Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2020

The AIH Transcript for March 3, 2020

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening. I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight:

CO: A tornado killed at least 22 people in Tennessee overnight. Hundreds more are homeless, including our guest. She tells us about the moments she feared her apartment might come apart at the seams.

CH: Liberal interpretation. A new study claims that not long after Donald Trump won the White House in 2016, fewer boys were born in Ontario, particularly to progressive parents.

CO: First responders. We hear from an Internet watchdog who says Chinese officials began censoring references to coronavirus as early as December.

CH: Trial by fire. Our guest was only a toddler when she survived a house fire in Nova Scotia. More than 50 years later, she's had a heartwarming reunion with some of her rescuers.

CO: This land may be your land, but this song is theirs. A U.S. judge says Woody Guthrie's folk anthem is still owned by its publishers, despite one band's efforts to have its copyright overturned.

CH: And once living wall. Archeologists in Belgium have made a bone-chilling discovery. A 17th century wall made of well...bones. We talked to one of the researchers who uncovered the ossuary. As It Happens. The Tuesday Edition. Radio that knows the value of a room of one's bone.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Nashville woman describes dramatic escape from home as tornado rips through city

Tennessee tornado

Guest: Samantha Barclay

CH: As Nashville's mayor put it, it was a "massive act of nature." At least 22 people are dead and many still missing after a tornado ripped through central Tennessee early this morning. Most of those deaths were in Putnam County, east of Nashville. But Nashville itself was hit hard as well, with hundreds of people left homeless. Including Samantha Barclay. Ms. Barclay was in her apartment when the storm hit. We reached her in Nashville.

CO: Samantha, what was your first indication that this was no ordinary storm?

SAMANTHA BARCLAY: When I woke up out of my sleep -- you know, just being startled out of my sleep and realizing that the apartment was shaking. And sounds that just were not normal, you know, weather sounds that were going on.

CO: Like what? What were the sounds that you heard?

SB: Well, more so, like the tearing of something. I could actually hear that type of a sound. I could hear the shaking part. It was just not a normal rain sound or even a hail sound. It was something you could tell that there was like a strong wind gust that was going on. But it was breaking things up, I know that.

CO: And where exactly is your apartment and what kind of building are you in?

SB: I live -- I lived on the third floor. And it is an apartment -- so it is an open type of hallway, it has like a breezeway. So it is not an enclosed structure. So any winds, any debris, anything like that is just coming straight through.

CO: So it's shaking, tearing, all of this. So what did you do?

SB: The first thing I did was I laid there in my bed trying to figure out what I was going to do. And then I just said, okay at this point, I need to get into the bathroom area and hunker down in there. And I stayed there for a few minutes. And all I kept on saying to myself was "The roof. The roof, please. The roof has got to stay on. The roof has got to stay on." Once it sort of settled a bit, I ran in -- I need a pillow, I need a blanket. So I went and got that. Just in case anything happened to the roof, I would have at least some type of a coverage on top of me. Finally, it got quiet and then I heard my neighbours running through the halls and banging, trying to find out if everybody was okay and getting me -- you know, getting us out of the apartment altogether.

CO: You had to go to the apartment building because there was structural damage?

SB: There was tremendous structural damage. The roof on the other side of the apartment had been completely ripped off. The windows were blown through. And the wiring was coming down. There was significant devastation that was going on.

CO: Yikes. So you had to get out really fast -- you and your neighbours.

SB: Yes, definitely.

CO: And during this did you have time to consider that you were in the middle of a tornado?

SB: Yes and no. It was more so of, you know, how do I get down from the third floor? Trying to make my way down -- I had recently had a total knee replacement down on my knees. So I was trying to figure out -- getting down these stairs safely, it was my main concern. And there were just other people that were also trying to get away. So the effect of the tornado wasn't really on my mind. It was more so of just me being safe.

CO: And you did get out then?

SB: Yes.

CO: What did you see when you got down in the street?

SB: Oh. From the cars, windows from the cars being blown through -- shifted. That's when I could really see the roof torn. The windows had been blown out. And then when I was able to leave the complex, when I got onto the main street, that's when I could see more damage to other apartments in the area.

CO: And you were in bed when this began. So getting out of the apartment where you dressed? Did you have shoes on?

SB: I wasn't dressed at the time. I had on my pajamas. Luckily, I had some pants that I had just tossed on the side that night. So I grabbed that, grabbed a shirt, and I couldn't find my sneakers. I found my slippers at the time, so I just jumped into those and I left. Made sure I had my keys, my cellphone, and I was out the door.

CO: Because you don't want to be walking around in debris and glass if you haven't got footwear on.

SB: Yeah. That was my main concern. I knew I had to get some type of shoes on my feet. So that's why my thought process was safety. It wasn't necessarily, you know, thinking about the tornado. It was like, do I have the right things on to get myself out?

CO: It wasn't about modesty. [Chuckles]

SB: Yes. [Laughs]

CO: And so when you got out -- your neighbours, what were people saying? How were they reacting to the fact they just survived a tornado?

SB: People were scared. You know, our neighbours -- we are a very friendly community. So people were checking on each other to make sure certain neighbours were out. If they couldn't find them, they were definitely looking all over for them. You know, we had some people (for) who modesty wasn't the thing. They had to get out with what they had on. We had other neighbours who ran and got them some clothes to put on. So it was just really trying to comfort everybody and just trying to assess what has really happened to us.

CO: Must have been a very emotional moment.

SB: Yeah it was.

CO: More than 20 people have died in the storms, and more are injured or missing. There are hundreds of who are homeless -- who can't go home. And I guess you are one of those. You said you locked your place up and took your key. But can you actually go back there?

SB: Actually, before I left, I was able to go back upstairs and grab my passport and very important documents that I had to have, and change my shoes. I was able to go up there and find proper stuff. My mind wasn't thinking about packing clothing. It was more so getting those things that could identify myself. And by that time, the fire department was coming through and knocking and telling everybody to evacuate because you could smell the gas in the air -- a couple of blocks had gas leaks going on. So they just really want to get everybody out of the building.

CO: Has the whole thing sunk in yet? What happened to you?

