dear Alexei certainly was killed with the family he could not have lived without.
I am just not so sure that haemophilia (right spelling ;)) was the illness. I cannot help thinking that if it was, Alexei would never have survived as long as he did.
I am following the logical order. If Alexei carried the same illness as his relatives, there is no point in using the survival of his relatives as an argument for his surviving well enough with haemophilia.
Prince Leopold was a haemophiliac ( ;) ) who lived to be over 30. Waldemar of Prussia was a haemophiliac & lived to be over 50. Alexei could have lived a lot longer in spite of his condition, had his life not been so cruelly ended. :(
Lass: may I ask what you have read that suggests St. Alexei did not have hemophilia?
The times you related are the ones I was thinking about; they were the only times (correct me if I'm wrong) in nearly 14 years that Alexei came close to death through an often fatal illness which in those days generally meant death. Yet Alexei was well enough to join his father near the frontline of battle.
I am simply not prepared to accept, without question, something which seems doubtful to me, just because it is the generally held view. I'm sure you'll understand that. :)
Lass: may I ask what you have read that suggests St. Alexei did not have hemophilia?
The best known episodes of the Tsarevich's illness -- the bleeding at the navel as an infant, the fall when he was three, the near-death episode at Spala,
the nosebleed on the Imperial Train home from Mogilev, and the aftermath of sledding down the stairs at Tobolsk -- stand out because they are so well documented.
But along with these several less dramatic instances occurred -- bumps and bruises that a normal boy might have brushed off but that meant several days in bed for Alexei Nikolaevich. Sprained ankles were complicated by bruising and bleeding. Bleeding into the joints was known to occur very often,
The Empress Alexandra knew very well that whenever the blood was reabsorbed after a relatively minor incident Alexei would have a slight fever. This is a symptom of hemophilia.
Do you have a claimant to support? I remember your name from somewhere.
Medical and historical fact in the subject under discussion in this thread have nothing to do with claimants. You'll need to come up with a far better rebuttal than that.
You probably have heard my name before. You'll find it in the September 2004 issue of the American Journal of Hematology.
Lass, J_Kendrick's comments are not worth noticing, because he bases them entirely on his support of a claimant, namely Alexei Nikolaevich. Would he care if it was not for Heino Tammet?
Does it really matter what JK's motives are?
Mr Kendrick,
The paper in which you were fortunate to have published was presented as a Historical Perspective having the status of a curiosity. Such articles are often presented by non medical persons who are invited to write their interpretation on a matter which may have a modicum of interest to a few members of the Hematological community.
With respect, the nature of your paper stands alone within the J. The article is set apart from the scientific endeavors published in the same journal by researchers who do have medical training. Another important consideration which sets your article apart, is that the Hematological research is subject to a more critical standard of peer review prior to publication. Their facts must be substantiated and reproduceable. Their information must not be illusory.
I dont consider bleeding umbilical stumps for up to six weeks as "fairly ordinary"
it is pointless trying to reason with those who would chose to refer to themselves as "right believers". It has been 87 years since the Imperial murders and in all that time not a single peer-reviewed research paper regarding the Tsarevich Alexei's suspected diagnosis has yet been published in any recognised medical journal anywhere in the world to support their position. If they are so certain of their opposing position on this matter then they should write and submit their own medical papers to the journal of their choice. When they have successfully passed the mandatory peer review process and been granted approval for publication, then we'll talk. JK
I feel no need to back up the explanation of history, nor do I delude myself that I am qualified to write for a medical journal. As you have said elsewhere on this thread, it takes a few years for a paper to be accepted for publication in academic documents.
I dont consider bleeding umbilical stumps for up to six weeks as "fairly ordinary"
... I guarantee you won't find any laboratory evidence at all of that suspected faulty gene, because it was never there in the first place. Any tests that were done for that gene are bound to have been inconclusive, ...
Well... If there is no laboratory evidence of a faulty Factor VIII gene in Alexandra's DNA, then Alexei most definitely was *not* a haemophiliac, and you will be forced to accept the idea of having to find a very different diagnosis.
JK
No one disputes that umbilical bleeding in new-borns should be taken seriously, but it is always a matter of degree.
If the bleeding that Nicholas had described was only a matter of worrisome spotting that, in the Tsars' own words.. " continued on and off until evening"... then certainly it should be watched carefully. But spotting "on and off until evening" is not now considered to be a major concern unless it is seen to continue for more than three days. That most definitely was *not* the situation in Alexei's case, which did not continue beyond the earliest hours of the following morning.
If the bleeding had been continuously steady... which everyone here seems to imagine but definitely does not fit with Nicholas II's description.... then it would have become serious within a matter of just a few minutes. If that had been the case, then the new-born Alexei would have been lucky just to have made it to the end of that same week... never mind imagining any chance that he might have had of reaching the date of the murders almost 14 years later
But it was *only* spotting... and it *did stop* by the next morning... and Alexei most certainly *did* make it at least as far as 26 days short of his fourteenth birthday... So obviously the bleeding navel was nowhere near as serious as Catherine Radziwill had first implied in her 1931 interpretation of Nicholas II's diary.. and certainly not as serious as far too many people here are blindly willing to accept without ever daring to question the evidence.
http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4080,00.html
http://www.drpaul.com/newborn/umbilical.html
"This isn't cause for concern and should disappear in two or three days."
Russians traditionally wrap their new-borns with only the faces showing, wrapping them up so tightly in their blankets that it's a wonder the poor little tykes can even find room to breathe. Their methods might well be a tradition, but this very same Orthodox practice is entirely the wrong thing to do for proper post-natal umbilical care.
Today's new parents are always advised to keep the healing navel completely free of diapers and other clothing so that the navel is always exposed to the air and properly allowed to dry. They're also told by their doctors to avoid getting the umbilical stump wet during bathing, because the longer it stays wet... the longer it's going to take for the navel to heal properly and the stump to fall away.
The Tsar's doctors had also made a serious mistake in their treatment, according to our modern day methods of paediatric care. Nicholas wrote: "..at seven o'clock they applied a bandage." Today's paediatricians will say, no matter what, no bandages! The blood can be dabbed away with a cotton swab or a Q-tip, but the navel must always be left exposed to the air and allowed to dry. Applying a bandage is far more inclined to aggravate the problem than to solve it, and it only serves to impede the proper progression of healing.
Resolving this issue will depend entirely on answering the question of when, precisely, Alexei's umbilical stump had finally fallen away. Usually this will happen within the first few days and up to as long as two weeks after birth. But that's not always the case. Umbilical stumps have often been known to stay attached for periods sometimes as long as six weeks .. and on very rare occasions, even as long as two months.
We have no idea when this one key event had actually occurred with Alexei. The family diaries make no mention of it at all. The truth of the matter is that if Alexei's umbilical stump had finally fallen away on that very same day as his recorded umbilical bleeding, then... as far as an accurate diagnosis is concerned.... Nicholas II's first worried diary entry for September 8th 1904 means absolutely nothing.
http://www.briarcliffpediatrics.com/minfofaq_newborncare.html
"When the cord drops off there will frequently be a little bleeding, which is normal. Clean the blood away with some alcohol and a Q-tip until it is healed"
http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/baby/newborns/127.html
"When the stump falls off, you may detect a little blood on the diaper, which is normal."
http://www.abbott.ca/eng/nutrition/bcb-02.html
Umbilical care
"Within about one to three weeks after birth, your new-born's umbilical stump will turn black, dry out and finally fall off. In the meantime, clean the base of the stump two or three times a day with water on a sterile cotton ball or gauze. In order to keep the stump dry, fasten diapers below the navel. The baby's shirt should also be rolled above the stump, to allow free circulation of air. When the cord falls, there may be slight bleeding in the navel area. This isn't cause for concern and should disappear in two or three days. But if you notice any foul smell, reddening or oozing around the umbilical stump, be sure to report it to your doctor, as well as any bleeding that lasts for more than three days."
