If Jeanne Calment Were 122,That Is All the More Reason for Biosampling

Preface

Extreme value theory currently posits that the maximum current biological lifespan for humans is between 123 and 128 years. ¹ These mathematical calculations apply mathematical formulas to large-scale population data, incorporating factors such as total base population, life expectancy, and the expected mortality rate. Running the computerized simulations many times will produce results which can then be averaged together. These results may give us some idea of the maximum observed human lifespan, but they also leave many questions for further study, such as: Why do humans not live longer? Can the human lifespan be extended? Is the result variable or fixed? What if other mathematical formulas are used? Studying supercentenarians, and especially the oldest supercentenarians, from a biological perspective can help lead us to answers to these questions. ^*

The Jeanne Calment Case: A Prospect for Biosampling?

Biosampling, the collection of biological material for the study of one's biological makeup, can be useful for more than mere traditional uses, such as testing for one's genealogy, family tree, ancestral heritage, or testing for one's medical predisposition to certain negative biological factors, such as a family history of heart disease. Indeed, biosampling can also be used to test for positive factors in families with a history of longevity. As the proportion of human longevity attributed to biological factors increases significantly over age 75 years, ² and continues to increase the higher the age bracket, so the concentration of identifiable biological factors associated with extreme longevity becomes more detectable the higher the age of the person being tested. It, therefore, makes sense to test persons >105 years (semisupercentenarians) and >110 years (supercentenarians). But even among these groups, we still see great variability in health status, function, and life expectancy. Perhaps we should focus on even higher more elite data, such as the biosampling of persons >115 years or even >120 years.

In the case of Jeanne Calment of France, 1875–1997 (Fig. 1), generally recognized for many years as the oldest validated person according to actuarial and demographic science at age 122.45 years and accepted as such by Guinness World Records, the fact that her great age exceeds any other validated case by >3 years, and that a similar case is not likely to show up within the next few decades (current estimates give a 50% chance of the Calment record being broken in the next 38 years), ³ and that her biological family line is extinct, yet biosamples donated by Jeanne Calment for scientific research may still remain, it may be possible to use the biosamples currently in reserve for future scientific research. In addition, there remains the larger overview of the possibility of integrating biosample testing into the traditional age-validated process. At the moment, there is no present way to positively identify a person's age through biotesting alone, but biotesting in conjunction with identification documents could be combined to more thoroughly rule out the possibility of mistakes and errors, seeking to improve beyond this article documentation alone. Hereunder, I review the topic area, including a brief history of age validation and the Jeanne Calment case as the official “oldest person ever,” as well as discuss a potential follow-up regarding this case, and perhaps similar cases in the future.

OPEN IN VIEWER

FIG. 1.

A close-up, high-resolution view of Jeanne Calment's forehead and eyes at age 120, showing advanced aging/deterioration expected for someone her age, not for someone at age 97.

Of course, we should pause for a moment and consider the ethics of biosampling. Each individual human has individual human rights, such as the right to their own person and privacy. As such, any biosamples procured for scientific testing should be procured in a scientifically ethical manner, and one that properly reflects the will of the person being tested. Jeanne Calment, already having chosen to be publicly identified for her age, and having worked with scientists for several years, chose to donate biosamples of her person in the 1990s to the Chronos project, which collected biosamples of French centenarians. As such, the ethical requirements of biosampling in this case have already been met >20 years ago by French researchers. And yet, the ideas for what to test for in 1995 were not as well developed as what to test for today. Searching for genetic biomarkers of longevity on a population-scale level, such as Apolipoprotein E, was a good thing. But for unique cases, the opportunity to do more than a mere population-level prevalence test arises. With Jeanne Calment, we have a unique opportunity to biotest the samples of a 122-year-old woman, not for mere prevalence trends in a population, but for specific unique biomarkers of longevity in that person. As we know that some advantageous mutations can arise spontaneously in a single human body, so each individual has a unique biomarker profile. But we also know that the biomarkers of someone at, say, 115 years are more special than at age 90 years. In the United States alone, >1 million persons today are aged >90 years, but 0 are currently aged >115 years. These numbers alone show that to go from 90 to 115 is less likely than to go from 1 million to 1. And that is merely for age 115 years. What about age >120 years?