SB: It's slowly sinking in. As I'm talking more to people, it's getting more realistic. I've gotten information from the apartment complex that, you know, they've terminated our leases because the building was so damaged, they can't do anything about it. So now they're going to help find housing for us. This is now becoming more realistic to me that, yes, I've been in a tornado. I've been in this disaster. And I'm going to now have to find someplace to live. I've just had a lot of support, not only from my family and friends, but also from my workplace -- trying to help me get myself established again.

CO: Where are you going to stay tonight?

SB: I am staying with a dear friend of mine that lives on campus where I work.

CO: Well, that sounds like exactly the place you should be. [Chuckles]

SB: Yes. [Chuckles]

CO: Well Samantha, we're glad you're okay. Thank you for speaking with us.

SB: Thank you.

CO: Have a good evening.

SB: You too.

CO: Bye.

SB: Bye bye.

CH: Samantha Barclay is one of hundreds of people in Tennessee left homeless after last night's tornado. We reached her in Nashville. And you can find more about that story on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Coronavirus: China censors

Guest: Ron Deibert

CH: On December 30th last year, a group of Chinese doctors tried to warn the public about a new virus. They posted their warnings online. The next day, Chinese social media began censoring references to the coronavirus. That's the finding of a report published today by researchers at Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. It says Chinese internet firms didn't just censor keywords connected to what's now known as COVID-19, it also censored criticisms of the government's handling of the infection. Ron Deibert is the director of Citizen Lab. We reached him in Toronto.

CO: Mr. Deibert, what exactly have you discovered that was being censored from Chinese social media?

RON DEIBERT: Well, our team has been researching social media in China for a number of years, and we routinely test Internet censorship on a number of different platforms. And so when we heard about the outbreak of the coronavirus, we started looking more carefully into censorship on two major social media platforms: WeChat, which is a chat application used by over a billion Chinese users -- and YY, which is a live-streaming application. And we found a variety of topics related to the outbreak had been censored as well as criticism or even mentions of the central party, a whole range of content.

CO: And I guess what's interesting about this, it began quite early, didn't it?

RD: Yes. So with YY -- what we did in that case is the censorship takes place on the application itself. In other words, the rules in the software are sent down to a user's device and that allows us to effectively examine the software. So we reverse engineer YY on an hourly basis actually. And we essentially break it open. And so we can see what was censored at what time. And what we noticed was that literally the day after doctors and Wuhan, including Dr. Li Wenliang, who unfortunately contracted the disease and passed away, the very next day before the disease was even given a name there was censorship related to content around the coronavirus.

CO: And Dr. Li Wenliang we should point out, well he is a folk hero in China, isn't he now? Because of his efforts to warn people. When you say that this stuff was being blocked, was it information that was perhaps wrong or misleading, that there was a lot of information that perhaps is distorting about what was going on? Or what kind of nature did you find of the information that was being censored?

RD: Well, there are hundreds of keywords and keyword combinations that were blocked on both platforms. And the content ranges quite widely. So, yes -- to answer your question, there was some blocking of of topics related to rumors about the disease that you might have an argument about as to whether that's something that should be legitimately filtered by the platforms. But also censored was a whole range of content related to legitimate health information. Like for example, at one point YY was censoring keywords related to the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Coronavirus. The other issue here was it's quite common that there's a lack of transparency around it. So when you go to send a message, it simply will be removed, in the case of WeChat, so the recipient isn't even aware that a message was sent nor are you told that the message was removed. It is simply silently removed. What we see happening in China is really the antithesis of what you'd want to see in terms of how communication should be handled in a global public health crisis.

CO: Now, these chat sites would not just be used the way I guess are used everywhere, which is -- well, the ones that we have where you're just exchanging information among your friends and your associates. But was there actually a kind of trench of communication between local doctors, local public health officials who were sort of trading information with each other to find out about "What do you know? What's going on? What are you hearing in your community?"

RD: That's exactly right. In fact, medical officials in China regularly use WeChat and other platforms, but especially WeChat. I mean, it's used by a billion people in China. But it is proven to be a popular tool among medical officials, especially in situations like this. When someone spots something unusual, they want to consult with their peers, get the information out to health officials. That's something we very much want to be communicated during a crisis. And what happened here is obviously central authorities or even local authorities, we don't really know exactly who sent the instructions down to these social media platforms. But whoever did it, they wanted to suppress discussion about it.

CO: This, as you say, began very early. But we know that China was very slow to let the world know what it was dealing with. We do know now that reviews from the World Health Organization say that the Chinese are now on top of this and are doing the right things at sort of slowing down the spread of the virus. Has there been any change in the free flow of information in I guess in recent weeks, since they really seem to have got on top of this?

RD: Not according to the research that we've done. In fact, the censorship has tightened over the time periods in which we did our tests. For WeChat, we began in January and our experiments went right through to the middle of February. And during that period there was a quite a sharp increase in keyword filtering. So we will obviously be monitoring it. I will say that, you know, we can't go back and rerun history and ask, "Could things have been different had they allowed a more free flow of discussion around urgent health information at the beginning?" But just going by what public health officials here in the West say, I think it's quite important that you have legitimate health information circulating among affected communities early on so that the word gets out that this is something that needs to be taken seriously. So while it may be true that they have things under control now -- they may have contributed to a larger crisis by suppressing that type of conversation at the beginning.

CO: All right, we'll leave it there. Mr. Deibert thank you.

RD: Thank you Carol.

CH: Ron Deibert is the director of the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy. We reached him in Toronto.

[Music]

Nova Scotia fire reunion

Guest: Paula Carver

CH: She only met them once, more than half a century ago. And then this past weekend, Paula Carver reunited with a group of men who played a huge role in her life. In fact, they're the reason she's alive today at all. 52 years ago, Ms. Carver's home in Woodville, Nova Scotia, caught fire. Three of her siblings were killed. But Ms. Carver, who was only two at the time, was rescued by a few Good Samaritans. And this past weekend, she finally reconnected with some of her rescuers. We reached Paula Carver in Halifax.

CO: Paula, can you tell us about that encounter with a man who saved your life all those years ago?