No matter how you may choose to argue... It all comes down to this:
Everyone here is so determined to perpetuate the legend that no one ever bothers to do the math. Doesn't anyone here ever look at a calendar?
Serious bleeding of the navel in new-borns afflicted with haemophilia can be expected to occur almost immediately within the first few days of life. The same is true with the circumcision of new-borns (which was not a factor in Alexei's case). These two facts of haematology and paediatrics have been known since the earliest years of the last century, and even before.
From 1923, J. Buren Sidbury, A.M., M.D
http://www.neonatology.org/classics/sidbury.html
"....the great majority of cases of haemorrhagic disease of the new-born occur
within the first three days of life"
But....
The Tsar's own diary places Alexei's very first evidence of bleeding on the 8th of September on the old style Julian calendar. That's 40 clear days... just two days short of a full *six weeks* after Alexei's birth on July 30th (old style). This one event that is recorded in Nicholas II's diary is most defintely *not* evidence of hemophilia... just for the very simple reason that umbilical bleeding in new-borns afflicted with a Factor VIII or IX deficiency is certainly going to happen a great deal sooner than the almost one and a half full months after birth that is evident in Alexei's case.
Late term bleeding of the umbilicus in this same order of six or seven seeks can certainly be seen as an indicator of a possible problem with Factor XIII. That possibility must be ruled out, however, because an inherited Factor XIII deficiency is not X-linked and appears equally in both sexes.
Catherine Radziwill's now famous 1931 interpretation of Nicholas II's diary entries about the bleeding navel in September of 1904 certainly does make for a good story... and you can believe it if you like.... But it is bad medical theory and it proves nothing!
JK
Speaking of bad medical theories -- you have been so eager to promote yours that you disregard that to the Emperor and Empress the September 1904 bleeding episode WAS a serious matter due to the family history. Were you aware that at Christmas, 1904, the family's first such holiday with Alexei was not especially happy because he had bled into a limb? And many such episodes were to come before infancy and the age of 8 as noted in the parents' diaries.
A Factor VIII or Factor IX deficiency is passed down through the X chromosome but never expresses itself in females until they prove to be carriers. It is a recessive gene that means actual bleeding only in boys. Girls can suffer from Von Willebrand's disease -- which is a milder form of a bleeding deficiency. Girls can suffer from thrombocytopenia -- which after all is most often only a symptom of some other disorder. Infantile thrombocytopenia is the disease that would have carried off Alexei Nikolaevich right away had he had it. Boys with hemophilia could live as long as the Tsarevich-Martyr did -- if they were lucky.
Have those DNA tests done, sir. That will be more decisive than hearkening back to the Empress' DNA -- the scientists probably felt no need to look for the hemophilia gene they knew was there and that would be more useful in linking son to mother someday. Of course, since Mr. Tammet wasn't Alexei, everything will be put to rest and he can rest in peace at last.
His English is excellent, so there's no reason to claim that you can't talk to him. You'll find Dr. Ivanov in Moscow, where his most recent involvement in the Romanov case has been to advise on the DNA testing of a skull found in a 17th Century graveyard near Kostromo.
JK
No matter what the subject, it's never a wise idea to presume that you might know more than your opponent.
As I have said before, and will probably say again, don't just keep claiming that history is on your side. The haemophilia claim is nothing more than a historically popular story that's based almost entirely in palace gossip, liberally embellished in the very same way that always happens with any story of legend. After year upon year of retelling, the haemophilia legend has *never* been proved by any form of medical laboratory testing.
Just because an oft-told story has now become historically popular, certainly does *not* make it true. More than 15 million journal articles and research papers are kept in the archive of the National Library of Medicine. Of those 15 million, just one single research paper has ever dealt directly with the symptoms in the Tsarevich Alexei's medical history... and it does not support your position.
If you're so certain of your version of the story... then write a research paper that deals with all of Alexei's symptoms, particularly those at Spala in October of 1912, explain all of the medical reasons for your diagnosis in full detail, and submit your paper to peer review. When your research paper has finally been accepted for publication in an appropriate medical journal, then we'll talk.
History is always written by the winners, who will always exaggerate their telling of the tale in order to make themselves look even grander than they are. Those on the losing side almost never live long enough to tell their side of the story. The truth is invariably found to be somewhere in between the two.
Putting aside the fact that your DNA comment does not belong on this thread... and forgetting for a moment the most important fact everyone here should know that Mitochondrial DNA is totally *incapable* of identifying specific individuals.. that mtDNA is only capable of showing a possible commonality in matrilineal lines... You should already know my response.
Russia's Dr. Pavel L. Ivanov has the DNA samples from the Tammet-Romanov case in his back pocket. Go ask him. His English is excellent, so there's no reason to claim that you can't talk to him. You'll find Dr. Ivanov in Moscow, where his most recent involvement in the Romanov case has been to advise on the DNA testing of a skull found in a 17th Century graveyard near Kostromo. The skull is believed to belong to the peasant Ivan Susanin, the very first man to become part of the Romanov legends in March of 1615.
Just wait. Mitochondrial DNA *can* be extracted from the shafts of cut hair. When the new owners of Baroness Lehzen's scrapbook finally complete their tests on those five locks of Queen Victoria's hair that the book is known to contain...well... if their results from those tests actually fail to show a match with Peter Gill's published results for Prince Philip and the putative remains of Alexandra .. then everyone here will soon be singing a very different tune.
Call me if Dr. Ivanov gives you an answer.
JK
The haemophilia claim is nothing more than a historically popular story that's based almost entirely in palace gossip, liberally embellished in the very same way that always happens with any story of legend.
JK
Ernst-Heino Tammet-Veerman was as unique an individual as the Tsarevich he stole from.
History was in fact written on behalf of Alexei -- who was a real winner because he never lost his integrity or his courage. And because of that truth there are people like Tammet who lionize people as brave as Alexei.
There is no such place as Kostromo Mr Kendrick.
How can you be so certain of this? Kindly please provide concrete documented evidence of this claim.
You have not PROVEN your thrombocytopenia/aplastic anemia hypothesis. You have merely ASSERTED it.
Your hypothesis is superimposed upon an eight-year-old who went through an agonizing near-death episode of his illness, and you cannot expect it to stand up against the actual medical records made by Feodorov, Ostrogorsky and Derevenko
You really are silly, Kendrick. We know of your connections with Tammet. Do not hide under the guise of trying to find out the 'facts' and being resistant to 'brainwashing'.
Is calling me "silly" honestly the best you can do?.. Come on, now. You'll really have to do much better than that
In his capacity as an advisor to the editors of the British Medical Journal, Oxford's Regius Professor of Medicine Dr. Sir David Weatherall has recently stated: "The author is quite right to question the retrospective diagnosis of haemophilia."
So.. Are you willing to tell me that the head of the medical department at Oxford University... who just so happens to be an expert in haematology.. is also "really silly" for having made such a statement?
