Parasites plagued Roman soldiers at Hadrian's Wall(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Parasites plagued Roman soldiers at Hadrian's Wall
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/12/study-roman-soldiers-battled-parasites-at-hadrians-wall/
60 comments
Parasites used to be ubiquitous before we had medication to kill them. There's even a (not very well supported) theory that these parasites helped with allergies by moderating immune system. They releasing chemicals to lower immune activity in order to protect themselves, so the idea that we had these for thousands of years and basically are made to have them is intriguing. It's called "helminthic therapy" and it's considered alternative medicine but there is some academic interest. Results in clinical trials have been mixed. Perhaps the future is just synthetic hookworm proteins that regulate your immune system as our ancestors once had.
My partner researches one parasite named in this study (a type of whipworm) and they actually get their eggs for in vitro work from another researcher abroad who infected himself with the parasite because he finds it helps with his autoimmune disease. He harvests the eggs and distributes them to other teams.
That makes sense because to an extent the immune system can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Immune cells often get polarized to either type 1 (viruses, cancer, autoimmunity) or type 2 (parasites, worms, toxins) immune responses but not both. So he’s effectively distracting his immune system.
Scientists that study mosquitoes in a lab will commonly feed the mosquitoes with their own blood. Literally sticking their arm in and letting them feed.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/23/mosqu...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/23/mosqu...
There is a significantly more mainstream but similar-in-the-broad-strokes theory, the Hygiene Hypothesis, which says that the immune system relies on encountering things like this for calibration, but doesn't require them as a continual presence for optimal functioning.
Intuitively it wouldn’t be surprising that there’s some symbiosis going on somewhere and that there would be beneficial parasites. In reality I have no idea.
Jaffa Kree?
I think I’d rather be joined with a Trill.
Beneficial parasite would be a symbiote so the Tok’ra as well
Beneficial parasite would be a symbiote so the Tok’ra as well
Indeed
Skin mites are fairly beneficial.
Doesn't seem too off from gut micro biome theories.
I would argue that parasites only became ubiquitous when we abandoned our hunter gatherers way of life and settled into agricultural communities of larger scale (something relatively recent when compared to human evolution).
So, I doubt that immune system theory, since for most of mankind’s existence, they were not part of our life.
So, I doubt that immune system theory, since for most of mankind’s existence, they were not part of our life.
Your argument is total nonsense. Parasites are ubiquitous in all animals, and plants, right now, today. When did they abandon their hunter-gatherer way of life?
> for most of mankind’s existence, [parasites] were not part of our life.
This is not something you should have been able to say with a straight face. It proves nothing other than that nobody should ever take you seriously.
> for most of mankind’s existence, [parasites] were not part of our life.
This is not something you should have been able to say with a straight face. It proves nothing other than that nobody should ever take you seriously.
> This is not something you should have been able to say with a straight face. It proves nothing other than that nobody should ever take you seriously.
Wow. Someone must have had a crappy Christmas, all by itself alone, deep in their basement arguing with strangers on the internet.
But here it goes one of many articles - by actual experts - that share my viewpoint.
“ Conclusions
It seems plausible that there was a pronounced spread of this parasite during the Late Mesolithic, possibly reflecting a shift to a more sedentary lifestyle with long continuous presence at permanent occupation sites, thus facilitating the spread of this disease and possibly increasing its prevalence rate in the populations.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03054...
Wow. Someone must have had a crappy Christmas, all by itself alone, deep in their basement arguing with strangers on the internet.
But here it goes one of many articles - by actual experts - that share my viewpoint.
“ Conclusions
It seems plausible that there was a pronounced spread of this parasite during the Late Mesolithic, possibly reflecting a shift to a more sedentary lifestyle with long continuous presence at permanent occupation sites, thus facilitating the spread of this disease and possibly increasing its prevalence rate in the populations.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03054...
That isn't an article that shares your viewpoint. Want to try again?
The average body temperature then was also higher.
How could that be observed?
It wasn't at that time. All we know is that average body temperature has been decreasing since the mid 1800s when we first started measuring it.
Just throwing an idea out there, mercury or alcohol thermometers were often used.
These would be far less pure in to 1800s. That would effect the accuracy of readings.
They were also hand made back then too.
If the theory of body temp being higher is predicated upon averages, it could skew. I wonder if such studies took this into account?
These would be far less pure in to 1800s. That would effect the accuracy of readings.
They were also hand made back then too.
If the theory of body temp being higher is predicated upon averages, it could skew. I wonder if such studies took this into account?