PAULA CARVER: So that happened Saturday. My husband and I went up just outside of Windsor, Nova Scotia, to meet with the two men that rescued me and attempted to rescue the other siblings that didn't make it. And I was a little nervous heading up because I didn't really know what to say. I knew things would turn out okay, but just the unknown I guess.

CO: And did they turn out okay?

PC: Oh yeah. They were very nice. And they were very welcoming. We went to Graham Greenough's house. I wasn't sure what to expect. When I went in I saw about 10 people I didn't know, but they were very kind and welcoming and they were quite happy to see me.

CO: So Graham Greenough -- he and Terry Manning, these were two men whom you didn't know when you were a little kid -- when you were 2 years old, a toddler, they saved your life. How did they do that?

PC: So I only know what I was told because I don't remember anything. But I know more now from having that meeting because when I go up, my parents were quite traumatized, of course, because they lost three kids. But when I was at the meeting, I learnt how they came and could hear like screaming from my mom to get help. And Graham said he was getting ready to watch a hockey game, I believe. So he went down the road. And Terry told me that he went to help as well. And the upstairs room had the elder kids. So they tried to use the ladder, but the smoke and the heat was too much that they just fell backwards. And then Terry said he could hear a little whimpering, which was myself. And he broke a window to try to get in to see where it was at anyway. He found me in my crib. He said the only reason that I was able to be rescued was because the smoke was higher and my crib was lower. And he grabbed me quickly and he passed me out the window through to his dad. And then someone else took care of me after that.

CO: And then he got out really fast.

PC: He did. And that's extreme heat and a lot of smoke. He just basically flew out the window he said.

CO: Your father wasn't home at the time. Is that the case?

PC: He was down the road. There was like an afternoon card game so he was down the road playing cards at the time.

CO: So your mom was there, your brothers survived, but you lost two sisters and another baby brother, is that right?

PC: Yes.

CO: I'm so sorry. And did your family talk about it very much when you were growing up?

PC: My parents didn't really talk about it, but we knew that we had a house fire when we were young and where it was at. And we have a grave site in Sackville, Nova Scotia. I'm from Sackville, Nova Scotia, where I live now. So there's a grave site there that has a marker on it with the kids' names and birthdates and the day that they passed. But other than that, my mum found it quite traumatizing to talk about it. My dad didn't really talk about it that much either. So like I say, I found out a bit more information about what happened.

CO: These two men, Graham Greenough and Terry Manning, whom you met this weekend for the first time -- or I guess not the first time, the second time since you were two years old -- did you keep in touch with them? Did your family know them? Did they have a further relationship with your family?

PC: We didn't really keep in touch. But apparently the house that we were in, my mother told me that was Graham Greenough's house and we were renting from them. But after we had that house fire, we moved out of the community into Dartmouth and stayed with my grandmother for a bit. And then after that, we went to Hammonds Plains and that's where we grew up. So we didn't really have any connection. I was able to get in touch with Terry several years back and I would send the, you know, the odd Christmas card. But other than that, we kind of lost contact. And I never did have any contact with Graham Greenough until this past weekend.

CO: So this weekend, this meeting you had with the two men who saved you, this came about because there was an article in the paper, the anniversary of the fire department. And this led to this encounter on the weekend. Did they tell you about their own feelings, about their own memories of that fire?

PC: Well, I felt kind of bad for the men when I was there, because I had them sitting beside me -- and Graham, I believe he said he was 89 now, Terry was 74. And Graham said that he was haunted by demons all the time because they felt really bad -- they rescued me, but there was others that they just weren't able to get out. And it's caused a lot of stress for them over the years, from what I've been told. Graham was kind of shaking and crying quite a bit. So I felt really bad for him. And then I look on the other side of me and Terry is wiping the tears away from his eyes. So I know they were quite troubled by it because I think that's probably too hard for them.

CO: And so were you able to help them -- to comfort them at all?

PC: I think so. They were quite happy to see me. And Graham had mentioned about, you know, he's really proud to be able to meet me. And I felt really good meeting them, too, because I've kind of had a little sense of peace after I left that meeting. And knowing that maybe I did help them out with some closure.

CO: And it's good for them to know that even though they weren't able to save the others, there you are. And you're there because of them.

PC: That's exactly right. And it was nice also because I got to see Graham's awards that he had -- awards for bravery -- he was trying so hard to rescue us. And Terry apparently had the same type of awards.

CO: Paula I really appreciate you telling us the story. Thank you.

PC: No problem. Thanks a lot.

CO: Bye.

PC: Bye now.

CH: That's Paula Carver in Halifax. Ms. Carver survived a house fire 52 years ago. And this weekend, for the first time, she met some of the men who rescued her that day.

[Music]

Part 2: Walls made of human skulls and leg bones uncovered next to Belgian church

Trauma births study

Guest: Ravi Retnakaran

CH: In March of 2017, there was a change in the sex ratio at birth in Ontario. Fewer boys were being born than normal. And according to researchers, that change wasn't happening everywhere. It was happening in politically liberal-leaning areas in the province, but not conservative ones. In a new paper this week, those researchers connect that change with a political event in the U.S. -- the election of President Donald Trump. Dr. Ravi Retnakaran is the lead author of the research published Monday in the journal "BMJ Open." He's a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and a clinician scientist at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto. That's where we reached him.

CO: Dr. Retnakara, do you really believe it's possible that the election of Donald Trump had such an effect on the biology of women in Ontario?

RAVI RETNAKARAN: I do believe it is possible because that was the reason why we looked for this effect. You know, there is an established literature that adverse societal stressors have a characteristic effect on the sex ratio in the months thereafter with a specific effect and timing, both of which we saw when we went and looked for it after the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

CO: So just tell us what happens after one of these stressors.

RR: When you have a societal stressor, three to five months after the event -- after the stressor -- you characteristically see a decline in the proportion of boys that are born into the population. So this is a decline in the so-called sex ratio, which is the proportion of boys to girls at birth. In the months after that decline, in the five months after that decline, you typically see a recovery of the sex ratio -- i.e. returning from that nadir that was seen three to five months after the event. The types of events that this has been associated with are so-called disasters, which can be either natural like an earthquake or manmade, particularly terrorist attacks for which this has been seen again and again, this pattern. And the underlying biology is not one of changing the likelihood of conceiving a boy or girl, but rather changing the likelihood of carrying a pregnancy to fruition without fetal loss.