JK
Right to question, perhaps--that makes sense. I have no problem with questioning these things! But really, do you think that means "OH MY GOD THIS GUY MUST BE RIGHT AND THIS HEINO TAMMET MUST HAVE BEEN ALEXEI!!!!"? You're just supporting a claimant.
Which actual medical records made by Fedorov. Ostrogorsky, Derevenko... and Botkin.. are you referring to? No one has ever found Alexei's actual medical records!! If those very same medical records actually had been found then we probably wouldn't be here arguing this point
No known first hand statement ever written by the hands of those very same doctors that you name has ever been found to actually use the word "hemophilia". You're only putting words in their mouths, just like every other Romanov fanatic that has gone before you.
The Tsarevich-Martyr (for the Orthodox Church proclaims him so) lived fourteen years with the disease no one in his family mentioned only because it was to be kept a state secret.
Niether Nicholas or Alexandra expected anyone to ever read their private letters and diary entries. Massie points this out in his book Nicholas and Alexandra. It would seem that if they did in fact believe the Tsarevich had hemophilia, they would have mentioned it. They certainly wrote other intimate feelings and were very open in their communications with each other.
Moreover, newspaper articles appearing in the New York Times in November 1912 leaked the confidential information that the child had hemophilia and the Russian Imperial Court were all too quick to write articles to deny it. Methinks the Court protested too much, because they were desperate not to have it known the Tsarevich was that ill.
Maybe they denied it because it wasn't true.
I realize you support a man for whom it was not, whose sufferings were bad enough ... but were obviously not those of the genuine article. You must have your reasons. I respect you have them. Yet not only I but many others here are not won over by what, after all, are hypotheses you cannot yet prove without having examined the remains lying somewhere in Siberia.
If the question is 'did the tsesarevich have haemophilia?', then the answer is 'yes', and the only people who seem to rigourously wish to deny this are those who support claiments who have the wee problem of being non-haemophiliacs.
One can find the medical summary having to do with the Spala episode as a photocopy of the original, oddly enough in a book about another false Alexei, who happened to glom onto the thrombocytopenia theory. It is mostly in Russian except for the Latin terms 'hematoma retroperitonale' and 'musculus ileopsas'. There is no mention of the spleen at all, though it notes the boy's high fever.
If the question is 'did the tsesarevich have haemophilia?', then the answer is 'yes', and the only people who seem to rigourously wish to deny this are those who support claiments who have the wee problem of being non-haemophiliacs.
How could a hemophelic get hurt inside the body by vibrations from the ride he took? Also, how would his spleen affect his bleeding? Are these symptoms of hemophilia?
Pravoslavnaya, why not debate only on the issue in hand, i.e., whether or not the tsarervich had haemophilia?
It would appear that you are so concerned to preserve the idea of Alexei's death at the Ipatiev House that you cannot accept anything that might allow a possibility that he escaped.
Of course, if Alexei had haemophilia, survival in the cellar that night is about as impossible as impossible can be; so naturally, you are inclined to argue that he did have haemophilia.
Just my thoughts as I read through the thread. :P
Only a non-hemophiliac claimant would have any reason to protest the record of history so vehemently, to so vigorously expend an effort to refute it, and to dismiss all the evidence that points to this day towards hemophilia in the Tsarevich.
claim that those defending Alexei Nikolaevich against non-hemophiliac impostors do not have an open mind?
I'm calling for a bit more open-mindedness
I was trying to say in my last post that it is people who rigourously wish to defend the tsarevich's haemophilia without leaving any doubt at all in the matter, or any possibility of the facts being otherwise, that refuse to accept that Alexei survived. Come what may, they want to stick by the view that he died. That is natural. However, in a debate, it isn't really reasonable. I'm calling for a bit more open-mindedness; I'm not stating my opinion.
The rest of us, who are here to learn an explore end up shut out.
So, can we please stick to the topix which is Did the Tsarevich suffer from hemophilia?
Pravoslavnaya,
Why are you attacking Mr. Kendrick? We all know who he is. I have read what he has written.
Why can't this debate just stick to the issue. Did the Tsarevich suffer from hemophilia? Why is is it so difficult to consider that doctors today have a little more knowledge about blood diseases than during the late 1800's early 1900s.
I know that Mr. Kendrick supports a claimant. I have read his article posted on the internet and published the American Journal of Hematology and try to keep an open mind.
Why is it that anyone who doesn't agree with the majority opinion or conventional theories on this discussion board ends up being attacked? I have seen this happen on other threads here and what usually happens is the debate rages and gets ugly between a couple of people. The rest of us, who are here to learn an explore end up shut out.
So, can we please stick to the topix which is Did the Tsarevich suffer from hemophilia?
Or will I now be attacked.
I have nothing against Mr. Kendrick personally, but I feel his motives in presenting the hypotheses he did were not in the least objective. Had he arrived at his conclusions without an agenda to promote the claims of a rank impostor, I would not object to them in the least as an explanation for the boy's sufferings. But his methodology and premise are flawed in the first place, and that is what I am DEBATING here.
But Mr. Kendrick's methods or motive have nothing to do with the topic. Mr. Kendric is a journalist and to say that he arrived at his conclusions is unfair. For all we know, he could have started out trying to disprove the claim, which again is not the topic. Please cite your source for syaing his methodolgy and premise are flawed. Where did you get any information to make that allegation? Just curious.
In defending the position that the Tsarevich DID have hemophilia, is it old-fashioned and unenlightened, or does it show a healthy dose of skepticism about the latest theories that one cannot possibly prove without a definite concrete confirmation? This is why I called for Tammet's DNA to be tested. If this Estonian immigrant were Alexei that would prove he did not have hemophilia.
We would all like to see DNA results, but that isn't in our control and still isn't the topic in this discussion.
The fact that he supports a claimant disqualifies him from being objective. But then again, the subject of the Russian Imperial Family is hard to remain objective about.
Says who???
I assure you that that is not my intent. But I do challenge you to defend the viewpoint that in fact Alexei did not suffer from the disease, completely independently from any reference to material that supports claimants... rather than attacking those of us that defend hemophilia as a diagnosis.
If the question is 'did the tsesarevich have haemophilia?', then the answer is 'yes', and the only people who seem to rigourously wish to deny this are those who support claiments who have the wee problem of being non-haemophiliacs.
Lexi, note that I said the people that rigourously wish to deny it....I think it is implausable that he could have had anything but haemophilia, and judging from what other relatives of his suffered from I think it is a fairly safe assumption. If people wish to explore other possibilities, I would wish them very good luck. It just seems interesting that the claiments without haemophilia do not get DNA tested. Maybe it's expensive, but surely their supporters could money-pool. Really then we would all know one way or the other. The fact is, the claiments won't go for the DNA testing. If they did, and the DNA showed a Romanov and Hessian and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Battenburg match, then we would be able to say "well, we were wrong, the Tsarevich did not have haemophilia." Until such a time, while people have every right to speculate, I think it is a kind of speculation that is a flimsy as a house of cards - the only thing holding it up is the statements of non-haemophiliac claiments and supporters. :)
One can find the medical summary having to do with the Spala episode as a photocopy of the original, oddly enough in a book about another false Alexei, who happened to glom onto the thrombocytopenia theory. It is mostly in Russian except for the Latin terms 'hematoma retroperitonale' and 'musculus ileopsas'. There is no mention of the spleen at all, though it notes the boy's high fever. The book claims that this report, signed by the boy's specialists, is the only medical record of the Tsarevich known to have survived.
