The haemophilia gene, passed through mother to daughter, only the symptoms of the disease are manifested in the son. Males do not pass on the gene. ...
tsaria
As far as I know the disease was never mentioned in the family.
Queen Victoria used to say : "This disease does not exist in our family".
In all fairness, while I have read this quote in QV bios, one has to put it in context. The Queen was not in denial, but stated this after her son Leopold was born and she was told of his disease. And she was right- at that point, there HAD been nobody else with haemophilia in her family, as far as anyone knew.
Certainly it was discussed frequently in letters to and from Alice, Vicky and others. usually as "this awful disease". While it was not announced publicly, it was certainly something the family was aware of, and it was NOT ignored.
(My first post here, although I have been lurking for a while!)
Is it fairly certain then that OTMA Nikolaevna were carriers?
With hemophilia playing such a pivotal role in the Royal Houses of Europe, I was wondering if there was any memoirs, diaries, correspondence between the families afflicted with this disability?
I have often wondered if Alix and Queen Ena commiserated about the affliction with their heirs? Did Alix seek advise from her sister Irene?
One would figure that each party would seek out advise and try to comfort each other.
Louise
But one quick question... with WWI and the end of many ruling houses in that period it'll be hard to determine, but does it appear to anyone else that the hemophilia in the royal houses "died out" (no pun intended) after WWI ended? What I really mean is, is there any mention of the disease showing up in the family after WWI? It would be interesting to see if this disease was present for only a few decades and then went away. But then again, with the Revolution and other events, that halted some of the spread.
First, the etymology of hemophilia is that it was a German word coined in 1829, based on ancient Greek.. Philia in Greek can also mean "affinity for", and the term seems to mean "affinity for bleeding (blood)".
Thanks Google!
FA
Thanks!
I too would like to know what web page you got that from because I could not find anything like that!
Thanks, Shan
Stedman's Online Medical Dictionary, 27th Edition hemo- + G. philos, fond
Tufts University "homeric dictionary" philos , comp. philiôn and philteros, sup. philtatos, voc. at the beginning of the verse phile: own, dear, but it must not be supposed that the first meaning has not begun everywhere in Homer to pass into the stage of the latter, hence neither Eng. word represents its force in many instances, phila heimata, philos aiôn, and of parts of the body, philai cheires, etc. Pl. philoi, dear ones, friends, one's own, Od. 4.475. Neut., philon, phila, pleasing, acceptable; philon epleto thumôi, aiei toi ta kak' esti phila phresi manteuesthai, you like to, Il. 1.107 ; phila phronein, eidenai tini, be kindly disposed, Il. 4.219, Od. 3.277.
and
3. in Poets, philos is used of one's own limbs, life, etc., philon d' exainuto thumon he took away dear life, Il.; philon êtor, phila gounata, patêr philos, philê alochos Hom.; philên agesthai to take as his own wife, Il.
and from Slater: phi^li^os friendly, fond
these last from: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform
Adele you are very welcome...and if you ever have any questions please do not be afraid to ask...I will do my best to answer them as best I can with the most accurate information I can.
As for the ety...of the word....think about the meaning of affinity......think about it! Still a strange thing to name it any way you look at it!
Shan
Mr. Kendrick is also quite well known for his reporting & advocacy of a [deceased] claimant to be the Heir Alexei. I would say almost as convincing & sober as Mr. Kurth's for AA.
Cheers,
Robert
Perhaps publication in a medical journal does not necessarily imply an author's credence. Perhaps in his sincerity he has not set out to deceive others but has certainly deceived himself.
I wrote an e-mail to the St. Petersburg Times about how I wished they had written something about the 100th birthday celebrations instead of giving publicity to the cause of an impostor by bringing up this article.
I'm not trying to be rude or annoying to anyone, but if Alexei's hemophilia was only episodic as you say, then wouldn't that in itself suggest that it could've been something else he had? If it was really hemophilia then it would be there all the time, not just off and on.
Like any normal kid, Alexei most likely got bruised quite often from playing. In hemophilia, even if the person gets the slightest bruise or cut, it is a disastrous problem.
but with childhood incidents, and growth, comes tooth loss. How would the doctors and family have coped with the loss of Alexei's baby teeth? What would they do to stem the loss of blood that occurs?
Louise
just becuase it's in a pretigious or well respected magazine doesn't mean the information is accurate or true.
Alexa
I don't think blood transfusions came around until the 1920s, and at least in Britain. ???