CO: So there more miscarriages of boys after such an event?

RR: Exactly.

CO: Why did you even start to look at the possibility that there may be this ratio change?

RR: So we considered the possibility because we were aware of the fact that after major societal stressors, namely September 11th, 2001, this pattern was seen -- this kind of drop in the sex ratio three to four months later and the recovery thereafter. So the day after the election, one of the things that struck me was just this sense in society of something big has happened and we don't know what this means for the future and a certain sense of anxiety or uncertainty about the future. That feeling, for me, brought me back to the day after September 11th, 2001, because I was aware of what September 11th had done to the sex ratio. That then led to a hypothesis: could this election have a similar effect on the sex ratio? And in particular, would it have such an effect in a more left-leaning society such as our own?

CO: But to go back to November 2016, it was certainly surprising. And now, of course, we know a lot more about what a Donald Trump presidency would be. But at the time, do you really think that it was traumatic on the level of 9/11 for anyone?

RR: I think to compare trauma, it's really not appropriate. I think rather, it's the concept of a shocking- surprising event. And can it affect the sex ratio? Remember, we didn't know that it would. But we considered that possibility based on the response in society. As it turned out, the data bore it out. Indeed, that did happen to the sex ratio in Ontario.

CO: What has been reaction in the scientific community to your study?

RR: Well, we don't know yet because the paper has just come out. But certainly I think the first step is that, you know, for most people, they are first becoming aware that "Oh wow, there's a literature of adverse events affecting the sex ratio." Because there is quite an established literature in this regard for all sorts of events, not just 9/11, but other terrorist events like the Madrid bombings in 2004, London bombings in 2005, even things like the L.A. race riots in the early 90s. All of these events have been associated with changes in the sex ratio with a very characteristic pattern.

CO: But again, the idea that you would include Donald Trump's election in terrorist events -- do you think you might get a lot of pushback on that?

RR: Well, I hope that people aren't interpreting it like that because frankly that's not the way to be looking at this. The way to be looking at this is that societal stressors have been associated with the changes in the sex ratio or characteristic change. And this event apparently had the same sort of effect on the sex ratio. Now, the degree to which someone might find one event to be a stressor versus another event, we can't comment on that, nor can we assay that.

CO: And just finally, I know that people will want this question answered. What's the explanation as to why baby boys are less likely to be born after a stressful event?

RR: The physiology is actually quite interesting because the physiology is that at conception, it's believed that the sex ratio is 50/50. A 50 per cent chance of boy versus a girl. But we know that in human populations across time and across space, there is generally a slight male preponderance at birth. In other words, you have more male babies than you do female babies, which is a reflection of greater loss of female fetuses across gestation overall. That said, within gestation, within a pregnancy, there are specific windows where you're more likely to lose a female baby than a male baby. And there are other windows where you're more likely to lose a male baby than a female baby. And in particular, there's a window between 20 to 25 weeks gestation roughly where you're more likely to lose a male baby. It's believed that this is why in the setting of, again, a discrete adverse event -- a single event that's essentially found to be stressful -- that you get a differential loss of male babies for women who were carrying male baby between 20 to 25 weeks. And then that leads to the change in the sex ratio at birth three to five months later. When those babies that otherwise should have been born at that time are not born leading to the fall in the ratio.

CO: All right. We're going to leave it there. I'm sure we're going to get reaction to this interview Dr. Retnakaran [both laugh]. I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

RR: No worries. Thank you.

CO: Bye.

RR: Bye bye.

CH: That was Dr. Ravi Retnakaran in Toronto. He's a clinician scientist at Mount Sinai Hospital and a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto.

[Music]

Dog Attack

CH: Devin Wasnik says the dog attack he witnessed this weekend was so horrific, he's shocked the victims survived. Mr. Wasnik was a guest at a motel in Winnipeg on Saturday when he heard piercing cries outside his door. When he went outside, he saw four dogs in the parking lot, viciously attacking three people. Police say the dogs involved were all pit bull-mastiff mixes. And the victims were the dogs' owners. They're recovering in hospital with severe injuries. Devin Wasnik spoke to the CBC's Ian Froese in Winnipeg this week. And a warning: some of the details in this story are graphic.

SOUNDCLIP

DEVIN WASNIK: I heard screaming, yelling, barking, crying. And I was just heading out for a cigarette. I had my keys in my pocket. And when I saw this guy getting mauled by these dogs. I jumped in my car and I tried to run one over. Like these dogs are coming right at my car. So I have a fist bat for ice fishing, and I was nailing them with it as hard as I could. I mean, as hard as I could. Like full swing.

IAN FROESE: You're driving at this point?

DEVIN WASNIK: No, no. I stepped out of the car over there where most of the blood is. I continued fighting back these dogs. They really wanted them. They didn't want me. I didn't even see him getting into the vehicle. I just saw blood spatter on the driver's side. And then he had jumped over to the driver's side to the passenger side. He wasn't able to drive -- like his arms were...there was a big chunk, that was so big, I mean bigger than a pool ball, like ripped out of each arm. And then his right calf, like he was hemorrhaging. So I wrapped his left arm, that was the one that was bleeding the most, with my scarf. Within a couple minutes, the police arrived.

IAN FROESE: So you were hitting these dogs, but you could tell that they weren't after you.

DEVIN WASNIK: The three dogs probably hit 20 times.

IAN FROESE: One of the victims sort of on their own got into your vehicle or did you drag them?

DEVIN WASNIK: I didn't even realize when he got in there. So he jumped in. But he had jumped in from the driver's side in the crossover. Because he had no ability to drive. If the door wasn't open, I don't know if he had the muscle because it had been ripped off to even open the door. And when I saw in the amount of blood that he was hemorrhaging, like...I'm so shocked he's alive. I'm so shocked. He was so scared.