I find that observation unsurprising. What would be more interesting is the relative incidence between outlying forts and interior urban centres. The article mentions a couple of papers on urban fecal matter, so maybe that answer is available. I can create hypothetical cases for either location to be higher or lower than the other.
> I can create hypothetical cases for either location to be higher or lower than the other.
- Transmission is easier in the city due to closer contact and more shared resources.
- Urban parasites are likely to be more debilitating to the victim because they may come from an unfamiliar environment. (Compare how hookworm in the American south was a nuisance to blacks, but debilitating to whites.)
We know that diseases were a much heavier burden in cities than they were in rural regions. Parasites are mostly just bigger diseases; you'd need to come up with a really interesting idea to explain why they were a smaller issue in cities than outside of them.
Hookworm is an interesting example to consider here; you catch them by stepping on soil with your bare feet. Stereotypically they are a problem of the rural south. But I found this paper on "neglected tropical diseases" in the United States, which had this to say:
> Toxocariasis is a soil-transmitted helminth infection [it isn't hookworm, but hookworm is also a soil-transmitted helminth infection] that can result in visceral larva migrans, visual impairment from ocular larval migrans, or a condition that resembles asthma, known as covert toxocariasis. Urban playgrounds in the US have recently been shown to be a particularly rich source of Toxocara eggs, and inner-city children are at high risk of acquiring the infection.
https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journa...
Another example to consider might be covid, where my read of the consensus is that (1) initial nature -> human infection is more likely in rural areas (where there's more nature), but (2) once it can live in humans, it's a bigger problem in urban areas (where there are more humans).
- Transmission is easier in the city due to closer contact and more shared resources.
- Urban parasites are likely to be more debilitating to the victim because they may come from an unfamiliar environment. (Compare how hookworm in the American south was a nuisance to blacks, but debilitating to whites.)
We know that diseases were a much heavier burden in cities than they were in rural regions. Parasites are mostly just bigger diseases; you'd need to come up with a really interesting idea to explain why they were a smaller issue in cities than outside of them.
Hookworm is an interesting example to consider here; you catch them by stepping on soil with your bare feet. Stereotypically they are a problem of the rural south. But I found this paper on "neglected tropical diseases" in the United States, which had this to say:
> Toxocariasis is a soil-transmitted helminth infection [it isn't hookworm, but hookworm is also a soil-transmitted helminth infection] that can result in visceral larva migrans, visual impairment from ocular larval migrans, or a condition that resembles asthma, known as covert toxocariasis. Urban playgrounds in the US have recently been shown to be a particularly rich source of Toxocara eggs, and inner-city children are at high risk of acquiring the infection.
https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journa...
Another example to consider might be covid, where my read of the consensus is that (1) initial nature -> human infection is more likely in rural areas (where there's more nature), but (2) once it can live in humans, it's a bigger problem in urban areas (where there are more humans).
Yeah, that's one argument - and is certainly true for later (medieval and early-modern) periods where urban disease rates were _much_ higher than rural.
The corollary hypothetical is that Roman cities had well-developed water and sewer infrastructure, whereas isolated forts were drinking out of wells and using latrines, with a higher probability of cross-contamination. They also might have had higher incidental population density (low-ranking troops sleeping in barracks; common meals) than at least some urban districts.
But... I don't know which case is actually true, and am curious what the evidence might show!
The corollary hypothetical is that Roman cities had well-developed water and sewer infrastructure, whereas isolated forts were drinking out of wells and using latrines, with a higher probability of cross-contamination. They also might have had higher incidental population density (low-ranking troops sleeping in barracks; common meals) than at least some urban districts.
But... I don't know which case is actually true, and am curious what the evidence might show!
That makes me wonder if there might be exceptions. The Aztecs had a large system of latrines and they dumped the waste into the lake to create night soil to use for their chinampas gardens. I wonder if that exposed them to more parasites or if the large organized labor force dealing with waste made Tenochtitlan more hygienic.
A very interesting read on this topic is Parasite Rex by Carl Zimmer. Fascinating life cycles that involve parasites and sometime multiple hosts. It seems having parasites is the norm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_Rex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_Rex
I live with amazing technology all around me, and I often take it for granted. But whenever I take mebendazol (against e.g. pinworm) I think about my ancestors, and how they just had to live with it!
Your ancestors probably had plant-based cures like garlic or walnut hulls for the same infections. Modern medicine improved on the spectrum of parasites that can be treated but there's still some caveman-level stuff that works reliably for some species.
Fasting + salts would work to reduce parsite populations too?