LOL Helen! (prince charles)
that person looks like Ken Jennings! (Jeopardy champ)
If there is a possibility that Alexei was misdiagnosed, what else could he possibly have?
From Alexandra's DNA, did they discover the faulty gene that causes haemophilia? (I don't know if this is even detectable from the remains . . .)
This is certainly another very interesting topic to speculate about. Thanks, Belochka, for your elaborations on the subject.
I just took a look at the Kendrick website, and although I admit I didn't have the patience to read through all of the pages (my computer is kind of slow), I got the gist of it.
I try to stay open minded and am open to the fact that there may be a slight chance that Alexei may have been misdiagnosed, although considering all the other factors it is very unlikely. The fact that Alexei's body was never found also somewhat may play into this as far as some people are concerned.
But what else do we know about this Canadian Alexei? It seems that he just came out of nowhere. It may say on the website, but like I said I didn't get to read the whole thing, but did anyone else? how does he say he survived the 1918 massacre? Or is this one of the claimants who says that there was no massacre and that the whole family survived? Also, I looked at the photos, and while of course many years passed in between, those ears really give him away! Alexei did not have such big floppy ears. This of course is not very scientific, but please take a look, they are so obviously different ears. This guy's ears are huge and round while Alexei's are normally shaped and of normal size. At least that's the way they look to me. Maybe someone else may think differently. ;) Hey, I know, maybe this guy is really Prince Charles!! Kidding ;)
(http://img45.exs.cx/img45/6153/alexei1915.png) (http://img53.exs.cx/img53/1664/Alexei1934.gif) (http://img68.exs.cx/img68/1462/Alexei1950.png)
...only Nikolai Chabotarev even had half as sweet a face as Alexei's.
Kendrick has no medical background at all. He taught himself to support the claims of his "alexei". He is the only person who has ever questioned the hemophilia claim in the Victorian line, and so far, no peer review journal has ever published a paper by an expert in the field who has shown real evidence to support his claims. Kendrick writes letters to the journals of his claims, but no evaluation to support the claims has occured
AgainI tend to agree.
I am not persuaded by this essay and I find the fact that the author of it apparently has no real medical or related background to be highly suspicious. In my opinion, there is no evidence that Alexie had any blood condition other than Hemophilia.
rskkiya
In the mentioning of Queen Victoria's son Leopold, my medical facts may be wrong, but isn't hemophilia transmitted through the mother only (unless both parents carry the gene)? Isn't the gene passed to daughter from mother and not the father?
Question
Has anyone ever found evidence of hemophilia in Queen Victoria's family before Queen Victoria?
Does anyone know the odds of a random mutation?
Jeremy
It appears the gene did arise in Queen Victoria through mutation.
Are there rumours regarding Victoria's paternity?
[ As far as the info I have been give...if my sons have daughters there is a 50/50 chance that they will be carries, just as there is with my daughter...now I may have been told wrong...You hear some much about it and have to sift through it and see what the deal really is. I pray my sons have sons and my daughter is not a carrier so that this will leave our family forever...but you look at the odds and I have about half a chance of that happening. ]
Sorry, but all of your sons' daughters will definitely be carriers. The chances are 100 percent. The hemophilia gene is on the X chromosome and your sons would only be able to pass on their affected X chromosome to their daughters. All of their sons would be completely healthy and unaffected unless Mom happens to be a hemophilia carrier. Your daughter does have a 50 percent chance of being a carrier.
Hemophilia is not passed on by both parents -- no recessive genes. It's always passed on by a carrier mother or, indirectly, by a hemophiliac father. If there was a mutation, it would have been in your grandmother's genes, not your grandfather's.
Am I mistaken when most have claimed Alexei couldn't walk and this is why Nicholas II carried him? Could Alexei walk? Had he recovered by this time? [Note: By recovery, I assume this doesn't mean he was able to run and jump.]
AGRBear
In the book THE ESCAPE OF ALEXEI, SON OF TSAR NICHOLAS II by Petrov, Lysenho and Egorov they describe the claimant Vasily Filatov as having p. 122 "hemiparesis of the muscles", therefore, the IF family doctors had been in error saying Alexei had hemophilia.
Can this hemiparesis have the same symtoms as hemophilia?]
Dear AGRBear:
The term 'hemiparesis' refers to paralysis on one side, and as such does not refer to anything having to do with hemophilia. There may be some confusion here due to word roots and medical terms. It has been said that during Alexei Nikolaevich's last episode of hemophilia in Tobolsk, 1918, the affected limb was paralyzed. Furthermore, after the Spala episode in 1912, what the newspapers of the time referred to as 'tuberculosis of the hip' owed itself to a retroperitoneal hematoma in the hip joint - one of the four sites in the body most likely to sustain complications if a bleeding episode involves that joint. The Tsarevich did limp later on.
