidence. We have proposed an objective test using DNA which we predict will confirm our hypothesis. This is textbook scientific method. All evidence is significant with a subjective influence through Bayesian inference. Forming hypothetical scenarios is a legitimate part of this method. Counting official documents while neglecting the conditional property of probabilities is invalid due to the possibility of replication of error as demonstrated by the case of Carrie C White.

* ***The case for the switch is based on the impossibility of the longevity of JC. Our rigorous calculation shows that her age was an outlier that lies well within the realms of possibility. Other cases such as that of Sarah Knauss come close and therefore confirm that her age was plausible.***

Our case is not in any sense based on the impossibility of her longevity and we never used such terms. Our own demographic analysis gave similar results ahead of those of the validation team. The pro-switch case is based on her survival probability relative to the probability of a switch. The argument would apply with reduced probability even if she had lived for only 110 years. We also sceptically reviewed the validation of Knauss which was weak due to a lack of records before age 19 in 1900. In fact we found new records including two from 1888 and 1890 that greatly strengthen her claim. This does not affect our conclusions on the Calment case.

* ***The Calment validation must stand because no proof has been provided for the identity switch hypothesis.***

Validation groups such as the GRG apply an unwritten rule that once a validation has been accepted, it cannot be invalidated without positive proof that it was wrong. This reverses the widely accepted tenet that the onus of proof rests always on the validators. In cases such as Izumi, Hannah and Beard this principle has meant that weak cases have remained on validation lists for decades after their validation was known to be sub-standard. We do not accept this principle and consider the Calment case as disputed. However we accept that a DNA test is likely to be the only way to form a consensus.

* ***In her recorded testimony to validators, Mme Calment recounted many stories from her early life with details that her daughter could not have known, including names of teachers etc. She also used terms that were no longer current at the time of Yvonne.***

Yvonne and Jeanne never worked and so spent a lot of time together. Yvonne would have heard many stories from her mother’s earlier experiences and could remember details and terms often repeated to others on social occasions. Many of the names recalled would be well known to the family during the lifetime of Yvonne. Mme Calment was interviewed many times so we do not know what she may have been told before. Her full interviews with validators have not been published so authenticity of her testimony cannot be checked, and we can’t assess how often she was consistent vs inconsistent.

* ***All the stories are generally consistent with the life and times of Jeanne. It is easy to account for a few verbal errors in old age.***

Mme Calment’s testimony contains inconsistencies such as confusion between father and husband. Some of her stories are a better fit for Yvonne’s experiences than Jeanne’s. Others such as a Van Gogh story seem made up. While some leeway can be given due to old age we find the quantity and nature of her errors to be highly suspicious of a switch.

* ***Joseph Billot letter to military shows that Yvonne was ill and a photo from 1931 shows Yvonne in Leysin. We therefore know that it was Yvonne who was seriously ill and not Jeanne.***

Even before this evidence emerged we had concluded that Yvonne had also been ill with TB. This was due to eye and nose trauma observed in photos of Yvonne. In 1929 Yvonne was pictures in apparent good health at Paul Billot’s wedding, and around the same time she was smiling at a costume festival. There is only one photo of Jeanne from this time which we also believe was from Leysin with Yvonne. Jeanne appears less well and is not happy.

* ***Her X-rays are consistent with smoking or mild illness.***

X-rays taken of Mme Calment at 115 showed lung scarring and decalcified bones consistent with an earlier episode of TB. This is inconsistent with her testimony that she was never very ill, and it confirms that both Jeanne and Yvonne had TB.

* ***The Jeanne Calment signature evolves only slowly over time confirming her uninterrupted identity. There are cases of the rounding of the J from before the alleged switch.***

We have samples of Jeanne Calment's signature from 1896 to 1992. There is a marked and sudden change between the years 1927 and 1932. The loop of the J becomes rounder and the final t loses its long tail. This is evidence supporting our hypothesis that Yvonne started signing for her mother to hide her illness.

* ***It was claimed that the motive for a switch was the need to pay 35% inheritance tax if Jeanne died. They claim this would be difficult and unfair. In fact the tax would be much less and they could easily afford to pay it. Also there had been no tax to pay before because Jeanne’s parents gifted her their property five years earlier. After swapping identities Yvonne would lose the rent from her father and start to pay the rent to her child, this is financially stupid decision for her. Also, it is stupid to hide TB of the mother with TB of the daughter.***

A smaller tax can still be a burden if it would mean selling property. We do not know their full financial position. For example there is no information about their business finances. The previous gift of property does not stop them paying tax later. We believe there were other stronger motives. Yvonne has forged Jeanne’s signature to hide her absence in Leysin so the switch was necessary to avoid a scandal and criminal charges. Any change of finances within the family do not affect the calculus because under both scenarios the family can be considered a single financial entity. The family bonds were very strong within Calments. Yvonne got TB earlier and some relatives knew about her condition while almost nobody knew about Jeanne’s disease. For others it was easier to explain the absence of Yvonne than the absence of Jeanne.