The Jeanne Calment case represents, uniquely, both the best validated and oldest validated supercentenarian case in actuarial and demographic science. That alone makes the case doubly special and unique. At age 122.45 years, Jeanne Calment's age stands out as the “Mount Everest of Aging.” Because her age is so extraordinary in relation to the other validated-age case data, there has been interest in studying her case for >20 years after her passing, in addition to the earlier >10 years of research by scientists while she was living. In 1995, Jeanne Calment broke the “all-time” Guinness World Record for the oldest authenticated individual in human history (retroactively, if we discount the Shigechiyo Izumi case, then Jeanne actually became the “oldest person ever” in 1990, aged 115 years). Hypothetical scenarios of identification document (ID) switching, long a standard test of age validation since the methods were developed, in this and other cases have left some in science wondering whether more can be done to limit doubt beyond the paper documents check and local interviews, and so there has been a push among some for biosampling to resolve this issue. However, those who have validated Jeanne's case already have made such a strong case that in the view of many, there is no issue to resolve, and thus no need for biosampling. ⁴ I agree with the former but not the latter. If, indeed, the case is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be valid, at age 122.45 years, that is all the more reason for biosampling. As the proportion of longevity attributed to biological (including genetic, epigenetic, etc.) factors increases the higher the age group, so the oldest person on record should have unique biological properties that may not show up in even 115-year olds. Conversely, science has already identified unique genetic mutations that shorten human lifespan, but has not adequately tested for mutations that extend the human lifespan. Although studies of life-shortening genetics have been numerous, little effort has been made to study the potential of life-extending genetics, at least among those with the highest ages, in humans. That could change soon. In short, if Jeanne Calment were a genetic mutant with positive genetic mutations that reduced the effects of aging and allowed her to outlive everyone else, then science can only gain from studying such a person. But before we get into the details of that, I think it is important for the reader to have an overview of the history of supercentenarian biosampling and a refresher on the history of age validation and the Jeanne Calment case itself.

An Overview of Supercentenarian Biosampling

The idea of biotesting the bodies of “super” centenarians is not new. Indeed, it is not even limited to the mere last 140 years. Rather, this idea goes back to the search for trying to find out why some people apparently live so much longer than everyone else, which goes back thousands of years. It is, therefore, difficult to say for certain when the first attempts began to use biosampling methods to test alleged supercentenarians. However, among currently known examples, a good candidate for biotesting of alleged supercentenarians began in 1635 in England, with the case of “Old Tom Parr.” An elderly man brought to the king as a curiosity and said to be “152” years old died soon thereafter, leading to the king's inquest for an autopsy. The king's royal physician, Sir William Harvey, performed an autopsy on the body of Thomas Parr, who had claimed to be 152 years old at the time of his death. ⁵ If anything, this autopsy result helped to cast doubt that this man was anywhere near the age claimed; recent researchers believe that Mr. Parr may have been less than age 70 years. ⁶

The Thomas Parr situation may have been a one-off situation for that time, but parallels can be seen in the later case of American Joice Heth, touted by American showman P.T. Barnum to be a “161”-year-old woman. After her death in 1836, an autopsy performed by Dr. David Rogers concluded that her body was not >80 years old, aligning more closely with persons in their 70s than those >100 years. ⁷ Curiously, Dr. Rogers claimed that he had also performed an autopsy on a “115-year-old woman” in Italy and that the Italian woman's age was close to accurate. These better-noted examples help to give us some insight into the mindset of the medical community of the time, and it should be noted that the extreme ages to >115 years commonly touted in the popular press at the time were viewed with some skepticism by the scientific community. Nonetheless, autopsy results alone left much to be desired: whereas physicians could get a general idea that someone was “closer to 70–80 years than to 150–160 years,” more certain estimates would require additional verification. The idea of using people's life stories to “test” for whether someone could remember historical events from early in the lifetime of alleged long livers had already begun. But there was also an understanding that documents proving one's birth, marriage, life history, and death were essential for bringing further into focus how long humans lived. Autopsies could help estimate decades, not years.

The move from autopsy to taking individual biological samples for testing, however, is a relatively recent phenomenon. Centenarian studies in the 1980s, such as the New England Centenarian Study, were a precursor model of using longevous persons for the testing of genetic and other biological factors associated with human aging. By the 1990s, the New England Centenarian Study had already biotested several supercentenarians, including a 119-year-old woman in the United States. We also saw a Japanese autopsy study of a 116-year-old woman in 1995.