However, hemiplegia refers to paralysis or spasticity involving one half of the body, and has nothing to do with blood disease. I am a female quadriplegic and there's no way I could have hemophilia!
[Let me add here, I think Filatov appears to have been too short to be Alexei, however, I am curious about their claim about the similarities of hemiparesis and hemophilia /haemohilia.
Thanks
AGRBear]
Incidentally -- DNA tests paid for by the Filatov family proved conclusively that their father/grandfather was not the Tsarevich.
[PS:
On another thread I was asking about Alexei's condition on the night of 16/17 July 1918 and why it was reported that Nicholas II carried his son to the basement:
Can this hemiparesis have the same symtoms as hemophilia?
AGRBear
There is a rare version that is passed only from one parent. ie mother.I am not sure what you mean, as most hemophiliacs inherit this disease through the mother.
My one of my teachers Mrs. Muir told me last year
A female can get hemophilia by 1% out 99% . Very ---Very rare for Females to be Hemophiliacs if the mother is a carrier and the fahter a hemophiliac himself.
A male can get by 50% out of 50% if the mother a carrier. Unsure if the fahter is a hemophiliac.? not sure.
In my studies I'm sure that Marie was a carrier. Pity :'(
What a great reply.
This answers a lot of questions all in one post.
As to his weight, well, who knows for sure. I was wiry as a kid and at 5'5''and 110 pounds which meant there was no fat whats-so-ever.... and Alexei at about 5'8'' would have been near death at 80 pounds, I think. Also, when a sick person doesn't move around, one doesn't lose weight if still eating regular meals.....
Thanks.
AGRBear
PS: Forgot to ask: "The Tobolsk episode had in fact also involved not being able to keep food down. Alexandra Feodorovna reported that her son was 'terribly thin and yellow'." Was this true of Alexei in June/July 1918 in Ekaterinburg??
She would die at in adolescences anyway.
Would a female haemophiliac die during menstruation?
I may be incorrect, but isn't hemophilia stricly a male disease? I didn't think females could be hemphiliac....FA, it's possible, if the father is a hemophiliac and the mother is a carrier... if the daughter inherits both those genes, she will be a hemophiliac. It is more common nowadays than back in the 19th century because most male hemophiliacs now live long enough to have children.
Would a female haemophiliac die during menstruation?
i heard that Rasputin said that when Alexei would get older the Hemophilia would start getting better and better!
....and his Hemophilis was slowly going away, so i guess he could of lived a long life!
Codswallop. Grigori Yefimovich probably said this just to please the Tsar and Tsaritsa.
It wasn't going away. Haemophilia is incurable.
i heard that Rasputin said that when Alexei would get older the Hemophilia would start getting better and better!
And it was true when he reached about age 12 he was starting to look less pailer(i dont no if dats a word) and his Hemophilis was slowly going away, so i guess he could of lived a long life!
If i remember correctly, he had his more serious attacks when he was older - Spala, the time he nearly died from a blood nose when at Stavka, and of course when they were in Tobolsk. Maybe as he became older though attacks would be less frequent as he would take better care of himself (not that he wasn't careful anyway). Little boys (and girls too) tend to get scrapes and bumps all the time.
To my knowledge the "h" word was not used in any of the dairies or letters of Nicholas and Alexandra. It is also my understanding as far as we know, Alexei's medical records do not exist.
I believe the medical records do exist.
....[in part]....
Apparently some of his medical journals were preserved and are in the Russian State Archives, we have seen a photocopy of one complete booklet.
....RRS
The one copy we have seen does not appear (at least to me) to refer to the Tsarevitch.
I can't say about the others that may be there. After all, as Chief Physician, he brought in Dr. Derevenko, a specialist in hematology.
I would be more interested in having them read by scientists who could tell if he were observing symptoms in the Empress's conditiions (from time to time) that have since been identified today with Porfiria; and which may have afflicted A. as well.
RRS
AN seemed so healthy...when not in the midst of a haemophilia incident....or the recovery afterwards...I wonder if his poor,distracted parents were ever able to relax their worry and anxiety?...Towards the last....in the Urals...he seemed so ill....
And the room seems to be the Tsarskoe's Tsaritsa's room, not the Spala's one. Is that correct?
aww poor baby :'(
some times you can't be help feel sorry for him. just think if he lived longer then i think he would have used the new treatments that are available now that weren't available then.