IAN FROESE: How are you feeling?

DEVIN WASNIK: I hope he's okay.

CH: Devin Wasnik speaking to the CBC's Ian Froese this week about a vicious dog attack he witnessed in Winnipeg over the weekend.

[Music]

Belgium bone church

Guest: Janiek De Gryse

CH: When digging under or near old European buildings, it's pretty common for archaeologists to find weird stuff. But recently, archaeologists in Belgium found something uncommonly macabre: walls made out of human bones and crushed skulls. They made that discovery in the Saint Bavo's Cathedral Yard in Ghent, Belgium -- which is home to the famous Ghent Altarpiece. Janiek De Gryse is the archeologist who's leading the excavation. We reached her in Bruges, Belgium.

CO: Janiek what did you think when you first saw these walls made out of bones?

JANIEK DE GRYSE: Well, we were very excited because at the beginning we didn't know exactly what it was. We thought that maybe it was another mass grave as we found several before. So we didn't know exactly what it was. But when we carried out the investigation, it soon it became very clear that it was like real walls build out of human material. And we knew that it was very dirty. The first time that we saw that in Flanders or in Belgium. We knew that it was a very unique find. And it's always very nice to find something.

CO: Well, I wouldn't have expected you to use words like "excited" and "nice." I mean it sounds like pretty gruesome.

JANIEK DE GRYSE: Yes. But that depends on how you look at it. I can imagine that you would describe it with those words. But we look at it from a scientific point of view. And from a scientific point of view because it's a very unique find, we don't have any comparison in Belgium. So, yeah, it's always very exciting when you find something different. I don't think I will find this in another time in my life. So that's why I use the words "very exciting."

CO: But just describe what it is you've found. Where are the bones? And how many? What's the kind of look of this?

JANIEK DE GRYSE: Well, we have nine walls. They are very small walls. But they are built from human material. And there's really a selection in the human bones they use. So they used only the thigh and the shin bones. And that is very particular.

CO: And there are skulls involved as well.

JANIEK DE GRYSE: Yes, there are also skulls. So we have the areas between the walls. And the areas between the walls, there are the skulls.

CO: But where they're being used as building materials or was this storage or what?

JANIEK DE GRYSE: Well, I think you have to see it. And the story of the clearances of the churchyards. When the cemeteries were cleared often it was carried out quite rapidly, quite inaccurately. So they didn't bother to collect the fragile bones. So automatically you have natural selections of the bones. But here we have another --we have an extra dimension. And one of the questions we ask ourselves is: is this a practical thing? Did they build it just to build it in a very compact way? Or is it also a spiritual thing? Is it a religious thing? So we hope to answer these questions.

CO: And what part of the church, the cathedral actually, are these bones actually in?

JANIEK DE GRYSE: Well they're in the churchyard. So they're not in the church, but in the churchyard.

CO: Do you have any idea whose remains these are or how long they have been in these walls around the cathedral?

JANIEK DE GRYSE: Well, we know at the moment, because we have to carry out further investigation -- but at the moment, we know that the bones are from adults. So from adult men and women. There are almost no bones of children, which is particular because it conflicts with the normal life expectancy in older periods. But it's normal for the fact that they clear the graves. But there are still lots of questions we have to answer and we hope to answer these questions with the inventory that we are going to make in association with the University of Ghent.

CO: When you talk about the clearance, you mean graveyards? This would be areas where there had been previously interred bodies that were cleared in order to do other building. Is that what you mean?

JANIEK DE GRYSE: Yes. The bones are from other graves. So the graves were removed to make base for new ones. And skeletons, they couldn't be thrown away because the fateful believed in the total resurrection of the body. So the bones were considered to be the most important part.

CO: That doesn't explain why there are only part bones there, why it's only the lower limbs of bones that are saved and not the upper ones.

JANIEK DE GRYSE: That's a very good question. And we don't know the answer yet. There are all kinds of theories also in an older publication in England, for example. But we don't know the exact answer, and that's why we are doing the investigation with the University of Ghent to get to the right answers. So I think that maybe in a couple of months we will have more information about the subject.

CO: But this cathedral in Ghent is famous. It's been around for a long time, very celebrated. Why do you think this is the first time it's been discovered that these bones are in those walls?

JANIEK DE GRYSE: So in the churchyard, it was the first time that a scientific survey was being done. So that's why no one investigated these walls before. It was really the first sign that it came across.

CO: Well, I'm glad that you're excited about it. It sounds pretty gruesome. [Chuckles] It sounds like you have a lot of work ahead of you Janiek.

JANIEK DE GRYSE: [Chuckles] Yes. That's a fact. Yes.

CO: All right. Thanks for speaking with us.

JANIEK DE GRYSE: Okay. Bye.

CH: Janiek De Gryse is an archaeologist. We reached her in Bruges, Belgium. We have more on this story, including some photos of the bones on our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Talkback: Collective Nouns

CH: On last night's program, we paid tribute to James Lipton. The long-time host of "Inside the Actor's Studio" died yesterday. He was 93. Mr. Lipton was best known for his extremely in-depth interviews with Hollywood celebrities. But when he spoke to, As It Happens host Mary Lou Finlay in 1998, he focused on the first edition of his book "An Exaltation of Larks" and his other passion: collective nouns. And as you may have heard, Mr. Lipton issued a challenge to As It Happens listeners in that interview to come up with a collective noun for Canadians. After we replayed that conversation, you collectively responded to Talkback.

SOUNDCLIP

MAYNARD SONNTAG: Hello. My name is Maynard Sonntag. I'm calling from Regina, Saskatchewan. I listened to your story on Mr. Lipton last evening and was so sorry to hear of his passing. I don't know if in the many years since his interview with you, if you ever did come up with the term for a group of Canadians. I'm really sorry to be so bold, but may I humbly suggest: An apology of Canadians. And sorry if that offends anyone.