The Gerontology Research Group (GRG) began the biosampling of supercentenarians in the early 2000s, with Dr. L. Stephen Coles performing supercentenarian autopsies, and his wife Natalie Coles performing blood draws. Although prior individual autopsies on supercentenarians had been done, Dr. Coles was the first to publish an autopsy study of supercentenarians. ⁸ These efforts ended with Dr. Coles's cancer illness rendering him unable to continue, and the partial results were published just before Dr. Coles's death, in November 2014. ⁹

Other groups have, at various times, either proposed, or been involved in, supercentenarian biosampling. The Supercentenarian Research Foundation, founded by Stan Primmer, began biosampling of a 116-year-old supercentenarian woman and her family in 2006. ¹⁰ The New England Supercentenarian Study, a subset of the New England Centenarian Study, launched in 2007. ¹¹ Another group, the Supercentenarian Research Study/Betterhumans, began sampling supercentenarians in the past decade. ¹² In 2014, a study of a single 115-year-old woman in the Netherlands was published, revealing new insights with regard to stem cells and aging, among other results. ¹³ In 2016, a small Japanese study of four supercentenarians investigated dementia. ¹⁴ In 2019, a new study of supercentenarians from Japan found an association between “super” immunity and super-long-life in humans. ¹⁵ Of course, these biosampling studies can tell us a lot about the persons biosampled, but they cannot yet confirm a person's age. For that, age validation through documentation of a person's life history is still needed. Hereunder, I discuss a brief history of the development of the age validation of extreme age claims.

Brief History of Age Validation

From a scientific perspective, the purpose of age validation is to create statistically valid data wherein the probability of certainty is great enough that the data quality will not affect the conclusions of the study. From an actuarial perspective, the purpose of age validation of the oldest person on record is to help determine life insurance tables. Age validation is important in fields such as gerontology (the study of longevity), demography (study of population size/change/movement), and mathematics (in the question to identify human mortality models that best fit the maximum theoretical human lifespan). When the age claims are extraordinary, utmost care must be taken to reduce the risk of errant data being included. In addition to being in many cases the focus of a study itself, age-validated data on supercentenarians can also be useful in applied studies, such as trying to determine which biological factors are associated with extreme longevity. In these kinds of studies, it is important that the ages of the supercentenarians in the study are certain. But that has not always been possible.

For millennia before vital statistics began to be regularly recorded on a population basis, human claims to extreme longevity have far exceeded the current biological maximum human lifespan, with religious and mythological claims to people living hundreds and even thousands of years. Claims to age beyond >130 years are generally assigned to longevity mythology. ¹⁶ Since the advent of population-level national birth registration starting with France in 1539 (Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts, signed by King Francis I, making birth registration compulsory), ¹⁷ the move toward age-validated data that can be used to accurately determine how long humans are living and whether the maximum observed human lifespan is increasing has been a long slow process. The ideas of the demography of human longevity began to take shape in the early 1700s, with researchers such as Georges Buffon in 1749 ¹⁸ proposing that human longevity is basically the same everywhere (people live ∼90 years). ^{19,20, ‡} At the time, such an estimate was not far off, and it helped to counter the alternative viewpoint that population-level human longevity varied substantially by region. This debate has continued for over a century, with the evidence continuing to favor Buffon over those who sought a differentiation due to environment (such as “longevity valley” or “longevous mountain region” concepts). What has become clear is that all Homo sapiens share the same species-specific lifespan and that environmental influence only can serve to reduce, not extend, the maximum attainable ages, and even then, the effect is often only within a few years: for example, the oldest Japanese person from Hokkaido in northern Japan was aged 113 years but age >114 years has occurred on a fairly regular basis in more temperate regions, topping out at age 117 years—but even that differentiation is <5 years.

When population-level age studies were beginning to develop, the need for individual case validation also arose, to help define the extremes. Pension and other age-associated obligations were becoming of interest to both governmental and private entities. The age validation of supercentenarians began as a need for life insurance companies to close life tables. Insurers noticed that not many persons with policies lived beyond age 95 years, but claims among persons without life insurance went much higher, and there was a worry of excessive payouts for extreme age cases. This was despite the fact that at the time, most persons with life insurance policies were among the upper classes, and those without were among the poorer. To resolve this issue, William Thoms, best known for coining the term “folklore” in 1846, devised test methods to verify whether persons claiming to be age >100 years were in fact the age claimed. These methods, subsequently called validation, were covered in his seminal work, Human Longevity: Its Facts and Its Fictions (1873). ²¹ His classic tests for age included the need to find original documentation from close to the time of the birth event, midlife documentation, family-tree context, local area context, subject interviews, documents cross-checking, recent documentation, and the “100th-birthday test.” The key idea here was that when persons inflated their age claim to gain attention, they did so almost invariably in mid-to-late life. No one “planned” from birth to become the “oldest living person,” but only in mid-to-later life the idea came upon them. By checking the evidence tree of a person's life further back and down to the roots, researchers could eliminate age-inflated claims caused by those seeking attention due to extreme old age. For Thoms himself, this worked in 100% of the cases: of all the cases he checked, not one claim older than 103 years of age could be verified, and the verified case was someone with a life insurance policy already. The 103-year-old, Jacob Luning of Germany, remains verified to this day.