I feel that way too. When I think of how that poor boy suffered it just brings tears to my eyes sometimes.
:'(
I am interested in is if there is any evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim that Alexei did not have haemophilia, but some form of anaemia or a disease along those lines instead, that could have been 'grown out of' or gone into remission? I don't believe that there is, and everything on this other website that I read was not particularly convincing, but I'm just interested to know. I thought it might bring a new, more 'intellectual' conversation to this board.
Rachel
xx
Back when that article was written, in most cases, any blood disease was generalized as haemophilia. This included to what happened at Spala. One must remember that medical pracitices and the diagnosis of diseases that were not fully understood back then have now been looked at "under a microscope".
To be honest, I never read the New York Times. For news stories, I might believe it. However, for articles that are 96 years old, I wouldn't take with a grain of salt.
In school (post-secondary), we are taught that if we are looking for any reference for a paper, we are to look for an article that has been peer-reviewed. Also, it is also highly recommended that we look for the most recent publication date. In this regard, that article is not valid in my eyes.
With new pieces of information, we are able to correct what has been handed down in history. This includes everything from Egypt to Medicine. For example, Hysteria was thought to only occur in women, and were cured by hystrectomy. We know now that this was not the case.
Then again, at that time, the men were doctors, and any sickness was blamed on the women. How is this different?
Society has come a long way, but for some reason, people like to hold on to things that they think was true then and still do. They are not willing to change. Yet, change will occur, no matter what.
I never did believe that he had haemophilia, but I do know that it was a blood diesease of some sort. I'm not like other people. I think for myself, not by what others think. By this, I'm trying to set examples, not only to my peers, but also to my elders, who are currently set in stone in their thinking.
In school (post-secondary), we are taught that if we are looking for any reference for a paper, we are to look for an article that has been peer-reviewed. Also, it is also highly recommended that we look for the most recent publication date. In this regard, that article is not valid in my eyes.
"Numerous others have helped with my understanding of this story... whether they realize it or not. Russia's Dr. Pavel Ivanov appeared to mistake me for a fellow scientist the first time that we spoke on the telephone. He hasn't answered my letters now since September 1995. The late Dr. William Maples at the University of Florida stopped talking the year before that. England's Dr. Peter Gill sent photocopies of his 1994 NATURE GENETICS article without ever saying a word."
http://www.npsnet.com/tsarevich_alexei/page37.html
Taken from Mr Kendrick's website @ p 37 regarding the Vancouver imposter.
Nothing further needs to be said.
We are discussing if Alexei had haemophilia (or hemophilia, I saw the word written in two different forms) or not.
.... We are not discusing if an haemophiliac boy could have survived from a shot in a small cellar; we are not discussing if Heino Tammet was Alexei.
... Dr. Kendrick must know if he is a scientific,
RealAnastasia.
Only the claims of one non-scientist supporting the Tamnet claim even refute it, yet elsewhere in the Forum you can read the scientific proof also dispel even these claims.
Of course if you have some specific scientific evidence, please do share it.
Back when that article was written, in most cases, any blood disease was generalized as haemophilia.
Quote"Dr. Kendrick must know if he is a scientific..
RealAnastasia, I am just curious, how come anyone who supports any claimant immediately gets an honorary doctorate from you? I noticed that you do the same thing with Dick Schweitzer, referring to him "Dr Schweitzer". Neither one of these men are doctors...
QuoteBack when that article was written, in most cases, any blood disease was generalized as haemophilia.
Mr K,
Does this mean that leukemia was also "generalized as hemophilia"?
Could you be so kind and cite a reputable reference from a peer reviewed Hematology J. to accord with your statement that "any blood disease was generalized as haemophilia".
I understand that leukemia was Tammet's cause of death. :o
QuoteQuote"Dr. Kendrick must know if he is a scientific..
RealAnastasia, I am just curious, how come anyone who supports any claimant immediately gets an honorary doctorate from you? I noticed that you do the same thing with Dick Schweitzer, referring to him "Dr Schweitzer". Neither one of these men are doctors...
Sorry, Mr. Kendrick. The trouble comes for I'm from Argentina. In my country , people who gets a lawyer certificate is called "Doctor",as well as some other high universitary degrees. We have "Doctors in Medicine", "Doctors in Lawyer's affaires" and so on. Since Mr. Schweitzer is a lawyer, I supposed it was correct to call him "Doctor". My English is pretty bad, and one of the most difficult thing to learn are titles and diplomes. For example: in my country there is not the title of "Senior". We have Doctors and Licenciates (Licenciados).