CH: Thank you Maynard. Of course, we accept your apology. As does Philip Lander, who wrote "Consider: 'a sorry lot of Canadians' or 'an apology of Canadians, eh?'" Esther Becker was also unapologetic with her suggestion: "So a collective of Canadians, eh? Surely, with our international reputation, it must be an apology of Canadians!" Well, thank you to everyone who called and wrote. And sorry. To join the conversation, find us on Twitter and Facebook, both @CBCAsItHappens. Our email is aih@cbc.ca. And we always love to hear your voice, so call Talkback:416-205-5687.

[Music]

Kyriakos Mitsotakis

CH: For five days now, Greek authorities have been using teargas and riot police to push back tens of thousands of migrants at its border with Turkey. And as the United Nations wonders whether the country has breached international refugee law, the European Union has a different response. The EU says it will give Greece $700 million euros to boost security and infrastructure at its land and sea borders. And at a press conference today, EU leaders praised Greece for being a, quote, "European shield." Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis was at that press conference today too. And he had fighting words for Turkey, whose government announced last Friday that its borders to Europe were open. Here's what Mr. Mitsotakis said.

SOUNDCLIP

KYRIAKOS MITSOTAKIS: The tens of thousands of people who tried to enter Greece over the past few days did not come from Idlib. They had been living safely in Turkey for a long period of time. Most of them speak Turkish fluently. And Europe will not be blackmailed by Turkey over the refugee issue. We stand ready to support Turkey in dealing with its refugee problem and find a solution to the Syria conundrum, but not under these circumstances. My duty is to protect the sovereignty of my country. At the same time, Greece expects tangible solidarity from the European Union. And I can tell you the presence of the entire European leadership here at the outer borders of the union sends a clear signal to everyone. But let's be honest, Europe has not been up to the task of dealing with the migration crisis. If I want to be a little bit bold and provocative, we have not used the time wisely since the last migration crisis to address this situation effectively. It's about time that we do it now. We need to be able to demonstrate effective burden sharing when addressing this complex problem. We need different types of policies. We need to be innovative. We need to think out of the box. And frankly, we cannot afford to have that many free riders within the European Union who pass the burden of managing the external borders to those countries who, by virtue of geography, happened to be placed where they are. But at the same time, not assuming any responsibilities.

CH: That was Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis speaking at a press conference today with EU leaders at the Greek Turkish border in northern Greece.

[Music]

Part 3: Conservatives: Indigenous

Conservatives: Indigenous

Guest: Jamie Schmale

CH: The Conservatives' Crown-Indigenous Relations critic thinks it's time for his party to have what he calls "a bigger conversation about First Nations." And Jamie Schmale says he's waiting to hear what the contenders for the Conservative leadership have to offer. Mr. Schmale's comments come as Parliament waits to see if the Trudeau government's deal with B.C. and the Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs can bring an end to the protests and rail blockades that have taken over the government's agenda for over a month. We reached Jamie Schmale in Lindsay, Ontario.

CO: Mr. Schmale, you told the Canadian Press that it's time for your party, the Conservatives, to have "a bigger conversation about First Nations." That's a quote. What kind of a conversation are you talking about?

JAMIE SCHMALE: Well, first of all, thank you very much for having me on to talk about this very topical issue. What I was talking about when I said we need to have a conversation as a party is the status quo is clearly not working. The system is broken. So the conversation that I want to start having and what I want our party to move towards is a conversation, a financial conversation rather than a social conversation. We want First Nations that want to take a bigger ownership, a bigger piece of the responsibility, to allow them to have off-ramps to the Indian Act. Give them that ability. For those that want to stay within the Indian act, that's fine. We're not here to force anyone. But for those that do, that want to chart a different path, I'd like our party to be more open towards that. And allowing those that want to share and resource development and share in oil and gas or transmission or electricity. That kind of thing to allow them to have the ability to create jobs, wealth, and opportunity within their own territory.

CO: We know that numbers of First Nations are making those agreements. Large numbers of them. And even their own initiatives. They're investing. They're building. They're creating businesses and work. So where have you heard? What's your evidence that they would like to have off-ramps from the Indian act?

JS: Well, I'm hearing it from different chiefs, different people within their community that want to try something new, that want to take more responsibility. So they're telling me directly that this is something they would like to explore. And you're absolutely right, there are hundreds of communities that are doing this already. And there are some that are a little skeptical about going away from the Indian act. And again, that's why I want to have the conversation where those that want to take more of a role can do so. And those that want to chart a different path have that ability also. So it's a bit more about freedom.

CO: This idea of an off-ramp to get out of the Indian act, as you're describing it, this is something that has been proposed in the past. And Indigenous leaders have said that that language is code for assimilation.

JS: I don't think it's...for me, what I'm talking about is giving First Nations communities more power over their own people, over their own lands, over their own revenue sharing agreements. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a top down approach, which in a lot of cases the Indian act promotes. I'm talking about First Nations communities having more control, more power, the ability to lead their people in whatever way it suits them within their territory. I think it's basically about freedom too.

CO: What they have been demanding -- and we've heard this is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that they would like to have a relationship with the federal government that allows them to protect their culture, their rights, and their title to the land. And so how would that happen if they have these so-called off-ramps out of the Indian act?

JS: Well, there are certain provisions within the Indian act that are terribly top down approach that handcuffs in many ways First Nations communities. So whether it would be off-ramp ways to get out of the Indian act or different pieces that they can peel away from. I think that's the conversation I want to have as a party. And I think that's the conversation I want Canadian public and our members to all have. Is this the right path? Because as I said at the beginning, I don't think the status quo is working. And the conversation also leads to the financial piece of the puzzle -- let's talk about getting these First Nations communities out of the cycle of poverty. Let's talk about lifting them up, creating jobs, opportunity, wealth and hope for each and every member of the Indigenous community. Because Canada as a whole will not be successful unless our First Nations communities are successful.

CO: I just don't understand where you have heard or where you've learned that this is a demand on the part of Indigenous communities to have opt out of the Indian act. I think what the conversation has been is that the poverty they're living in has been imposed, as you say, by the Indian act. They would like that to be rewritten. They would like to have their rights respected. They'd like to have clean water. They'd like to have as much funding for their schools and for their children's services as non-Indigenous communities have. But they have wanted to be able to keep the integrity of their communities. And to opt out of the act, to have no longer a part of that, where have you heard that that's what they're proposing as a way to solve the issues?