However, eliminating age inflation due to mid-to-late-life age misreporting is not enough to produce cleanly validated data on a scientific level. Other sources of error exist, including misidentification of persons. In the 1870s in Canada, researchers (the Taché investigation) announced that Pierre Joubert had been verified to have been “113” years of age. Remarkably, this claim stood unchallenged for over a century, ^§ and was even accepted into generally reliable sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica until in 1990 a reinvestigation ²² turned up evidence of a double life: Pierre Sr. was born in 1701 and died in 1766; Pierre Jr. was born in 1732 and died in 1814. The documents were real, but they had been mismatched, which is more likely to occur in a case of father–son namesaking. In this case, the Canadian researchers in the 1870s had not closely checked to rule out this possibility. There was no supercentenarian or even centenarian here.

At this point, we should remember that we have the advantage of hindsight. Age 113 years in the 1870s did not seem too extreme compared with the background of many extreme claims to ages >120 years at the time. The notion of local (Canadian, Quebec, Catholic, etc.) pride and patriarchal associations could also have played a role, if subconsciously. Yet in the larger view, at least the efforts were made to investigate, and this process can over time be self-correcting as more documents become available. Indeed, in the 1990s, new research by Desjardins was able to confirm at least one of the Taché centenarians as valid and over age 107 years. ²³

Moving forward, in the 1890s Thomas Emley Young, president of the Institute of Actuaries, London, began validating or invalidating centenarian claims. T.E. Young introduced the concept of tracking valid centenarians by “age in years and days,” starting with Margaret Ann Neve of the Channel Islands, then 106, in 1898 (Ms. Neve would eventually reach age 110 years before passing away in 1903). ²⁴ Having taken an actuarial approach to human longevity, it was not a surprise when, in 1909, the New York Times ²⁵ asked two experts for their assessment of human longevity over the next century: what would be the maximum human lifespan one century later? One of these experts was Elie Metchnikoff, coiner of the term “gerontology” in 1903: Metchnikoff, known for studying diet associated with human longevity, estimated that humans by 2009 would reach age 140 years. The other expert, the actuarian, T.E. Young estimated that humans by 2009 would be closer to age 125 years. As we know today, the actuarian was closer to the current number: age 122 years.

The next 50-year period or so saw slow progress in the field being made. Alexander Graham Bell, better known for developing the telephone, also studied human longevity (until his death in 1922) and believed that Ann Pouder was 110 in 1917. His work was featured in the National Geographic magazine. The 1920s saw new supercentenarian cases believed to be authentic, including Americans Delina Filkins (113 years), Louisa Theirs (111 years), and Miriam Bannister (111 years). Katherine Plunket of Ireland reached 111 years in 1932. In the 1930s, Walter Bowerman was noted for debunking claims such as Zaro Agha of Turkey (said to be “157” years; Bowerman said he was only 97 years) while supporting what he considered to be valid cases, generally in the age 108–113 years range.

The 1940s were a decade focused on war, not human longevity. World War II (WWII) was the worst war in history, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of people, soldiers and civilians. Yet, war also produced military records, which would be useful in later validation efforts for several supercentenarian soldier claims, and the 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in biomarkers of radioactivity levels that could be tested for later. ²⁶ Interestingly, at least two survivors of the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima went on to reach age 114 years: Asa Takii and Mitoyo Kawate.

The 1950s saw a return to relative world peace, and a focus on establishing a new bureaucratic global world order (characterized by the United Nations, decolonization, the institution of birth registration in places such as China, etc.) led to a reinterest in human aging and supercentenarians. At the same time, Guinness World Records began in 1955, and among the very first records was that of British American Betsy Baker, oldest person in 1955 at age 113 years. This particular record remains unchallenged today. However, the 1950s also saw many fraudulent/inflated/errant claims to extreme age, including faux “Civil War veterans” in the United States, such as Walter Williams (claimed 117 years, but was actually 105 years) and John Salling (claimed 112 years, but was 101 years).

The 1960s saw a time of intensified longevity mythology, as extreme longevity became a tool of global propaganda in the USSR versus the West split. Extreme longevity has often been touted as a symbol of a healthy and proper way of life. The idea that “Communism confers longevity” was pushed in nations as such the USSR, China, and Cuba. Meanwhile, the West, more anchored in bureaucratic records than much of Europe, still made way for U.S. claims of extreme age, especially “ex-slaves” often reported to be >120 years.