Why are you taking anti-parasitics regularly?
b/c he lives someplace where people get parasites regularly? Also b/c it is cheaper and easier to treat for parasites (take a pill) than to test and then treat (visit a doctor, get a prescription, take a pill).
Many parasites are endemic to the southern USA. As a child I was checked for parasites every year. Most modern doctors I've met are negligent in this regard. Under questioning several have stated that it is unimportant. Some doctors assert incorrectly that blood tests would reveal any significant parasitic infestation. I always correct them but I also change doctors b/c medical school seems to "harden" the brain - nothing new can be learned once they have graduated.
Ever walk barefoot across the lawn?
Ever eat uncooked fish/flesh/sushi?
Ever own/pet a cat?
If so, you might want to get tested!8-))
Neglected Parasitic Infections: What Family Physicians Need to Know—A CDC Update:
https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2021/0900/p277.html
Many parasites are endemic to the southern USA. As a child I was checked for parasites every year. Most modern doctors I've met are negligent in this regard. Under questioning several have stated that it is unimportant. Some doctors assert incorrectly that blood tests would reveal any significant parasitic infestation. I always correct them but I also change doctors b/c medical school seems to "harden" the brain - nothing new can be learned once they have graduated.
Ever walk barefoot across the lawn?
Ever eat uncooked fish/flesh/sushi?
Ever own/pet a cat?
If so, you might want to get tested!8-))
Neglected Parasitic Infections: What Family Physicians Need to Know—A CDC Update:
https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2021/0900/p277.html
At least in the US parasite risk from sushi is very low because nearly all seafood sold/served is put through a deep freeze cycle.
But if you're slicing up something you just caught that could be an issue. It's a concern with hunting/game as well. Most people who get trichinosis in the US get it from eating bear apparently.
But if you're slicing up something you just caught that could be an issue. It's a concern with hunting/game as well. Most people who get trichinosis in the US get it from eating bear apparently.
I crossed bear off my menu a long time ago! To my chagrin, the bears did not reciprocate.
A bear has eaten you?
They’d try if you let them :)
Ever walk barefoot across the lawn?
In my case it was getting mud into my mud boot from interacting with an aggressive horse. It took me a while to figure out the thing on my foot was not fungal but a parasite. Ivermectin horse paste cleared it up but I also have FenBen just in case I missed one. Most of them exited on their own after applying acetic acid.
In my case it was getting mud into my mud boot from interacting with an aggressive horse. It took me a while to figure out the thing on my foot was not fungal but a parasite. Ivermectin horse paste cleared it up but I also have FenBen just in case I missed one. Most of them exited on their own after applying acetic acid.
> Ever own/pet a cat?
As far as i know, current medical advice is not to treat toxoplasmosis (except in exceptional situations like if you have AIDs) so im not sure what the benefit of getting tested would be.
Unless you mean other parasites.
As far as i know, current medical advice is not to treat toxoplasmosis (except in exceptional situations like if you have AIDs) so im not sure what the benefit of getting tested would be.
Unless you mean other parasites.
Not OP but one reason is having young kids that can’t help bringing home everything that is spreading in daycare/kindergarten
Are there areas in the developed world where this is common? I’ve never heard of anyone regularly taking anti parasitic medication because their kids kept bringing home parasites from daycare. I had a friend whose son was prescribed medicine for pinworms once when he was fairly young (mostly as a precaution).
Pinworms are particularly common in children, with prevalence rates in this age group having been reported as high as 61% in India, 50% in England, 39% in Thailand, 37% in Sweden, and 29% in Denmark. [1]
prevalence is the proportion of a particular population found to be affected by a medical condition (typically a disease or a risk factor such as smoking or seatbelt use) at a specific time.
And yes, kids. Pinworm is literally called 'children worm' here.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinworm_(parasite)#burkhart200...
That’s interesting, thanks. Looks like it’s 11%-ish in the US which is lower than the other cited countries but still more common than I would have guessed.
If you’re a suburban kid, GenX or later you may have missed the peaks. In the 60s, it was more like 35-45% of kids.
Things like rules for handwashing and standards for things like residential plumbing improved hygiene and reduced ringworms. Many urban and rural households didn’t have things we take for granted like hot water!
Things like rules for handwashing and standards for things like residential plumbing improved hygiene and reduced ringworms. Many urban and rural households didn’t have things we take for granted like hot water!
https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/threadworm/background-informa...
NICE estimate 20-30% of kids 4-11 have an infestation. I have three kids in this bracket and yeh this tracks
NICE estimate 20-30% of kids 4-11 have an infestation. I have three kids in this bracket and yeh this tracks
Huh. Have the numbers gone up since the 80s? Worms are not something I ever heard about as a child, teen, or twenty-something.