JS: Well, here's one example. Reconciliation also includes economic reconciliation. And when you're talking about clean water, better schools, those are all choices in some areas that the department imposes upon First Nations community. So if you had First Nations communities within a consortium, however they want to set it up, that can better deal with boil water issues on their own territory, schooling, that type of thing -- we should be having those conversations. Not saying this is what you get, and this is what we're providing.

CO: I have to ask you about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people, which we've been told that Indigenous leaders believe it has to form the basis for moving past the Indian act for any kind of renewed relationship. Do you support the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people?

JS: We do want a definition as a party. We have said that for a number of years on prior informed consent. We need some kind of definition because as you can see what's going on across the country, I think that is something that's not unreasonable. And if it's in the course of a committee doing that or through legislation or a Supreme Court question, a reference question -- I think we need to have a definition of that before we jump on board.

CO: But you don't support it as it's written?

JS: Like I said, we would need a definition before I can comment any further.

CO: We will leave it there. Mr. Schmale thank you.

JS: Oh, no problem. Thank you Carol.

CH: Jamie Schmale is the Conservatives' Crown-Indigenous Relations critic. We reached him in Lindsay, Ontario.

[Music]

Jean Chretien

CH: Canada may be facing some challenges. But Jean Chretien isn't sweating it. The former Liberal Prime Minister spoke at an event today at the University of Ottawa. Reporters took the opportunity to ask whether Justin Trudeau can handle the challenges of both Western separatists and the rail blockades in support of B.C.'s Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs. Here's some of what Mr. Chretien had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

JEAN CHRETIEN: You know, we always had that type of problem. I've been around for 40 years and there's always a problem to be resolved. And why don't we face them? We think that is very difficult. We always find a solution. And they will find a solution. You have to be patient and you have to apply the right values and do your best.

REPORTER: They are still not close to a solution yet for the Wet'suwet'en and the coastal gasoline dispute.

JEAN CHRETIEN: I was in Calgary about two months ago. And had debate with Harper on pipelines. You know, the separation of Alberta will not take them closer to the Pacific. They will still be having the pipeline to go through B.C. or United States or the north and so on. So you cannot blame Trudeau for that. And the Native problems always have been there. It's extremely difficult. And for me, I was managing it the best I could. I was a minister more than six years -- and I was prime minister for 10 years. And I had some problems, obviously. But we resolved it.

REPORTER: Is the government moving too fast on climate change? That seems to be at the source of a lot of the disagreements.

JEAN CHRETIEN: Too fast or not fast enough. There will always be people who say you're too fast or you're not fast enough. You know, they have to pass the judgment. It is never an easy course. And climate change is a huge preoccupation. But development of the nation is too a preoccupation. How can you do it and with minimum of pollution? And technology evolves and so on. I'm not there to tell them what to do. I had 40 years of that.

CH: Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien speaking to reporters earlier today in Ottawa.

[Music]

Jaundice app

Guest: Terence Leung

CH: Newborns often don't show any signs of jaundice until they're already home. Then after a few days, parents might notice a yellow hue in their baby's eyes or skin. It's caused by too much bilirubin -- a yellowish pigment found in red blood cells. It's fairly common in newborns and it can go away on its own. But more severe cases can cause permanent damage or even death. Now researchers in London have come up with a new way to screen babies for jaundice. They're hoping it could save lives in another part of the world. And all it takes is a smartphone. Terence Leung is an associate professor at University College London. We reached him in London, U.K..

CO: Professor Leung, how can a smartphone detect jaundice in a newborn way?

TERENCE LEUNG: We make use of the smartphone camera to take a picture of the baby's eye. If they have a high concentration of bilirubin, their skin will turn yellow. And also the sclera -- the whites of their eyes -- will also turn yellow. So we take a picture of the baby's eye and then quantify the yellowness of the sclera.

CO: And how accurate have you found this to be?

TL: In our pilot study based on 37 babies, we can actually adjusted thresholds so that we can achieve 100 percent sensitivity, which means that all the severely jaundice babies will be identified. The specificity is 60 percent, which means that babies who are non-jaundice, 60 percent of them will be identified as non-jaundice or non-severely-jaundice.

CO: And there are already ways of testing to see if a baby has jaundice?

TL: That's right. There is standard way to test it that is based on blood tests. There is a commercial device that will also screen a newborn baby. So smartphone is about 400 dollar. And the commercial device that I just mentioned is a lot more expensive. I think it is about $5000. And smartphone, of course, is everywhere, especially we are targeting Africa. And smartphones are also very available in Africa.

CO: So give us a sense of how important this is in places where they don't have the budgets to buy these other devices, where it's difficult to give this kind of support to newborns.

TL: We are currently working with colleagues in Accra, in Ghana, because they don't have a budget for non-invasive monitor. So they have to rely on their inspection. Basically the midwives looked at the babies to see whether they (eyes) are yellow. But then sometimes newborn babies in Africa, they have darker skin so therefore it is a bit difficult to pick up jaundice babies. Sometimes midwives refer a lot of babies to the hospital, even though the babies have just a little bit jaundice, not severely jaundice, but that sometimes they can't tell whether a baby has severe jaundice because the perception is affected by maybe the room lighting and also the experience of the midwife.

CO: What are the consequences of a newborn having jaundice?

TL: Majority of jaundice babies, they will get better by themselves. But then up to 18 percent of newborn babies, they actually need a bit of treatment. Now, if a newborn baby who is suffering from severe jaundice, if they're not receiving treatment in time, the consequence could be quite dangerous. Babies can suffer from hearing loss, even brain damage, even death.

CO: We know that worldwide every year, more than 110,000 babies die because of jaundice. And 180,000 cases of disability a year worldwide because of it. And is it fairly treatable?

TL: Yes. If you can identify the jaundice babies early enough, you can get the babies to go through phototherapy or exchange transfusion. It is actually preventable. And that's why it is a very frustrating situation to see that these treatable condition are not diagnosed in a timely fashion. And therefore, babies have to suffer the consequences.

CO: But can this app -- can it detect the difference between a mildly jaundiced baby and one that has a level of jaundice that needs to be treated?