This trend continued into the 1970s, which proved to be the pivotal decade in the paradigm shift from longevity mythology to a more skeptical viewpoint. In particular, the year 1973 saw the death of Shirali Mislimov of the USSR, allegedly 168 years old. The 1970s were noted for several “myths of concentrated superlongevity” in remote mountainous areas, such as the Caucasus, Hunza Valley in Pakistan, and Vilcabamba in Ecuador, among others. While these longevity myths had multiple rationales (a confluence of local village elder, patriarchal, religious, regionalist, nationalist, and ideological pride), they all had something in common: extraordinary age claims to 130+ with no proof of age. In addition, there were clues that began to “blow the lid” on these extraordinary claims. National Geographic's Alexander Leaf noted that one particular claimant had aged 10 years in 1 year's time between interviews. This clue alone began to turn the tide in favor of a more skeptical viewpoint. Others, such as Zhores Medvedev of the USSR, helped to cast doubt on the longevity mythology of the Caucasus. ²⁷ Meanwhile, the claims in Vilcabamba, Ecuador, were debunked by experts who determined that there was no one in Vilcabamba older than 96 years, contrary to popular claims to age >140 years. ²⁸

It should be noted that many gerontologic experts in the 1970s and even earlier had long considered the maximum human lifespan to be “110–115” years, ²⁷ but that a vocal minority of those who studied human longevity had long been open to the idea that humans could live to 140 years, 150 years, even >170 years. These ideas, indeed, included among their adherents Elie Metchnikoff, the founder of gerontology. Usually, these ideas were wrapped around rationalizing concepts that could explain “extreme pockets of unusual/extreme longevity”—such as “fresh mountain air,” “clean mountain water,” a diet and lifestyle of goat cheese/yogurt, and other rationalizations. None of these ideas stood the test of the scientific method. We now know today that the world's oldest living person could be living in a major city (New York City's oldest resident on record is 116 years, e.g.). However, the 1970s continued to be a transitional period in the field. After the debunking of several longevity myths (including those of the Caucasus and Vilcabamba, and the false claim of Charlie Smith of the United States to be “137” years in 1979), the media attention on supercentenarian claimants shifted to the idea of “authentication.”

Brief History of the Jeanne Calment Case: Initial Claim and Acceptance

The sudden death of the last two verified supercentenarians from the year 1873 in short order opened up an opportunity for the Jeanne Calment case to attain international recognition. ^** However, initially the Guinness “oldest living person” title (which is always considered “until otherwise proven” and conditional upon the documentation for the case having been officially accepted by Guinness World Records at the time) went to a few younger ladies: initial news reports had Mare Bolette Torp, 111 years, of Norway as the titleholder; she was soon replaced by Orpha Nusbaum, 112 years, of the United States— who, however, passed away in March 1988. Jeanne Louise Calment, born February 21, 1875, was older than either of the two. Would Jeanne Calment claim the title? The year 1988 would be a seminal year in the history of the Jeanne Calment case: it was the year that marked the 100th anniversary of the visit to Arles of noted painter Vincent Van Gogh, and Arles's “Van Gogh 100th Anniversary” celebrations meant that the local Arles news became international media news. It quickly emerged in the press that a 113-year-old woman in Arles “sold pencils to Vincent Van Gogh” as a child and still remembered his “ugly face.” These reports attracted the attention of many. By August 1988, Guinness World Records had authenticated ^†† that Jeanne Calment, 113 years, was their new “oldest living person” titleholder, retroactive to January 11, 1988. ³¹ Meanwhile, researcher Jean-Marie Robine, a demographer, also began to investigate the Calment case in 1988, mainly to help establish demographic efforts for French supercentenarians. ³²

The year 1989 saw Jeanne Calment lose her “oldest living person” title— to a claim to be older. Carrie White of the United States was said to be born in November 1874 and was recognized as the “new” titleholder after submission of a claim. Carrie White went on to reach age “116” years, passing away on February 14, 1991, at the calculated age of 116 years, 88 days. ³³ Upon Carrie's passing, Jeanne Calment regained her title. Later, the Carrie White claim was called into question by additional scrutiny of the case and new evidence located. ³⁴ In hindsight, the Carrie White case situation should have drawn some red flags: one, there was no original proof of birth; the oldest document was from 1909, some 35 years after birth. Second, she had little family history; she had been turned over to a mental institution in 1909, suffering from a medical condition then described as “post-typhoid psychosis.” Having spent the rest of her life institutionalized, there was the positive aspect of stability of identity, but if the initial age given in 1909 was incorrect, then it would follow that the case would continue with it. Although it now seems more likely that Ms. White was “only 102” years, born in August 1888 according to the 1900 census, we also need to remember that the census record is also a reflected memory, not an original recording of an event. Ms. White was probably a centenarian, but was not the world's oldest person.