If you can read Russian you would see that there is no mention of anything having to do with an aplastic crisis or any of the other medical terms that fit Tammet a lot better than they did Alexei. The Latin terms mean 'hematoma of the hip joint' and 'hip muscle'. Again I stress that newspapers leaked the doctors' conclusions in 1912, just after the Spala episode. The word 'hemophilia' was used to describe the Tsarevich's sufferings during his lifetime.
Disregarding all the other episodes the boy suffered because they did not fit your diathesis would have been irresponsible for a medical practitioner treating Alexei Nikolaevich. If you had considered and dealt with the rest of the boy's medical history even at an anecdotal level, would you have drawn the same conclusions as your article did? The real peer review is going to come from any rebuttals from those who actually deal with diseases of the blood. The real proof will come when Heino Tammet's DNA is tested against that of the Empress-Martyr. Then we shall see if you stand by those theories when Alexei Nikolaevich and Ernst Veerman are proven by medical science to be two separate individuals.
Mr. Kendrick:
5. I admit that if your hypotheses about the Tsarevich-Martyr's illness could stand up when Heino Tammet is proven not to have been Alexei then you have accomplished something. Could you have come up with it without considering Tammet's claim, and without claiming that a disease homologous to hemophilia could literally transform itself into a cancer of the white blood cells (a completely different sort of blood disorder altogether!) after several years in apparent remission -- a thing unheard of in medical history? Your lack of objectivity and your inability to definitely pin this unusual and freakish combination of disorders on the real Alexei without concrete and undeniable proof makes this doubtful. There is no way you can prove anything without the testing being done. Another poster suggests you follow through.
6. The great majority of those who keep faith in the Royal Martyrs probably don't feel Heino Tammet is anything more than a blip on the radar screen, or a reason to become mildly offended. Not all the people that remonstrate with you here are RO. It may take a publication cycle or two to see any reaction from the readership of the American Journal of Hematology in print. Or -- like an article of mine that once appeared in a scholarly music journal -- it may well be forgotten, like Heino Tammet, Vasily Filatov or Michael Gray.
Continued attacks and again this topic has nothing to do with Heino Tammet.
During the past nine months that my paper has been completely open to full public scrutiny, there has been no rebuttal whatsoever from anyone that you have described here as "those who actually deal with diseases of the blood.".
Since its first day of publication last August, the only opposition has come from those very few followers of the "holy martyrs" cult who post to this board.
JK
Mr. Kendrick:
The terms 'hematoma retroperitonale' (literally 'bloody swelling in back of the peritoneum') and 'musculus ileopsas' are Latin. I speak as someone in the medical field who had to take my courses in medical terminology like anyone else. Greek is not directly used in medical terminology.
Please note that anyone involved in the care of hemophiliacs can tell you that bleeding in this region is quite serious and hard to control.
Methinks the New York Times in November 1912 did not leak the news that Alexei Nikolaevich had problems with his hip and hemophilia without sufficient reason to do so.
Another New York Times article appearing in November of 1912 that says the young prince 'has one skin too few, as was the case with the late Duke of Albany' mentions that article, which may be crucial....
4. You DID ignore all the other bleeding episodes suffered by Alexei Nikolaevich. This may end up one of the more valid criticisms of your entire construct.
I admit that if your hypotheses about the Tsarevich-Martyr's illness could stand up when Heino Tammet is proven not to have been Alexei then you have accomplished something.
Could you have come up with it without considering Tammet's claim, and without claiming that a disease homologous to hemophilia could literally transform itself into a cancer of the white blood cells (a completely different sort of blood disorder altogether!) after several years in apparent remission -- a thing unheard of in medical history?
It may take a publication cycle or two to see any reaction from the readership of the American Journal of Hematology in print.
Your lack of objectivity and your inability to definitely pin this unusual and freakish combination of disorders on the real Alexei without concrete and undeniable proof makes this doubtful.
That's fine, I do hope Mr. Kendrick will continue to write. His posting are informative and make me think.
(Continued from previous post...)
And if Tammet is proved to be Alexei? .. hyothetically, of course.. What would you be willing to admit about my hypothesis then? ;D
The simple anwer is yes.
Whether you like it or not, Hemolytic/Aplastic Anaemias most certainly *can* develop into Leukemia over time, and while it is rare, Myelodysplastic leukaemias (smouldering leukaemias) can come from inherited familial syndromes. Understand this one point, if nothing else. If all this stuff wasn't right, then it never would have passed the review... but... It *did* pass the peer review... Because it *is* right. So.. Get used to it.
There have been NINE publications cycles since then.. nine new issues.. and there's still been *no opposition* from the readership of the American Journal of Hematology... and there won't be... because it works... at least as far as the haematologists are concerned..
The subject of this thread is whether or not Alexei actually did or did not have haemophilia.
The topic of this thread has nothing at all to do with claimants. If you can't deal with the known medical facts that splenic trauma most certainly can lead to retroperitoneal haematoma... or that pre-existing haemolytic disorders certainly do lead occassionally to certain types of Leukaemia later in life... If the best rebuttal you have against these known medical facts is simply to fall right back to the relative safety of complaining about certain claimants... then please don't bother.
The last word goes to Shakespeare:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
- Hamlet (Act I, Scene V, lines 166-167)
JK
And your assertions that Alexei did not have it are based on a claimant's medical history. Which does not constitute an objective argument about Alexei's.
Medical facts about splenic trauma, retroperitoneal hematoma, hemolytic/aplastic anemia and leukemia, being endless, sequelae being limitless, do not really fall into the realm of argument.
The last word will go to those that find Alexei in a Siberian forest.
But it stands or falls on the DNA.
..."Common Sense"....
Maybe I should change my idea about testing Queen Victoria - is there any way of finding out from the scietists involved in testing the remains of the IF whether haemophilia was present in any of the remains found at Koptyaki?
Just to throw in my 2 cents worth, I believe Alexei suffered from haemophilia as it was private knowledge through the entire descendants of Queen Victoria, starting with the Queen's son Leopold. Leopold suffered constantly from joint pains which is a symptom of haemophilia. Leopold's daughter Alice was a carrier of the disease which she inherited from her father, it did not affect her but she passed it on to her son (Leopold's grandson) Rupert, and there is some speculation Alice's younger son Maurice who died when an infant may also have had the disease.
Moving onto one of Queen Victoria's daughters, (Princess Alice)we know she was a carrier of the disease, her own son Frittie had it, Alice passed it onto 2 daughters (one being Alix) and bingo, poor Alexei is a haemophiliac, just like numerous of his cousins. Just before Alexei was born in 1904, Alix sister Irene's 4 year old son died of the disease, and Alix was distraught to lose her nephew to the dreaded bleeding disease.
Even Queen Victoria stated in one of her letters " Our whole family seems afflicted with this terrible disease" or something very along those lines.
And remember, Alix and Nicholas had the best Doctors in the land, they were after all Royalty. They could afford the best care, and Alexei was attended by the "sailor nannies" who monitored all his movements to protect him as he was the Heir to the Throne, he was also forbidden to ride an ordinary bicycle and he led a restricted life, he was no "ordinary boy".