TL: Yes, it can. Because a smartphone camera can quantify the yellowness in the whites of the eye very accurately.

CO: But there have been other apps that can test for jaundice, right. This is not the first time you've had something like this. For skin pigment, I understand, there was a test.

TL: Right now we have one developed by a group in the University of Washington. And also this one by a Chinese company as well. These two apps are based on skin colour. The unique feature of our app is that we don't actually require a colour checker. So the colour checker is basically a cart with different colours on it. And so you need to be in the photo so that you can calibrate your picture to remove the ambient lighting effect. So we believe that our approach is more practical because it does not require colour checker.

CO: You mentioned it can be difficult to detect jaundice with darker skinned babies. So does the idea of having the smartphone technology for the eye -- does that eliminate the shortcomings that a skin pigment test would have?

TL: That's right. That's the point. So lots of skin apps, they use some very sophisticated machine learning algorithms. By comparison, our technique is much simpler. Doesn't matter what ethnicities the babies are -- the whites of the eyes are always white.

CO: You mentioned your running trials in Ghana with babies -- in Accra. How soon might you be able to make this available to public health officials in places where they obviously need it?

TL: Yes, I think we're going to conclude our study very soon. In June this year. And then again, our results are promising. However, it's not that simple. Because in order to use it properly, we need to get some regulatory approvals, because although it is an app it's actually considered to be a medical device in the U.K. and I believe other places in the world as well.

CO: Well, I wish you success with it. It sounds like it's something that can be very very useful if it works. Professor Leung I appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

TL: Thank you very much Carol.

CH: That was Professor Terence Leung with University College London. He and a team of researchers have developed a smartphone app that can test jaundice in newborns by taking a photo of a baby's eye. We reached him in London.

[Music]

Chasten Buttigieg

CH: Pete Buttigieg didn't make history as the Democratic Party nominee. But he did make history as the first openly gay man to mount a major presidential campaign in the United States. Some people were skeptical about whether he could win the presidency because he's gay. But in the LGBTQ community, some people were skeptical about whether Mr. Buttigieg was or is, quote, "gay enough." And there were even those who question whether he's gay at all, even though he's married to a man. On Sunday, Mr. Buttigieg ended his presidential bid. But 24 hours earlier, his husband, Chasten Buttigieg addressed those questions on the podcast "Cape Up with Jonathan Capehart." Here's part of that conversation, which was just released today.

SOUNDCLIP

JONATHAN CAPEHART: There is this insane conversation within the LGBT community, within our community, asking the question: "Is Mayor Pete gay enough?" How does it make you feel to have the LGBT community -- our community -- question the very essence of your husband?

CHASTEN BUTTIGIEG: I mean, when you're running a historical campaign, you're always going to have, you know, detractors or the naysayers. And that's why I'm so focused on the work. I don't get myself wrapped up in what people are saying about me or my husband on social media or on television because I find so much purpose and good out of going out there and showing up for those kids, especially in the way I wish somebody was showing up for me. And it's very important that you not only talk the talk, but you walk the walk. And that's why I have made such a huge part of my visibility on this campaign, going out and visiting these centres and listening to people's stories, because people need to know that you're going to actually show up for them. And a lot of that work for me isn't showing up and saying, "Hey, I'm the husband of the gay candidate." It's showing up and saying, "I represent my husband Pete Buttigieg. And I want to hear from you what you need to see in a president because I'm sure for you, you have felt repeatedly like this country doesn't believe in you, doesn't stand for you. And even when somebody gets to the White House, they're not going to do either of those things. So I'm here to tell you before we even get there that you will have an ally in the White House."

CH: That's Chasten Buttigieg, the husband of former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, speaking on the podcast "Cape Up with Jonathan Capehart.".

[Music]

DRC Ebola Patient

CH: Masiko Muhaso is going home.

SOUNDCLIP

[People cheering]

CH: That's the sound of people cheering as Ms. Muhaso left a treatment centre in Beni this morning. She's the last known Ebola patient in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The World Health Organization says it will continue monitoring people who've come in contact with her. And officials will only declare the epidemic over once no new cases have been detected for 42 days. But for health care workers in the DRC, today is a testament to the power of their efforts in the face of an outbreak that has killed thousands. It's also a testament to the power of new vaccination strategies. Back in 2018, we spoke with the W.H.O.'s was Director General for Emergency Preparedness about the promise of those strategies and why he hoped they'd be game changing. Here's part of Carol's conversation with Dr. Peter Salama.

SOUNDCLIP

PETER SALAMA: I think it's important to remember that since Ebola was discovered in 1976, really whenever we've had an outbreak, the main objective of that response has been just to contain the outbreak from spreading. Now we have a real opportunity with this new vaccine to really change the paradigm and have new technologies such as vaccines and therapeutics that offer much more to the populations that are affected by this terrible disease.

CO: Ebola is not just a deadly virus it's just such an awful thing to for people to deal with. The way the illness takes people, how long it stays, how it spreads. Because people in the DRC know what it is to have Ebola back, and this is the ninth known Ebola outbreak to strike the DRC. What effect is it having on people's psyche? How distressed are they to see this virus back?

PS: You're absolutely right. This is a fearful disease. I mean it's a frightening disease that does inspire panic all around the world and people talk about it. Having said that, the Congolese know Ebola, they've seen it before, and there's negatives and positives of that. Of course, they know that it has extremely high death rate: up to 90 per cent for this strain of the virus. But they also know that it can be controlled, and communities have has learned that that certain exposures to wild animals can make them at risk of Ebola. And they also know some of the behaviours that actually can propagate the disease, such as contact with dead bodies, going to traditional healers, and contact with the sick. And it's up to us as the international community to build on that baseline knowledge and engage the communities so they don't feel powerless against threat, but actually know that some of this at least is in their hands to protect themselves and their families.

CH: That's the World Health Organization's Dr. Peter Salama speaking with Carol in May of 2018. Just a few months after their conversation, the DRC's current Ebola outbreak was declared. But today, the last known patient infected by that epidemic in the country got to go home.

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

March 3, 2020 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode