Background

Throughout history and to the present day, there have been reports of people claiming inedia, i.e., an anomalous long-term abstinence from food or from food and fluid. Some were isolated and monitored and their abstinences confirmed. This raises the question of whether there may be an anomaly with wide implications that science has overlooked. On the other hand, there have been cases of exposed fraud. The reports on the studies are scattered and it can be difficult to judge their rigor and the strength and implications of their evidence. A critical evaluation seems useful.

Objectives

The objectives were to obtain an overview of investigated cases of claimed inedia, to assess the anomaly of the claims and study results, to assess the quality of the studies, and to identify deception methods to inform future safeguards.

Method

I developed criteria for differentiating normal from anomalous nutrition and fasting and for assessing the quality of inedia studies. Studies found through a systematic search were then assessed and the features of cases of fraud extracted.

Results

47 eligible investigations of 38 claimants were found. Out of the 38 cases, results were assessed as (seemingly) anomalous in 11, with nine cases of monitored food and fluid deprivation ranging from 14 to 68 days (median 28 days), and two cases of food deprivation for 365 and 411 days. In 17 cases, anomaly was assessed as not confirmed due to issues with study design or reporting. Fraud was established in 10 cases. Deception methods were creative. Post-1900 studies were also assessed for quality. Quality was not considered adequate in any.

Conclusions

I consider the evidential status of inedia unconfirmed as no assessed study had both anomalous findings and impeccable quality. However, quality was often downgraded due to reporting issues and it cannot be concluded in reverse that all claimants with anomalous results were able to deceive the investigators. The results of many studies are curious and demand further research. The conducted analysis provides guidance for improving rigor and transparency in future studies.

中文翻译：

---

禁食时间长异常的索赔：对调查病例证据的评估。

背景

纵观整个历史，直到今天，已有报道称人们声称患有“ Inedia”，即对食物或食物和液体的长期禁欲。一些人被隔离和监测，并确认了他们的节制。这就提出了一个问题，即是否可能存在科学忽略了一个具有广泛影响的异常现象。另一方面，也有暴露欺诈的案例。有关研究的报告分散，可能难以判断其严格性以及证据的强度和含义。严格的评估似乎很有用。

目标

目的是获得有关已调查的已确诊病原体的案例的概述，评估索赔和研究结果的异常情况，评估研究的质量并确定欺骗方法以为将来的安全措施提供依据。

方法

我制定了区分正常与异常营养和禁食的标准，并评估了Inedia研究的质量。然后对通过系统搜索发现的研究进行评估，并提取欺诈案件的特征。

结果

发现了38个索赔人的47个合格调查。在这38例病例中，有11例（看似）异常被评估为结果，其中9例监测的食物和体液缺乏为14到68天（中位数为28天），另外2例为365天和411天。在17例中，由于研究设计或报告问题，异常被评估为未确认。10起案件被证实存在欺诈行为。欺骗方法很有创意。1900年以后的研究也进行了质量评估。认为质量根本不够。

结论

我认为，由于没有经过评估的研究既有异常发现又有无可挑剔的质量，因此未确认inedia的证据状态。但是，由于报告问题，质量常常被降低，不能反过来得出结论，即所有异常结果的索赔人都能欺骗调查员。许多研究的结果令人好奇，需要进一步研究。进行的分析为提高未来研究的严谨性和透明度提供了指导。