Over the next several years, the Jeanne Calment case would not be seriously challenged again. Validated persons younger than her, such as Charlotte Hughes of the United Kingdom (1877–1993), Margaret Skeete of the United States (1878–1994), and Tane Ikai of Japan (1879–1995), would pass away sooner than she. The Jeanne Calment case began gaining super-media traction in 1992, when Jeanne turned 117 years. By her 118th birthday, media outlets had named her such things as “Mistress of Time.” In 1995, Jeanne Calment reached her 120th birthday, the very first time that a validated person with an original birth record reached age 120 years. And later in the year, by October 1995 Jeanne Calment had eclipsed the Izumi case, becoming recognized as the all-time record-holder on October 17, 1995. ³⁵

The media attention surrounding the Jeanne Calment case was immense. There were several reasons for this: one, the initial link to the Van Gogh anniversary led to a movie about Jeanne's life being made, called “Vincent and Me.” ³⁶ Two, Jeanne herself was in decent shape for her age and was a charismatic personality, known for engaging bon mots (wise sayings) as well as her sense of humor. Jeanne also did things such as thumb her nose at some traditions. For example, she hunted with her husband at a time when the role was mostly socially limited to males. Smoking a cigarette for her 117th birthday, in defiance of social expectation, was telling. ³⁷ This is a woman who would not be held back by the standard fare of being overly prudent. As Jeanne herself stated in 1985, “I waited 110 years to become famous; I plan to take advantage of it as long as possible.”

The media would sometimes pair the Jeanne Calment case with unvalidated claims, such as Emma Winn of the United States (1875?–1994) or Maria do Carmo Geronimo of Brazil (1871?–2000). But none of these media pairings had any relationship with the scientific facts of the Jeanne Calment case; it simply means that the media attention at the time was focused on finding challengers to the Jeanne Calment title. For their part, the science media also had their time. By 1993, Jeanne Calment had become the “go-to” media face for pop-science stories in publications such as Time and Newsweek. In 1995, noted demographer Jay Olshansky described Jeanne Calment as the “Michael Jordan of aging.” He claimed that your chance of reaching Jeanne's age is similar to your chance of playing basketball like Michael Jordan. It is a great analogy, and can be extended further: I say that just as Michael Jordan reaching his peak ability required both natural ability and a positive conscious effort to act upon it (practice), the Jeanne Calment case was extraordinary, in part, due to her biological potential, but also, in part, due to her positive environment and lifestyle. Occasional cigarette for a media photo-op aside, Jeanne had a long history of extraordinarily beneficial diet and lifestyle practices: she cooked with olive oil; drank red wine in moderation; rode a bicycle at 100 years; walked at 114 years; and she stayed ever mentally engaged, active, and positive. When, in January 1990, she fell and broke her hip, many thought that would be the end of her. Her 115th birthday party in February 1990 was somewhat subdued: she stayed in bed the whole day, resting her fractured hip. Yet, when asked what she did with her time, she said: “I think, I dream, I go over my life in my head…I never get bored.” This was a woman whose active, positive, and mostly healthy lifestyle combined with a super-longevous biological potential to reach the oldest so-far-documented attained maximum human lifespan. When Jeanne Calment finally died in 1997 at the documented verified age of 122 years, 164 days, she set down a mark. Yet, that mark is not one of extraordinarily extraordinary ³⁸ ; it is, rather, a mark of the minimum age to which an individual of the species Homo sapiens can reach. It is a conservative mark, an “at least” point. In extreme value theory, higher ages are attainable; they just have not been observed yet, due to chance.

But, skeptics said, how can we be sure that the age is accurate? Discounting the Izumi case, skeptics stated that the Jeanne Calment case was so far beyond the previous records that it must be thoroughly checked for evidence. And so Michel Allard and Jean-Marie Robine set out to do just that, joining with other experts in the field, such as Dr. James Vaupel, founder of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany in 1996; and Dr. Bernard Jeune of Odense University, Denmark, already noted for his work on extreme age validation. The results of this work were impressive: >40 official documents, including indirect family documents, combined over a period of >122 years with no breaks >12 years. ³⁹ In addition to the documentation gathered, there is also the multiyear history of family study, in-person interviews, and more collected by Allard and Robine. The validation summary of the Jeanne Calment case published by the Odense University, Denmark Monograph Series on Population Aging, is also shared by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. ³⁹ Without going over this in detail, I will say this body of work to validate the Jeanne Calment case as the all-time documented record holder is extremely impressive: we have solid proof of birth; we have solid proof of death; between the two, >40 documents and, even more than that, family-tree reconstitution, local area context, in-person interviews, and the like combine to make the Jeanne Calment case not just the oldest validated case but the best-validated case. The evidence is so strong, one has to ask: what would be the statistical odds of all this being brought together and not being correct? We understand that, just as the odds of flipping a coin 30 consecutive times and coming up with the same results increases the chances that both sides of the coin are the same, so if we continue to check a validation case and the evidence keeps lining up, then we gain more and more confidence that the result really is valid. If anything, this remains one of the remaining hypothetical exercises to further check this case that has not yet been done.

Hypotheses About ID-Switching: Can It Be Ruled Out in the Jeanne Calment Case?

Having briefly reviewed a history of supercentenarian age validation and how the Jeanne Calment case came to be initially accepted as validated, it is now time to examine how the principles and concepts of age validation apply to the Jeanne Calment case. The purpose of this case review is twofold: (1) in part to examine in greater detail how the case passes the currently accepted standard for age validation and is, indeed, the gold standard for age validation but also (2) to examine remaining questions with regard to the hypothetical possibility of ID-switching, both in this case (not demonstrated) and in several other famous case examples (where some kind of ID-misidentification was an issue).

One thing to remember about science is that it is above all a methodology, not a result. Science is tentative. Science has to be open enough to have room for ideas that can explain anomalous phenomena. We do not need a religious authority telling us that the Sun revolves around the Earth, as Galileo was forced to concede to. And yet, at the same time, we also need to balance new ideas with old. The Einsteinian model for gravity and space–time modified the Newtonian model, but that does not mean that the Newtonian model did not have some degree of success as a descriptor of phenomena such as gravity. A model, by definition, is a simplification of reality: one has to ask whether the simplification process, intended, in part, to make the model easier to understand but also intended because in reality it is not (yet) possible to reach an absolute limit to every means of modeling (except, perhaps, measures such as Planck length and Planck time), conserves enough of the details of reality for us to draw a firm conclusion. When we get into a discussion about something such as the maximum hypothetical human lifespan versus the maximum scientifically accepted documented human lifespan, we understand that there is a gap, and the odds are, there should be a gap. In the same way, the tallest trees could hypothetically reach 425–427 feet (130 m) in height, ⁴⁰ but do not, in part, due to bad luck (wind breakage/drought/humans cut them down/bird damaged the top/etc.), so we also understand that the oldest validated person of all time will almost certainly be not the maximum hypothetical age that can be reached (even if the estimated maximum hypothetical age is “spot-on”) but something well below that, because so many factors are required for “everything to go right” that the odds are, it never will happen in reality. So, if, for example, extreme value theory suggests that, under current life expectancy conditions, age 125 years or even 128 years is possible, that does not mean that actually happened. It means that it could theoretically happen, but it may be too unlikely to ever be observed, because the odds for “everything to go right” are so infinitesimal. So, when dealing with a situation such as the Jeanne Calment case, one thing to consider is not just whether the case is within the maximum theoretical possibility, but also whether it is near the maximum actual expected result, but not so close to the “plausible impossible” as to be extremely unlikely. With the Jeanne Calment case, the answer is “Yes”: the case fits within the “sweet spot” of being rare enough to be a uniquely plausible data point but not so rare as to be plausibly impossible. Several persons (such as Don Gennery of National Aeronautics and Space Administration) have independently calculated the odds of “one person ever” reaching age 122 years; several results have aligned closely with a percentage rate of 12%–14%, which distills down from 13 per 100 odds to a 1 in 7 chance. Put another way, if we run a hypothetical universe simulation applying 1 billion data points and the life expectancy at birth at the time of Jeanne Calment, we can expect that in 12–14 out of 100 times the simulation is run—distilled down to 1 out of 7 times the simulation is run, the maximum (extreme) value will be 122 or higher—and 6 times out of 7 the value will be lower.

We can thus consider that age 122 years for an “all-time record” is not the most likely outcome, but it is also far from unlikely, either. A 1 in 7 chance is actually a rather mundane value: not so low as to be likely to be broken any time soon, but not so high, either, that it is way out there. Indeed, the Jeanne Calment data point is less extraordinary than Mount Everest—a mountain whose existence on Earth is widely documented. Moreover, the Jeanne Calment data point is also less extraordinary, statistically, than many other outlier data points seen in nature, sports, and the like, such as longest river and most pitching wins in baseball. Within the perspective of an all-time record, the data point is not extraordinary but within statistical expectation. The real question is not so much whether age 122 years is feasible, the real question is when will we see this mark again. And the answer seems to be: within the next few decades, according to mathematical calculations. ^‡‡

Of course, the answer that age 122 years should occur again within a few decades is disappointing to those who expect rapid change. However, we should remember that even in a field such as meteorology, experiencing temperature change through global warming, we still see many weather record highs that have survived not just for four decades but also for >140 years. Indeed, weather statistics have shown that average daily high weather records last, on average, ∼50 years.

Responses to ID-Switching Hypotheses

Conclusion 1: The Jeanne Calment Case Remains Solidly Validated at Age 122 years

After the long-simmering “ID-switch” hypothesis in the Jeanne Calment case boiled over in the past year, researchers both for and against the notion that Jeanne Calment lived 122 years took a closer look at the case and the evidence available. New evidence, including new information about the life, health, and death of Jeanne's daughter Yvonne, as well as additional family and local information provided on the Jeanne Calment case, greatly strengthens the already gold standard for age validation. Perhaps Jeanne Calment is not just simply in the >120 years category by herself, but also in the “platinum-level” validation, a standard reached by no other case. The amount of new material that has come forward in the Jeanne Calment case, in my view, closes the door on this particular conjecture. I say this based on the evidence.

Science is about using the scientific method to help answer questions about the world we live in, and ourselves. We must be open to new hypotheses and see whether they fit or not with the evidence. However, when a closer look at the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the “null” hypothesis (i.e., the new idea is rejected by actual evidence to the contrary), it is time to move on from it.

Some people have argued that biosampling is needed to rule out any/all possibility of an ID-switch. I think a very solid case that Jeanne was 122 years has already been made. Biosampling alone, as with DNA, is a tool that needs to be placed within the context of the case. Should the samples have gotten mixed up, or destroyed, it may not be possible for such a test in this case. However, should it be possible to test the samples, we are still led to Conclusion 2: Biosampling, the Solution Anyway.

Conclusion 2: Biosampling, the Solution Anyway

Having reviewed the procedures for a full case validation, the Jeanne Louise Calment case passes the tests with flying colors. But beyond the science, the local townspeople of Arles have strongly supported the notion that Jeanne really was 122 years when she passed away in 1997, and not a single original piece of evidence has emerged to the contrary. Given that, some may say that, case closed, biosampling is not needed. Such a scenario, however, belies a greater understanding: that the whole purpose of age validation in the first place is to establish a “ground floor” for scientific research on supercentenarians. The next step for supercentenarian research has long been recognized to be the gathering of biosamples from individuals proven to be above a certain age minimum (say, age >105 years for males in country X, or age >108 years for females in country Y). The Supercentenarian Research Foundation laid out the principles of the need for biosampling of extremely long-lived individuals in 2004. ⁶³ The paper evidence, family and local history context, and great assembly of >30 documents, combined with no evidence against, make the Jeanne Calment case the best paper-and-testimonies-validated case of all time. In addition to the many years of research on this case by noted researchers such as Jean-Marie Robine (founder of the International Database on Longevity), Michel Allard, James Vaupel (founder of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research), as well as the new additional findings produced by Francois Robin-Champigneul, among others, the Jeanne Calment case's authentication by Guinness World Records in 1988 has well stood the test of time and new evidence. With the degree of statistical and analytical confidence that Jeanne was aged 122 years exceedingly high, I think we can conclude that Jeanne was Jeanne and aged 122 years, 164 days at her death on August 4, 1997 in Arles, France. Case closed.

But that does not mean that biosampling of the Jeanne Calment case is not needed. If we understand the biological clues from the Danish twins study and other similar research, the proportion of longevity attributed to biological factors is highest, and yet rarest, at the highest ages. Recent findings, such as that of the 115-year-old Dutch woman showing no sign of dementia at 115 years, or that of seven Japanese supercentenarians all having super-immunity not seen even among 89-year-olds, we can surmise that the shifting of the focus from age 110 years to age 122 years would see even greater extraordinary results. Jeanne Calment may very well have been a biological mutant: we know that the human body can accumulate spontaneous mutations over time; studies in the past have typically focused on life-shortening mutations—why not focus on potentially life-extending mutations. Perhaps her biological constitution has some kind of superprotection that allowed her to live 3 years longer than any other person yet observed. Biosampling can answer these kinds of questions, paper validation cannot. Given the rarity of the Jeanne Calment case, we must say that it would be a benefit to humanity if samples already donated by Jeanne Calment herself were tested—for biomarkers of extraordinary longevity. As with the study showing super-immunity among supercentenarians, let us not forget that, once these biomarkers are identified, treatments that can be generalized to the population at large can be developed. Even one breakthrough could increase both human lifespan and human healthspan. Although there are no guarantees, we know that the failure rate of not trying is 100%. It would be better to give this idea a chance.