That said, I also had a kid in the 00s and my friends have kids now, and nobody has mentioned getting worms.
That said, I also had a kid in the 00s and my friends have kids now, and nobody has mentioned getting worms.
I had worms as a kid once in the nineties, I ate some cookies I found buried in the sand on the playground.
It’s not super common (if you live in Europe) but it happens.
Meanwhile my friends who grew up in a tropical country they had to take anti-worm meds regularly.
It depends a lot on your circumstances
It’s not super common (if you live in Europe) but it happens.
Meanwhile my friends who grew up in a tropical country they had to take anti-worm meds regularly.
It depends a lot on your circumstances
It is actually extremely common in Europe (as I linked to in a sibling chat), with 30-40% of kids having it at any time.
With those rates, my guess is that you probably had it several times, but just thought your bum was itching for no reason (or you were one of the asymptomatic cases). I think the awareness of it has gone up, now it's common to let the kindergarten know if you suspect it in your child, and they send a message to the other parents.
With those rates, my guess is that you probably had it several times, but just thought your bum was itching for no reason (or you were one of the asymptomatic cases). I think the awareness of it has gone up, now it's common to let the kindergarten know if you suspect it in your child, and they send a message to the other parents.
To be blunt you do not get it from eating cookies in sand. You get it from ingesting pinworm eggs, you ingest them by someone touching their bum (where the worms lay eggs) and then touching something that you then touch and touch your face/mouth, or scratching your own bum in your sleep then scratching your face / mouth.
If you don’t think it’s super commen in Europe it’s generally a lack of diagnoses. Literally 1/5th Of British kids have it at any given time (and I imagine that tracks across Europe and USA at least)
If you don’t think it’s super commen in Europe it’s generally a lack of diagnoses. Literally 1/5th Of British kids have it at any given time (and I imagine that tracks across Europe and USA at least)
Asymptomatic infestation is very common… no one likes to talk about pinworms but it’s pretty likely any kids you meet have it.
Yes, it’s fairly common infection in children. I mean they don’t wash carefully their hands, they put everything in their mouth - it would be a real surprise if they would not catch it.
I believe I know an immune-compromised adult who was taking anti-parasitics for more than two years due to workplace (care context) reinfections. I say “believe” because these are two things people talk about in coded, careful ways. It might be a little more common than polite conversation ever really reveals.
For example if you know anyone who raised early concerns about antivaxxers causing short supply of ivermectin formulations for human use during the pandemic. More or less anyone who knew what ivermectin was at that point in time was either a farmer, a vetinarian, a doctor… or a patient with a condition.
For example if you know anyone who raised early concerns about antivaxxers causing short supply of ivermectin formulations for human use during the pandemic. More or less anyone who knew what ivermectin was at that point in time was either a farmer, a vetinarian, a doctor… or a patient with a condition.
TL;DR
Fecal matter from Vindolanda fort dated around 90 AD contains eggs of intestinal worms, and traces of antibodies to Giardia duodenalis.
Nothing of this is really news as not having parasitic worms is very recent development, and getting G. duodenalis with unsanitized water continues to be common today. Healthy immune system can deal with it, as it could in 90 AD, hence antibodies.
The story is an obvious attempt to produce as much words from as few facts as possible, and the headline is meaningless.
Nothing of this is really news as not having parasitic worms is very recent development, and getting G. duodenalis with unsanitized water continues to be common today. Healthy immune system can deal with it, as it could in 90 AD, hence antibodies.
The story is an obvious attempt to produce as much words from as few facts as possible, and the headline is meaningless.
Words have become the canvas ads are painted upon.
Same with the viking coprolites found in Jorvik/York?
It would seem reasonable to say on a statistical sample of 1 we have no reason to believe this was common or uncommon, or do we say on the basis we found one, the assumption is that it was universal?
We know some things like floor rushes were picked to deter fleas, were there oral or rectal treatments which worked for worms?
It would seem reasonable to say on a statistical sample of 1 we have no reason to believe this was common or uncommon, or do we say on the basis we found one, the assumption is that it was universal?
We know some things like floor rushes were picked to deter fleas, were there oral or rectal treatments which worked for worms?
Prevalence by existence. A coarse but realistic heuristic for very small sample sizes.
Can we use the same argument for life among the stars?
Intelligence, even?
Intelligence, even?
We basically do. The habitable planet hunt is almost definitive for "since we depend on water and complex organic molecules for 'life' we will hunt for this signature to define if we think we have found extrasolar life, radio signals aside"
[deleted]
[deleted]