I did not give any "honoris causa" doctorate to Mr. Schweitzer, I only believed that I can call him as we call lawyers in my country. Sorry again.
And...now, it is me who am curious. Which other claimant supporter I entitled as "Doctor"? Peter Kurth? I don't think I ever called him "doctor". I always referred to him as "Peter". Penny Wilson? She supposes that someone could have survived the shots in the cellar, but she is not an Anna Anderson supporter. She doesn't believe she was Anastasia and doesn't support any particular claimant. I call her "Penny" any way...Greg King? He has the same ideas than Penny, and I call him Greg. Joseph Douaigues, the Spanish man who claims to be María Nicholaievna's grandson? I left few post at the "María Martí Thread" and wrote to him three times asking about his case, calling him "Mr. Douaigues" (Señor Douaigues, since I wrote to him in Spanish). I never had any contact with "Granny Alina" descendants, no with other pretenders supporters.
My reasons to name Mr. Schweitzer politely (I didn't know I was giving a wrong title to him) is that he is an elderly man and I can't treat he same way an elderly person than a young one. I learned this from my family since I was little and won't change this now.
And if I called you Doctor is for the same reason I entitled Mr. Schweitzer the same way. I don't know you, you never emailed me privately. So, as a sign of respect, I must call you with your title. I supposed you were Doctor. So, forgive me.
RealAnastasia.
And if you must quote something of mine that is related to the topic of this thread, then I would suggest that you start here:
"If we are to accept the popular diagnosis of history and call it a clotting factor deficiency, then the boy's now famous sudden recoveries will remain a complete mystery. The so-called "Mad Monk" Rasputin, as a direct result of the revolutionary propaganda of the time, is then overblown into a larger-than-life legend. If, however, we are to change the diagnosis and call it a platelet disorder, then the air is let out of the legend, and Rasputin is revealed to have been nothing more than a very ordinary middle-aged Siberian hippie who did not possess any healing powers at all."
From the peer-reviewed American Journal of Hematology, Vol. 77, No. 1, pages 92-102, September 2004.
JK
Thank you for your clarifications Mr Kendrick.
"Historic Perspectives" presented in scientific journals are customarily extended to persons outside the medical community as "guests" by invitation whose articles are not based on solid laboratory research, but only offer a generalized discourse that is not subject to peer review.
Nice try, Belochka, but rest assured that this article was fully subject to peer- review, just as any other paper that is submitted to the journal must be. The Journal's editor who had put this same paper to review is a professor of Hematology/Oncology at Emory University in Atlanta.
Do you therefore believe that none of the members of the Royal family who were purported to have had haemophilia actually had haemophilia, then? Is this rare blood disease you speak of an inherited condition? Because if not, how do you explain the occurence of bleeding diseases consistently throughout the royal family? They can't all have had random bleeding diseases with no inherited connection, surely?
QuoteNice try, Belochka, but rest assured that this article was fully subject to peer- review, just as any other paper that is submitted to the journal must be. The Journal's editor who had put this same paper to review is a professor of Hematology/Oncology at Emory University in Atlanta.
Out of curiosity, who is this professor at Emory?QuoteDo you therefore believe that none of the members of the Royal family who were purported to have had haemophilia actually had haemophilia, then? Is this rare blood disease you speak of an inherited condition? Because if not, how do you explain the occurence of bleeding diseases consistently throughout the royal family? They can't all have had random bleeding diseases with no inherited connection, surely?
I too am interested in hearing your explanation for this Mr. Kendrick.
The review panel did find the medical theories and conclusions contained in the paper to be medically sound. If the panel's decision had been any different, then the paper would not have been accepted for publication.
JK
QuoteQuoteNice try, Belochka, but rest assured that this article was fully subject to peer- review, just as any other paper that is submitted to the journal must be. The Journal's editor who had put this same paper to review is a professor of Hematology/Oncology at Emory University in Atlanta.
Out of curiosity, who is this professor at Emory?QuoteDo you therefore believe that none of the members of the Royal family who were purported to have had haemophilia actually had haemophilia, then? Is this rare blood disease you speak of an inherited condition? Because if not, how do you explain the occurence of bleeding diseases consistently throughout the royal family? They can't all have had random bleeding diseases with no inherited connection, surely?
I too am interested in hearing your explanation for this Mr. Kendrick.