* ***According to tradition the body would be visible at the funeral and many people would see. If Yvonne was pretending to be her mother then the large crowd who followed the funeral would notice.***

Due to the infectious and disfiguring nature of the disease it is unlikely that the coffin could be left open for viewing. Yvonne would hide her face behind a veil. According to our hypothesis Yvonne had already been masquerading as Jeanne for some time so there is no reason to think that many people would know.

* ***Yvonne would have to lose friends if she switched.***

We think that close friends and relatives knew and understood the necessity to keep quiet, but nobody from the younger generation had to know.

* ***Freddy would notice his mother switching with his grandmother. It would have been too cruel to try to lie to him.***

We have little information on who cared for Freddy in his early years. Photos suggest that he was very close to his Billot aunts and cousins so he may have stayed with them while Yvonne was ill or caring for Jeanne. Lying to him would be seen as necessary to protect him. Freddy could be raised by Jeanne during his first year of life and he could call her Manzane and miss her when they separated. Yvonne stayed away not to pass TB to her child and they met briefly even when she was in Arles in 1929-30. He could easily confuse her as his dear Manzane when she came back later and she could decide to support this.

* ***After the switch Yvonne had to live with her father instead of her husband for six years. This would be awkward and intolerable.***

There is no reason at all to think that this was the case. She could continue to live with her husband unnoticed by anyone who was not in on the secret. They could live away from Arles in the Paradou villa.

* ***Servants would notice the switch.***

Servants seemed to change over time so may not have known. If they did know they could be loyal and keep the secret. There were reports that at least one servant did know but was not believed.

* ***Mme Calment pictured from 1943 had white hair and appeared too old to be Yvonne. The photographic evidence shows clearly that Mme Calment after 1934 looked like Jeanne and could not be Yvonne.***

From the 1931 pictures we understood that Yvonne had premature grey hair and covered with black hair dye. This is not unusual as it affects about 3% of women to that extent. Although there were small differences in appearance they had quite close features. By being selective when comparing photos it easy to argue that Mme Calment looked like either Jeanne or Yvonne. No pictures are clear enough to take biometric measurements that would afford an objective identification.

* ***The eye trauma is not really there. It is a photographic artefact seen only in a poor quality version of the photo that was available earlier. Eye color on ID card is black. Black eyes do not exist. This means she had dark eyes and this is the case.***

Eye trauma visible in a 1945 picture of Madame Calment identifies her as Yvonne. We see it in all versions of the photo. Black eyes exist. Madame Calment's eye colour from 1986 and later photos is light green. Earlier black and white photos of Yvonne show that she had a light eye color.

* ***No similar case of identity switch has ever been recorded so it must be an extremely unlikely event.***

Many kinds of identity switches have taken place and the known cases can be assumed to be the tip of the iceberg. Although we do consider this type of event rare we calculate that it is more probable than her longevity given the known evidence.

* ***Medical doctors, the validation team and nursing staff were convinced of her longevity. She was unusually fit for her age but that is normal for people with exceptional longevity. Her height 152 on ID card is consistent with lower height measured by IPSEN study after hip fracture at 115, the height 150 reported by her doctors Garoyan and Levraud as well as multiple other sources is a mistake.***

There is no way to determine age by physical examination and no reason why her carers and doctors would suspect an identity switch. She had been playing her part for years and there was no reason why she should let up. If doctors were not able to correctly measure her height, why should we believe that they correctly measured her age (while no such technique is known even today)?

* ***Jeanne Calment’s family had a history of long life suggesting a genetic predisposition for longevity.***

We also think that there are genetic factors to longevity, but environmental factors are at least as important and impossible to separate. Good healthcare and education come with wealth and are correlated with life expectancy. The analysis performed by Zak in his first Calment paper showed that the family longevity record is not exceptional for these circumstances. Relatively small early mortality of her ancestors has nothing to do with slower ageing rate. Yvonne’s ancestors from Maria Felix lineage had similar lifespans as Jeanne’s ancestors from the “long lived” Nicolas Calment line.

* ***Most people see Jeanne on photos of Madame Calment.***

The consistency of her look with early Jeanne explains why the swap could be successful – people in Arles recognized Jeanne in the woman they saw after 1945. Before that she avoided contacts with those who could recognize her. However, most people are undecided and confused when they have to choose who became JC, J or Y based on photos. AI is also undecided but when the photos are matched properly it favours Yvonne. With proper matching some photo pairs indicate that Jeanne had different proportions from those of Madame Calment, while Yvonne’s proportions match.

* ***Dozens of witnesses confirm it was Jeanne who died in 1997. Gilberte Mery born in 1929 said that her mother Genevieve Calment would recognize if J and Y swapped, there was beauty rivalry between the mother in law of Genevieve and J. Antoinette Billot was with Yvonne in 1923 and with Jeanne in 1995.***

The witness testimonies available are second-hand, indirect, use assumptions and “common sense”. They provide no details about Jeanne meeting witnesses during the key period, that is, 1930s. Genevieve lived in Marseilles and her daughter Gilberte said that she was told about the nature of the disease which led to death in 1934 only 20 years later. It is likely that JC avoided meeting Genevieve and her family during the sensitive period. When/if they briefly met later, Genevieve (if she didn’t know about the swap) assumed she was aged Jeanne. It is likely that Antoinette Billot was aware about the swap and supported Yvonne.

* ***Jeanne didn’t put the name of Yvonne on the grave because after renovation in 1960s she didn’t want to keep the old names, only family names.***

It is unusual for a loving mother not to put the name of her daughter on the grave (which she visited every day during a very long period of time) while putting only the name of her grandson and son in law.

* ***Jeanne accepted all the tests and donated her blood – she had nothing to hide. She destroyed her archive just because she had nobody to inherit it.***

She accepted only an “anonymous” test by Chronos. She didn’t allow validators to get her sample and even refused to do an autopsy after death. She had heirs (the family of Antoinette Billot) and liked to show off, so her character is not consistent with such behaviour if she had nothing to hide.

* ***Nobody believes the fringe swap conspiracy after reviewing the real facts.***

All published evidence from both sides is listed on a 3d party prediction site and median estimate of the probability that DNA test will confirm that JC was J is currently 35% as of Jan 5, 2020. https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3393/will-dna-testing-vindicate-+jeanne-calment-as-the-oldest-recorded-person-in-+history/?fbclid=IwAR1PCki2cPIpu6zsX8y85U0SD7pNPUHTeMoeXbYQZ54Z4TfFGKcBfQ3SntU

* ***The 1931 Arles census in which Yvonne is absent and Jeanne (misnamed) is present is proof that Yvonne was a patient in Leysin at that time and Jeanne was in Arles***

A population census, taken in Arles in March 1931, has become central in the arguments formed in support of JC’s record. Curiously, neither Jeanne nor Yvonne is explicitly recorded in this census. Instead, the census lists:

Those that favor the ‘anti-switch’ scenario suggest that this census entry corresponds to Jeanne, and thus is proof that she was in good health at the time. However, this is a matter of interpretation, and it would be a mistake to assign much weight to this census return. For one thing, there always exists the possibility that a census return contains errors, as this return has already demonstrated. Even JC's validators concede that Yvonne's absence from this census "might be a recopying error." They also note the unreliable nature of the 1931 census in particular, "The 1931 census was the first to be typed on a typing machine. It contained numerous typing and copying errors and erasures."

Furthmore, in JC’s original validation report, it is written that Jeanne was recorded twice in the 1901 census - once on Rue Gambetta and a second time in the commune of St Martin de Crau. Thus, it is safe to assume that individuals may have been erroneously recorded in households where they were not actually physically present. Moreover, there is an auxiliary possiblity of fraud, which should not be hastily dismissed without due consideration. Even if we are to assume that this entry corresponds to Jeanne, we must consider that in a scenario of fraud, this document may not be fully representative of the family’s true circumstances. Working under the hypothesis that Yvonne and Jeanne had at this point switched identities, what assurance do we have that this census entry recorded Jeanne and not Yvonne masquerading as Jeanne? The information gathered via census taking is supplied by the family themselves. Census enumerators do little if anything to confirm the authenticity of the information they’ve collected. These are important possibilities to consider because the argument in favor of JC’s longevity depends heavily on this datum.

Census data, while useful in building support for a validation by establishing continuity as a linking chain of documents between acts of birth and death, are individually limited in their trustworthiness and are often susceptible to errors. In other words, their collective weight is greater than the sum of its parts. Accordingly, no individual census can be touted as absolute proof of anyone’s presence at any particular point in time.

And finally, *even if* this record is exactly correct, it only records the circumstances at one specific time and is comfortably consistent with any of the scenarios considered.

1. ↑ https://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/odense/6/09a.htm