The answers you seek are a matter of public record, far too lengthy to repeat here. You should be able to find those answers in any good medical library, in the American Journal of Hematology, Volume 77, Number 1, September 2004.
JK
Quote
The review panel did find the medical theories and conclusions contained in the paper to be medically sound. If the panel's decision had been any different, then the paper would not have been accepted for publication.
JK
Well I am amazed, perhaps you can clarify one point for me today?
@ p 95 of your "Historic Perspective" you claim that "...pupura: "a disease characterized by purple or livid spots inder the skin, due to internal bleeding from small blood vessels."
Curiously I was never knew that "purpura" is a disease. :o
Can you clarify this a bit further for us?
Thank you
I'm not asking for how the American Journal of Hematology explains it, I'm asking how YOU explain it.
You know, I never realised non medical professionals could write medical articles...
Rachel
xx
... in fact, a quote that comes from the American edition of the Oxford Dictionary.
Long before we ever knew about the influence of X-linked genes and the blood Factors VIII and IX, the Director of Hematology at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago , Dr. Raphael Isaacs, had written these words in "The Blood and Its Diseases" in 1948:
"... Purpura may be a disease in itself or it may be a symptom of another disease."
JK
Quote... in fact, a quote that comes from the American edition of the Oxford Dictionary.
Long before we ever knew about the influence of X-linked genes and the blood Factors VIII and IX, the Director of Hematology at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago , Dr. Raphael Isaacs, had written these words in "The Blood and Its Diseases" in 1948:
"... Purpura may be a disease in itself or it may be a symptom of another disease."
JK
Mr Kendrick,
My multi-volume publication of the Oxford Dictionary generously offers pages of definitions which commence with the year 893, through to the years that include 1225 and 1858 upto the present day, and further divided into disciplines. Over the centuries the definitions cited from the London edition of OED (Vol VIII Poy-Ry) @ p 1630 agree that:
purpura = purple
Clearly you must agree that the Latin definition "purpura" or simply in English the color purple - cannot be a disease. [/font]
Fourteen years ago, Dr. Mark Kulikowski, a History Professor at Oswego College at the State University of New York, wrote the following words in the conclusion of his 1992 dissertation titled "Rethinking the Origins of the Rasputin Legend":
"The world of scholarship has no room for fantasy."
Clearly, no one was listening back when Professor Kulikowski first spoke those words in 1992. Fourteen years later, nothing has changed.
JK
QuoteFourteen years ago, Dr. Mark Kulikowski, a History Professor at Oswego College at the State University of New York, wrote the following words in the conclusion of his 1992 dissertation titled "Rethinking the Origins of the Rasputin Legend":
"The world of scholarship has no room for fantasy."
Clearly, no one was listening back when Professor Kulikowski first spoke those words in 1992. Fourteen years later, nothing has changed.
JK
Wise words indeed - it seems that you Mr Kendrick have failed to listen to Professor Kulikowski. ::)
QuoteQuoteFourteen years ago, Dr. Mark Kulikowski, a History Professor at Oswego College at the State University of New York, wrote the following words in the conclusion of his 1992 dissertation titled "Rethinking the Origins of the Rasputin Legend":
"The world of scholarship has no room for fantasy."
Clearly, no one was listening back when Professor Kulikowski first spoke those words in 1992. Fourteen years later, nothing has changed.
JK
Wise words indeed - it seems that you Mr Kendrick have failed to listen to Professor Kulikowski. ::)
Oh, Dear Belochka...
You're far too predictable!
Again, you take words out of context to support your opposition, just as I had expected you would. ;-)
JK
Kendrick dismisses Spiridovitch's account since Spirid. was not "a doctor". Well, let's look at what he wrote:
"He jumped and fell onto the side of the bathtub. It hurt him, but without doubt the pain was not very great because he did not say anything afterward. However, only a few minutes later, he lost conscience and they carried his nearly inanimate body to his bed.
Which of course and typical for Kendrick, who plays fast and loose with facts to suit his theory, omits ALL THE OTHER bleeding episodes in Alexei's life, all caused by bumps and bruises....No point in Kendrick repeating his responses, since they are not valid explanations of "why" Alexei did not have haemophilia...
The error which I have highlighted above confirms that your article WAS never peer reviewed according to customary rigorous standards which medical researchers must meet.
You are disrespectful to the Romanov Family and lack respect to the eternal memory of Tsesarevich Alexei who died a horrendous death in July 1918[/font].
QuoteQuote... in fact, a quote that comes from the American edition of the Oxford Dictionary.
Long before we ever knew about the influence of X-linked genes and the blood Factors VIII and IX, the Director of Hematology at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago , Dr. Raphael Isaacs, had written these words in "The Blood and Its Diseases" in 1948:
"... Purpura may be a disease in itself or it may be a symptom of another disease."
JK
Mr Kendrick,
My multi-volume publication of the Oxford Dictionary generously offers pages of definitions which commence with the year 893, through to the years that include 1225 and 1858 upto the present day, and further divided into disciplines. Over the centuries the definitions cited from the London edition of OED (Vol VIII Poy-Ry) @ p 1630 agree that:
purpura = purple
Clearly you must agree that the Latin definition "purpura" or simply in English the color purple - cannot be a disease. [/font]
Mr Kendrick it seems by your silence that you are unable to rebut this obvious error in your published "Historic Review".
This single example (there are many others) would have been scrutinized and would have been brought to your attention to rectify.
The error which I have highlighted above confirms that your article WAS never peer reviewed according to customary rigorous standards which medical researchers must meet.
Allow me to repeat myself:
Historic appraisals do not ADVANCE medical science . If anything your implausable twists and turns do little to enhance your journalistic reputation.
AHH, but again, Mr. Kendrick, the $64,000 Question:
Do those who "reviewed" the piece CONCUR with the conclusions and find them to be ACCURATE?
There is a HUGE difference between "acceptable" for publication and "ACCEPTED as accurate"...NO?
AHH, but again, Mr. Kendrick, the $64,000 Question:
Do those who "reviewed" the piece CONCUR with the conclusions and find them to be ACCURATE?
There is a HUGE difference between "acceptable" for publication and "ACCEPTED as accurate"...NO?
The fact that this jounalistic compilation introduces the pathetic notion of an imposter falls outside sound academic reasoning. To the discredit of the Journal on this occassion, it failed to exercise its authority. It has made an gross error of judgement. Regretfully such incidents do occur, but we as informed profesionals do know what should be set aside as a curiosity of the lowest level.[/font][/color]
Quote
The fact that this jounalistic compilation introduces the pathetic notion of an imposter falls outside sound academic reasoning. ...
With respect, Belochka
The paper approved by the American Journal of Hematology's peer-review makes no mention at all of any claimant.
Mr. Philippe was introduced to the IF by their relatives wifes from MontenegroIndeed, it was the King of Montenegro's two daughters (Grand Duchess Militsa and Grand Duchess Stana) who introduced M.Philippe (and later Rasputin) to Alix and Nicky. These two sisters were known as 'the black peril', because of thier interest in the occult.. M.Philippe was a frenchman from Lyons, he was known to have a cure for nervous diseases through hypnosis. He died in 1905 however. Alix and Nicky would meet M.Philippe at Znamenka, which was the resdence of Grand Duchess Militsa and her husband.
ps. Laura thanks for your post. It was really interesting :)Anytime. :)
I'm not trying to be rude or annoying to anyone, but if Alexei's hemophilia was only episodic as you say, then wouldn't that in itself suggest that it could've been something else he had? If it was really hemophilia then it would be there all the time, not just off and on. Like any normal kid, Alexei most likely got bruised quite often from playing. In hemophilia, even if the person gets the slightest bruise or cut, it is a disastrous problem.
The illness of Alexis is all too often given as a reason for the downfall of the Russian Empire. It is a side issue. The importance of his illness is often overstated. Mirsule and revolution made the abdication necessary. It was not due to Alexis. Nicholas II was forced to abdicate. He first abdicated for himself in favour of Alexis. After consulting with Doctors, he decided after his legal abdication, to amend the original abdication and to abdicate for Alexis as well. It is difficult to imagine the legality of the amendment as from the time of his original abdication he no longer held any position in the governance of Russia. He was merely the former Tsar. He had no legal authority to do anything. I think once Michael avoided taking up the poisoned chalice of Tsar after the monarchy had been effectively overthrown, no person wished the position. Power had passed already to the Provisional Government. Romanov rule was at an end. It is a great shame that female rule was not pursued as some of the very best rulers of Russia were women.
I'm not trying to be rude or annoying to anyone, but if Alexei's hemophilia was only episodic as you say, then wouldn't that in itself suggest that it could've been something else he had? If it was really hemophilia then it would be there all the time, not just off and on. Like any normal kid, Alexei most likely got bruised quite often from playing. In hemophilia, even if the person gets the slightest bruise or cut, it is a disastrous problem
If Alexei fell, how long would it take for his hemophilia to kick in?
Would it always act up?
And could there be any variation on the degree of pain? (like if he bruised his knee one day and it got really bad and then latter it got the same sized burse would the attack only be slight?)
QuoteAnd could there be any variation on the degree of pain? (like if he bruised his knee one day and it got really bad and then latter it got the same sized burse would the attack only be slight?)
I don't really get the question, but I don't think so. If he bruised himself exactly the same way twice, I think the pain would be the same.
:) Hello All, I am new to this but have been dealing with this "awful disease" as someone put it my entire life almost 28 years now. And it is not as awful now as it once was. I can only imagine how it was for them back then, but I wanted to say that PLEASE do not look at it as awful, because it is no longer that way.
Granted I think it is the worst thing to ever hit our family...I lost my father because of it and many many others have lost from it as well. BUT I do have two sons that do have it and they are no different than anyone else! You cannot look at them and tell.
I am sorry if I sound a little rude about it...I do not mean to come off as that way. I tend to be defensive though and if anyone out there has this touching their lives I would hope you know what I am talking about.
Now that that is out of my system...I am just learning about the Russian Royals....it was told to my Grandmother when my father was born that she and my Grandfather BOTH had recessive genes and that is where it came from. NOW in all my research that I have done, and I have done a lot, I have never come across this explanation for it. I have heard of genetic mutation, and it just being in the chromosones that the good Lord gave you, but never this.
IF there is anyone out there that can explain this paticular explanation to me I would be forever greatful.
Thank You and I look forward to reading more about this family.
Shan
I'm a hemophiliac and I'm a female. it is very rare for girls to have this disease but It can happen. and I Have only had one serious bleeding episode. both of my parents were carriers of the gene so I got the disease. I asked a Dr about it when i was eight and he said for me to be a hemophiliac i had to have the gene from both of my parents.
Now that that is out of my system...I am just learning about the Russian Royals....it was told to my Grandmother when my father was born that she and my Grandfather BOTH had recessive genes and that is where it came from. NOW in all my research that I have done, and I have done a lot, I have never come across this explanation for it. I have heard of genetic mutation, and it just being in the chromosones that the good Lord gave you, but never this.
I have a question that just occurred to be today. Losing teeth. Did Alexei ever have trouble when his baby teeth fell out? Because for me, with a slight coagulation problem losing teeth resulted in having a tissue in my mouth all day.
I imagine Alexei would have lost fair bit of blood when his teeth fell out, but i've never heard anything about it. Are there any mentions of this I haven't read?
I have a question that just occurred to be today. Losing teeth. Did Alexei ever have trouble when his baby teeth fell out? Because for me, with a slight coagulation problem losing teeth resulted in having a tissue in my mouth all day.
I imagine Alexei would have lost fair bit of blood when his teeth fell out, but i've never heard anything about it. Are there any mentions of this I haven't read?
That is actually a very good question. I don't understand heamophilia but hearing about it always makes me think that a paper cut could bleed for hours.
so Rasputin said that Alexey would be absolutely healthy at 16. is it possible or one more myth???
Supposing the missing sister was the carrier of Hemophilia, it would be Anastasia or Maria (I incline to the latter), which is quite "ironic" considering Maria was the one wanting to have a big family. Were the tests done also on the remains of other Grand Duchesses, or were they "lucky"?
I beleive the general consensus is that Maria N. was the carrier due to the bleed she suffered during the famous tonsil operation!
Supposing the missing sister was the carrier of Hemophilia, it would be Anastasia or Maria (I incline to the latter), which is quite "ironic" considering Maria was the one wanting to have a big family. Were the tests done also on the remains of other Grand Duchesses, or were they "lucky"?
My understanding is that the remains of the other Grand Duchesses suggested that they were not carriers (only the bones identified as Anastasia and of course, Empress Alexandra)
Because the last known descendent with haemophilia of Queen Victoria's family tree died in the 1940s, the exact type of haemophilia found in this family remained unknown until 2009. Using genetic analysis of the remains of the assassinated Romanov dynasty, and specifically Tsarevich Alexei, Rogaev et el were able to determine that the "Royal Disease" is actually haemophilia B.[5]
Which of the girls was a carrier?Maria...which was pointed out is so ironic because of all of them , she wanted children the most. It's all in the thread. Makes very interesting reading. I say Maria, but as you know even who was Maria and who is Anastasia is disputed.
DNA tests have recently established that 'royal' haemophilia was a 'severe form of haemophilia B'. Haemophilia B is normally less severe than haemophilia A, which is presumably what young Robert Massie had.
Ann