I read somewhere that Queen Ena of Spain padded all the trees in the palace grounds whenever her haemaphiliac sons went out to play, and her sons also had to wear padded protective suits as well whilst playing. Her husband blamed her for the children's illness which she had inherited from Queen Victoria. Poor Ena did not have a supportive husband like Alix did. I dont think Nicholas ever blamed Alix for Alexei's condition, but Alix herself suffered and felt guilty from the time he was born. Poor woman.
I too honestly believe that Alexei N. had haemophilia like his other royal uncles,cousins,and other relations descended from Queen Victoria...
I wonder if there are males in descent from QV today with this disease...?
Being a recessive trait carried on the X-chromosome originally supplied, after all, by a hemophiliac father to any of his daughters, the disease limits itself in the families in which it appears, gradually petering out because not all a carrier's sons will necessarily have the disease, nor will all her daughters be carriers themselves.
What's even worse, now we're all being expected to believe that lighting strikes twice in the very same place in that same family line. We're all expected to believe that there's not just one, but two, equally rare blood diseases.. both haemophilia and porphyria.. existing in the same Royal family line at the very same time.
Not only that.. but we're also expected to accept that both of those same equally rare genetically inherited diseases had been passed down the same family line through the very same person, Victoria,... and that Victoria and both her parents were all completely unaffected by either disease. The mathematical odds of these two equally rare genetically inherited blood diseases actually managing to pass down the same family line through that same one person and her unaffected parents are absolutely astronomical.
You're all quite free to believe whatever you like, but it defies all logic... and I, for one, just don't buy it.
JK
But what about that singular element in Victoria's family, the unusually high - indeed, uniquely high - degree of intermarriage among her family and the other royal families of Europe? Not just in one generation but over countless generations. Look at the Habsburg jaw and tell me that you don't get some incredibly bizarre results with such high and prolonged rates of endogamy!
Yes...try not to marry cousins,aunts,uncles,et al....Porphyria was a pre-Victoria disease....read "King George And The Mad Business"....
just what has convinced them that the Tsarevich did not have the disease.
Two quite different and equally rare blood diseases passing through the very same person in the same family line?
... and now you expect us all to believe that such a thing is even possible...
Every survivor legend feeds on the natural revulsion most people still feel at the very thought of what happened to Alexei Nikolaevich and his sisters. Without definite scientific proof in the form of DNA evidence that does not present the recessive X-linked gene, the theory that he did not have hemophilia is not the stuff of miracles but the stuff of wishful thinking and castles in the air.
Well, these people were that inbred, it's surprising there's only two inheritable diseases that seem to crop up with regularity!
The reason why I might question it is because I have noticed over the years that certain diagnoses change when more medical information becomes available. Given the fact that so much of the Romanov's tragedy/history revolves around the fact that Alexei was considered to have hemophaelia, I wonder if, were there to be new evidence provided that he actually had something different, if that would change the picture at all.
Spiridovitch was the head of secret personal security to Nicholas II. He was physically present to the Imperial Family whenever outside of the Alexander Palace. He was with them at Byelovezh and Spala. He spoke to the doctors personally and read medical reports.
Vol. 2, Chapter 12: "The Tsarevtich had climbed onto the edge of the bathtub wanting to show Derevenko how the sailors on the Standardt would jump off the side of the yacht into the sea to go swimming. 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.
This accident in a healthy boy would not have had any unfortunate results, but it was for him, who suffered from hemophilia, the start of many severe complications that could never be totally healed. He was bleeding severely internally.
The illness got worse. October 6th, his temperature rose to over 39 degrees (102 F.) and would not go down.
After a consultation, the doctors declared that the situation was desperate. Fyedorov said that he had decided not to open the swelling, given that they would be operating on the inheritor of the throne, and the operation would bring on fatal bleeding."
Why would ALEXEI - as opposed to any claimant - not have had hemophilia? State your proof without resorting to anything related to a claimant.
Yes please.... and why did he not have hemophilia when his first cousins did?? Like his Aunt Irene's 2 sons who had it, why did Alexei not have it? I'd like to hear explanations for that, one of Irene's sons died the year Alexei was born, and all the family knew why.
Yes please.... and why did he not have hemophilia when his first cousins did?? Like his Aunt Irene's 2 sons who had it, why did Alexei not have it? I'd like to hear explanations for that, one of Irene's sons died the year Alexei was born, and all the family knew why.
Liza is, of course, right, in that the only thing which would really prove it would be a DNA test.
I'm wondering if a history of hemophealia might be helpful, i.e. when it was first diagnosed, etc. If I have some time, I'll try to see what I can track down on the net. I'm going away for a few days, so it might take some time.
Sincerest regards,
Tasha
I don't quite understand pinklady's logic. Did Aunt Irene's 2 sons have hemophilia? And, if they did, does that mean Alexei had hemophilia, also, or could Alexei had something else? Or, could have Aunt Irene's 2 sons blood disorder been incorrectly thought to be hemophila? Please, clearify, if you would be so kind.
Thanks.
AGRBear
Mr. Kendrick:
A name may not have been coined for the disease yet, but that disease existed long before that particular name had been coined for it, had recognizable symptoms, and ran in families, having been described centuries before Christ.
Gastrointestinal bleeds, joint problems, swelling and bleeding into the joints... all of these were, sadly, quite often observed in the little Prince's case, as the historical record states and as you so often have dismissed. All of these are typical of the disorder you so vehemently deny he had. The repitition and publication of your theory does not make your theory true.
Hello?.. Knock, Knock?.. Is there anybody home?
The repetition and publication of your favourite hemophilia theory does *not* make that true either !!!
Just because your favourite interpretation of the evidence has been told over and over so many times over the better part of the past century... and just because your favourite interpretation of the evidence was told first... most definitely does *NOT* make your favourite version of the story the correct interpretation!!
The hemophilia story has been retold and embellished so many times by so many different authors over the past 87 years since the murders that it's virtually impossible to figure out how much of it is real evidence and how much is just another colourful retelling by yet another author who has been so overwhelmingly enamoured by the story.
Understand this if you understand nothing else. There are nearly *200* possible blood diseases on this planet that are known to date. Most of them have been learned about in just the past fifty years... long, long *after* the last of the suspected hemophiliacs in the Royal family line had passed into history. Some three dozen of those blood diseases can be passed by X-linked inheritence... and hemophilia is only just one of them
The list of potential blood diseases... almost all of which are entirely capabable of producing the very same symptoms of bleeding, bruising, and hemorrhage that are seen in Alexei's case is some 12 pages long...
Please see: http://www.dmi.columbia.edu/hripcsak/icd9/1tabular280.html
No doctor today in his of her right mind would ever dare to diagnose a patient after the fact. That doctor would insist on seeing the patient in person for a full examination and a battery of lab tests before he would ever dare to attempt a diagnosis... because the number of possibilities is virtually endless.
The only reason that you believe the hemophilia diagnosis now is because that version of the story has been told over and over again so many times.. and because that version of the story is the one that was told first... and until now, no one has ever dared question it.
As you have just so accurately stated yourself, the repetition and publication of your theory does not make your theory true.
This is a question I have to finally ask:
Just when was the haemophelia made known to the general public ? I know family, court and probably some government members knew privately, and it would be silly to think the public did not know something was wrong when Alexei was carried around at public appearances.
But just when and by whom was the disease made known ? Before or after their "final chapter"?
Couldn't doctors who had read about Alexei's symptoms today be able to decide that it was/wasn't heamophilai? (Sorry I ask so many questions, this is pretty interesting, though I must admit, hard for a 14 year old to follow... :) )
Spiridovtich says the specific term haemophilia was used to describe his illness at Spala. Anyone with credentials at Yale Library can go and see his personal papers, they are all there, so there is no need to speculate on the question.
Why couldn't you be honest and say 'Sadly, this remarkable and resourceful immigrant that settled in Vancouver eventually believed himself to be Alexei Nikolaevich? His medical history in fact shows many interesting similarities, but as in the case of all those claiming to be the Tsarevich, the big stile could not be surmounted?
Do you understand that quibbling over the Tsarevich's diagnosis instead of going by the DNA evidence shown on the X chromosome leads only to arguments, speculation and stalemates because it *cannot* be proven without that evidence that he was not a hemophiliac any more than it can be proven he was?
As usual, whenever I ask a question that you either can't or won't answer, you always wriggle out of it by changing the subject and attacking certain claimant cases about which you know absolutely nothing. The subject of this discussion is haemophilia. Please stick to the topic.
There's no sure way of settling this debate without the laboratory test results that will reveal any evidence of the suspected faulty Factor VIII gene on the long arm of the X-chromosome in Alexandra's DNA.
Of course, you'll näively assume that the tests are certain to show the suspected faulty gene ... and then all will be right with the world.
But.... What happens next if the tests don't go your way?
Let us suppose, just for a moment, that tests on the DNA of the putative bones of Alexandra actually fail to show any evidence of the suspected faulty Factor VIII gene...
What will you do then?
Will you finally give in and admit that if Alexandra's DNA actually fails to show any evidence of that suspected faulty Factor VIII gene that Alexei cannot possibly have been a haemophiliac... and therefore his blood disease very obviously must have been something else?
Or....
Will you then take the only other option open to you and suddenly turn against the DNA identification of the Ekaterinburg remains that so many here on this board now revere as the relics of "holy martyrs"? Will you then decide that if the bones of Body No. 7 have actually failed to show any evidence of a faulty Factor VIII gene that they can't be the bones of Alexandra after all?
Even if they really are the bones of Alexandra...?
I just can't wait to see how you're going to wriggle out of answering this one.
I am sticking to the topic by pointing out that your theory that Alexei did not have hemophilia is based entirely on the case of someone who did not: and by stressing the many other things pointing to that disease instead of Heino Tammet's that you dismiss or are uncomfortable with dealing with because they fly in the face of your efforts. You pick and choose those things you can most easily attack in someone else's posts, using the same old arguments over and over again.
You were the one who started this thread by asking the question "So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
In spite of that fact, any time that an attempt is made to answer your original question.. you're the one who always manages to turn this discussion around into yet another attack on claimants.Quote
It might have been novel to see a valid answer to that question from anyone besides a claimant's advocate. But it would be irresponsible as you have said in another reply to diagnose the boy long after his murder, after the fact: unless one were a qualified medical practitioner it is groundless even to try doing this.QuoteDo you want your question that started this thread answered... or do you not want your question answered?
If someone other than a supporter of a claimant cared to do so, people would take notice.QuoteAnd if you really don't want anyone answer your question... "So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?"... then why did you start this thread in the first place?
Because your answers always hearken back to <i>your claimant's</i> illness, without a definite link to Alexei's, your answers would not be impartial. I was looking for an impartial answer, and am NOT surprised that in the eyes of most people this question has in fact become rhetorical. I was asking also: Would anyone who was NOT a claimant or a supporter of a claimant ever have grounds to question the nature of the child's illness in the first place, and if so, what those grounds would be?
Tasha comes close, as she has been there. Tammet doesn't even come close. We know your arguments. They do not provide an impartial answer to that question.
Could grow up to be a swan ::)
as in the tale THE UGLY DUCKLING.
AGRBear
.... [ in part]....
This newspaper article is just repeating what was known in the medical world at that time. It does not tell us what were in the medical records kept by doctors at the time so present day doctors can view and study the symtoms of Alexei and give us their conclusions.
....AGRBear
eton
Alexei had a condition where one of his testicles did not descend properly
While Spiridovich may well have read the reports as you claim.. and you have no way of proving that.. he did not write those reports and he certainly didn't have the medical training to interpret the doctors' use of medical terminology. [/b]
JK
If someone other than a supporter of a claimant cared to do so, people would take notice.
Because your answers always hearken back to <i>your claimant's</i> illness, without a definite link to Alexei's, your answers would not be impartial. Would anyone who was NOT a claimant or a supporter of a claimant ever have grounds to question the nature of the child's illness in the first place, and if so, what those grounds would be?
RealAnastasia....you know I tease you sometimes about things...and I hope you don't take it personally....I imagine you saying..."There HE goes again..."...but I do appreciate your clear and fair points on the condition of what is generally regarded as the haemophilia of AN...I'm not a very scientific person...so your reasoning about this disease is well recieved....
Dear Mr. Kendrick,
The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1912. Pg C1. "The medical publication Hospital in commenting on the recent pronouncement of the Czar's physicians that the Czarevitch has haemophilia says that this malady was frequently observed by scientists among Eurpoean royal families in the early and middle ages. (emphasis added)
(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/images/alexeinyt.jpg)
What is more, the peculiar comment about "one skin instead of three" clearly demonstrates that they knew just as little about the science of dermatology as they did about haematology.
JK
This newspaper article is just repeating what was known in the medical world at that time. It does not tell us what were in the medical records kept by doctors at the time so present day doctors can view and study the symtoms of Alexei and give us their conclusions.
Since I do not care what direction the answers take us, I think Kendrick has asked some very interesting questions. And, those of us who know very little about hemophilia are interested in the answers to those questions.
It is not necessary for posters to try to convince us the Kenricks has an agenda. It is not necessary for posters to try and convince us that his claimant is or is not Alexei.
I think the questions he and others have asked can stand alone for those of us who don't understand this diease.
So, can we cut through the rhectoric and get to the answers and any other questions on this subject.
Thank you.
AGRBear
1. I think it is interesting that neither Nicholas nor Alexandra used the H word in their correspondence or dairies. Either it was a well protected secret, or the "H" word was not used by his doctors.
2. Do people who have hemophilia always bleed instantly and profusely?
Lexi4,
The "H" word WAS used by his doctors. Please see the NY Time article of Nov. 10, 1912 which I posted in full. That can not be more clear.
Not to add fuel to the fire, but perhaps to deflect a bit... from what I have been able to ascertain from reading the threads about Alexei having potentially survived/not having survived, the one thing which has struck me is the fact that most who subscribe to the "not having survived" mindset was due to the heir's hemophelia.
A number of sources claim that Alexei was hit, but did not die straight away and so it was required that he be shot again. There are allusions to being shot in the head - although I cannot claim that I know for certain where he was shot.
One thing to remember about hemophelia is that, if a bleeder is bleeding externally, it is actually easier to stem the flow of blood. Hemopheliacs tend to die more from internal hemorraging than external because pressure applied to an external wound will stem the flow. It just takes more time than for a normal person.
Perhaps this post is more apt under another thread, but I wasn't sure which, and this one seemed to have most folks attention at the moment.
Personally, I find it difficult to believe that anyone survived, however I have always felt that every story/myth/fairytale always has an element of truth to it.
Sincere regards,
Tasha
Cheers for your most polite question/comment....
When one sees the actually quite small area in front of a wall,near a corner,of that basement room...and the number of shooters involved...can one ever actually believe that ANYONE could have come out alive?...I guess I just have more faith and belief in the purpose and focus of the execution squad.....and it gives me NO happiness.... :'(
Such a very good point, etonexile. The execution squad did have a sense of purpose, didn't they.
For further clarification, have the measurements of that wall/the room been posted anywhere? If so, they've escaped my brain. Thanks.
When one sees the actually quite small area in front of a wall,near a corner,of that basement room...and the number of shooters involved...can one ever actually believe that ANYONE could have come out alive?
I just read what is there. You are of course quite free to fantasize and imagine it to mean whatever makes you happy.
Aw, Bob... I'm disappointed :-) I was quite certain that you'd have a much better comeback than that! :-)
Of course, you're also quite free to fantasize and imagine the evidence to mean whatever you want it to mean, just we all are. The only difference is that your version just has a much larger audience than mine.
Playwrights Henrik Ibsen and George Bernard Shaw have both been credited with once having said: "A minority may be right, and a majority is always wrong."
It was John Kenneth Galbraith who was quoted as saying: "There is something wonderful in seeing a wrong-headed majority assailed by truth."
.. and the great Mark Twain once quipped: "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform."
For the moment though, I'll stick with Ibsen, who had also said: "It was then that I began to look into the seams of your doctrine. I wanted only to pick at a single knot; but when I had got that undone, the whole thing began to unravel. And then I understood that it was all machine-sewn."
JK
Do you think Alexandra realized she was a carrier?
Why, then, did the gunmen emerge unscathed?
Stop attacking JKendriks personally,
JKendricks is not the topic. Alexei is.
AGRBear
Alexei's doctors said he had hemophilia up to 1917. How do we know it was hemophlia and not another blood disorder, as JKendrick suggests?
He is a profesionnal, after all.
Are there any other blood disorders which Alexei could have had if he didn't have hemophilia?
AGRBear
NY Times Oct 23, 1912:
"The Czarowitch Alexis is lying rather seriously ill at the imperial hunting lodge of Spala, Russian Poland as the result of an accident on Oct. 15".
October 15 new style is October 2 old style... the date of Alexei's carriage ride. Occurring October 15 N/S and reported in New York on October 23 N/S... a delay of eight days.
NY Times Oct 25, 1912:
"His Imperial Highness is now suffering from peritonitis. It is impossible to ascertain the real cause of his illness."
October 25 new style is October 12 old style, and here the NY Times is reporting peritonitis when we now know that Alexei was already two days into his recovery after the fever had broken on October 10 O/S.. October 23rd N/S ... showing us again how much of a delay there was between the date of the actual events and the transmission of the story to New York
NY Times Oct. 26, 1912:
"The secrecy with respect to the injuries from which the Crown Prince is suffering has bred a crop of sensational rumors."
.. and it still is a sensational rumour to this very day.
NY Times Nov 9, 1912:
"The medical publication Hospital commenting on the recent pronouncement of the Czar's physicians that the Czarevich has hemophilia says the malady was frequently observed by scientists among European Royal families in the early and middle ages"
We've all seen the "recent pronouncement of the Czar's physicians" that the New York Times was referring to in its report of Nov 9, 1912. It's the very same pronouncement that was issued by the Minister of the Imperial Court Baron Fredericks just six days before that New York Times report... on October 21 of 1912 O/S.. November 3 N/S... that carries the names of the four doctors Raukhfus, Federov, Botkin, and Ostrogorsky...
...and we all know that the "pronouncement of the Czar's physicians" most definitely does *NOT* use the word "haemophilia". However, it does use the words "significant anemia" which is not the same thing. (For our readers who have a hardback copy of "A Lifelong Passion" handy, the "pronouncement" that the New York Times was reporting can be found in the chapter on the year 1912 on pages 359 and 360.)
I could go to great length to explain to how the fledgling News Wire Services operated in the early days of the past century, many long decades before the advent of satellites and the internet... tell you in detail how news stories are edited in bunches as they move from one major news bureau to the next and are sent to the customer newspapers at regularly scheduled intervals every day. I could also explain how newspaper stories are written and edited to attract the readers' attention while at the same time maintaining brevity for reasons of limited space on the page...
... but you'll doubtless go to great efforts to try shooting that down too... so I won't bother.
JK
There were two shooters, I think, who suffered injuries during the execution. AGRBear
Can someone give me a list of blood disorders that are similar to hemophilia which Alexei could have had if he didn't have hemophilia?
Assuming this scenario, for reasons of making sure all theories are based only on information dated before 7/17/1918 and that no further discussion of claimants emerges here: Why might someone make an hypothesis that the poor boy had something other than hemophilia? What circumstances would make one ask?
You now have a list of several possibilities, and now no one can deny that Alexei definitely died in 1918. Diagnose away....
These symptoms are *not* known to happen as a direct result of the clotting factor deficiencies of haemophilia.
We note in the diaries of Alexei Nikolaevich and his mother that whenever he recovered from a minor bruising episode -- of which, of course, there were many -- his temperature rose slightly as that amount of blood was reabsorbed. Consider that at Spala the poor boy had displaced a great deal more blood than usual, that his hip joint, his peritoneum (lower) and adjacent areas outside that barrier were inflamed, and that these events alone, exhausting the boy, bringing him near death, leading to a lack of blood to the brain, produced the high fever as the blood was reabsorbed. Delirium in a boy so frail and so exhausted would then be understandable.
There was no mention of any symptoms involving the internal organs in this episode except for the child's heartbeat.
By the way, Mr. Kendrick, I think the public would be very intersted to know your exact medical credentials and medical training as a diagnostician specializing in haematology? I myself have never seen them. I think this would be a good place for them, as you challenge the diagnostic abilities of others.
With respect Mr. Kendrick,systolic murmur,tachycardia and irregular heartbeat (palpitations) are an indication of a cardiac abnormality either congenital or aquired. There are many people with these symptoms who do not have a platelet disorder. It would seem to me that YOU are the one fitting the symptoms to the disease?
OK...from everything I've read about AN,QV and their various relations through the years...and what Detective Inspector FA has dug up....I feel that Alexei did have haemophilia...Mr.Kendrick lays out a ton of various blood diseases which may or may not have been mistaken for the boy's illness...sooooo...cut to the chase....are there truely blood diseases which his doctors could have confused with haemophilia...allllll the same symptoms....?
Oh dear, etonexile, you've been hanging around old bear and must have caught the "out of the box" disease. ;D
AGRBear
Yes..let's see how carefully and distinctly we can analyse Alexei's symptoms...I'm not a doctor...but I want to understand....
Because we're asking questions doesn't mean we are not going to come to the same conclusion as the doctors Forum Admin. has provided in her post.Dear Bear
AGRBear
By the way, Mr. Kendrick, I think the public would be very intersted to know your exact medical credentials and medical training as a diagnostician specializing in haematology? I myself have never seen them. I think this would be a good place for them, as you challenge the diagnostic abilities of others.
A rising temperature.. no matter how much you want it to be.. is *not*a symptom of haemophilia........
"History's most famous person with haemophilia, the Tsarevitch Alexei, had almost reached his likely lifespan of 20 years when he was murdered in 1917. His frequent crippling haemarthroses and muscle bleeds are obvious from photographs." Haemophilia -- darkest hours before the dawn authored by Alison M Street, Head, Haematology Unit, Alfred Healthcare Group, Melbourne, VIC and Henry Ekert Senior Consultant, Department of Haematology/Oncology, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC in
Medical Journal of Australia,1996; 164: 453
FA does not like Techno-House music.
He must have stolen the real FA's computer. We need an investigation.
Besides, I'll have to have all my teeth pulled so my dental records can't be compared if this goes any further... ;D
FA
I found this in King and Wilson's FOTR and thought it could add to this discussion.
"During the initial testing, some suggestion was made that the DNA extracted from skeleton 7, identified as that of Empress Alexandra, should be subjected to chromosomal analysis, to confirm that it carried the defective X chromosomes through which hemophilia is passed. The remains attributed to the grand duchesses also could be tested, establishing if they had been hemophilia carriers. But the nature of the work, coupled with bot thime and financial restraints, eventually prevended such secondary testing."
FOTR. p.444
I guess they just assumed there was no point in checking for an accepted and known fact. Go figure.
Don't forget one thing. To do that would have required nuclear DNA sequencing, which at that time was FAR more difficult, expensive and time consuming than the mtDNA sequencing which was done. Today it would be a much different story as the sequencing is done by machine, but back then, everything was done by hand.
I would think that testing for this particular defect would be not only double confirmation but of the utmost historical value.
Too bad.
Why do you keep asking if JKendricks is medically qualified? He need not have one to have an opinion. Because of his posts, it is obvious he has a keen interest in this subject and can ask questions most of us wouldn't know to ask. If we need to be qualified in the field of medicine to post on this thread then most of us shouldn't be posting. Far as I know, this isn't necessary for him or me, you [Adminl Forum] or others. So, I'm not sure why this is such a sticky point. So, why are you asking, again, for his qualifications on this subject?
AGRBear
I fear I must come down on the side of the FA...If JK wishes to take on the generally established medical community,world-wide,he'd better have some sterling credentials himself,or some world-class medical experts in his camp,willing to back him up directly or through their published works,in accepted medical publications.
Meanwhile, it seems no one has answered by simple question about medical records of Alexei from Dr. Derevenko.
AGRBear
That's because there is no answer. Just like the fact that there is no answer to that most critical of questions asked earlier in this thread about the total lack of evidence of bleeding gums that should have been expected when Alexei was teething as a toodler and again when he was losing his baby teeth as a young boy. If they have no answer, they deal with it the only way they know how... by turning it into a personal attack.
No one has ever found any of Alexei's actual medical records. Despite everything the "FA" has attempted to claim, no medical specialist of any kind who had actually seen the Tsarevich Alexei in the flesh and had actually diagnosed that most famous of patients in person has ever been known to have written the word "haemophilia" down on paper in black and white on any written medical record directly connected to Alexei's case.
The direction this thread keeps taking away from its original topic just goes to show that it's never a wise idea to get involved in any game that's being played on a field where the referee is also the captain of the opposing team.
..in part]...
>>No one has ever found any of Alexei's actual medical records.<< >>... no medical specialist of any kind who had actually seen the Tsarevich Alexei in the flesh and had actually diagnosed that most famous of patients in person has ever been known to have written the word "haemophilia" down on paper in black and white on any written medical record directly connected to Alexei's case.
.....
...[in part]....
Whether there might be a claimant behind any single given medical hypothesis or not, it still makes absolutely no difference to the final results of that same medical research whatsoever. It does *NOT*, in any way, shape, or form, ever serve to diminsh those same new medical conclusions to even the slightest degree.
This particular thread of discussion is devoted to the subject of haemophilia. It is not about claimants. So... Let's please stay on track.
The published paper in the American Journal of Hematology has concluded with a very different diagnosis for Alexei's dyscrasias, but it makes no mention at all of any specific claimant. That same medical paper has been fully assessed by a recognised peer review panel of experts in the fields of both haematology and oncology, and it has been judged by those very same experts to be both medically sound and fully suitable for publication.
....JK
Because we're asking questions doesn't mean we are not going to come to the same conclusion as the doctors Forum Admin. has provided.
I think all too often some posters forget that many of us are here just to chit-chat and learn something we didn't know yesterday.
I for one know very little about hemophilia and the medical records of Alexei or who has studied what is available.
These questions caused me to think about the fact that doctors back in 1917 didn't know what we know today, so, why couldn't Alexei had a different blood disorder?
Apparently, there is a difference of opinion.
This makes a good debate.
And, I don't believe I've voiced that the doctors of today who have studied Alexei's medical records are incorrect. Why would I? I didn't know anyone had. From what I've understood none of the medical records had survived. As for photographs of Alexie's bruises, I had never heard of these either.
So, please, help those of us to learn more so we can be better informed.
Now, I'm off to read some of these articles mentioned by other posters. I am looking for the answer about Alexei having a raise temperature with his bouts of bleeding and if this is or is not a common symptom of one suffering hemophilia.
Hey, I only got one. Wanna make a club?
To make a valid argument that he may not have had hemophilia if one lacks sound DNA evidence that he did not, one needs to consider not only the most spectacular incidents of his suffering but the aggregate of those episodes that happened far more often. Remember, Alexei was not a normal child when it came to boyhood bumps and bruises...... Try as one might, one cannot dismiss what the majority of Alexei's episodes point to -- a coagulation disorder.
The direction this thread keeps taking away from its original topic just goes to show that it's never a wise idea to get involved in any game that's being played on a field where the referee is also the captain of the opposing team.
What should we name our club? And we need a secret handshake and stuff....
Having recieved 4 pms from the "Mad Claimant"....I claim priority in the secret handshake and funny walks department....should I block his messages....or just see how silly he can be...decisions...?
...[in part]....
Thrombocytopenia per se is not a disease in itself but a symptom of disease, and manifests itself in superficial bleeding into the skin. Alexei bled into his joints quite often and developed problems with his joints, as is typical of a hemophiliac. Hemolytic anemia leads to leg ulcers, which Alexei never had. That disease does not present itself until later in life than young childhood, when as is typical of a child suffering from a moderate to severe case of hemophilia, Alexei bruised as he learned to walk. It sounds like someone else altogether developed end-stage leukemia later in a much longer life than fourteen years, doesn't it??? The Tsarevich's recoveries from hemophilic episodes were NEVER spontaneous, by the way: it took the boy months to get his strength back, to straighten out his leg and to get to the point when he could spend an afternoon with his father on an outing.
....
An example of "mad": A person with a family history of schizophrenia who happens to believe that people all over the world are secretly watching him and know every move he makes.
Thanks Kimberly.
On p. 47 of THE ESCAPE OF ALEXEI, SON OF TSAR NCHOLAS II which is about the claimant Vasily Filatov, there is a copy [I assume it's authentic] of a letter from Evgeny Botkin to "Mr. Chairman" of the Provincial Executive Committe. The letter talks about Alexei's condition there is no date attached:
>>...Alexei Nikolaevich is subject to pains in the joints from bumps that are complety unavoidable....and that are accompanied by seepage of fluids and resultant excruciting pains. In these events the boy suffers day and night with inexpressible pain..."
No mention of the word "hemophilia" in this particular letter.
AGRBear
Dear Bear,thrombocytopenia can occur in the newborn but Alexeis symptoms dont really match this disorder. Alloimmune thrombocytopenia is caused when maternal blood cells attack the foetus's cells and the baby is born with abnormally low platelets. 10-20% die of intra-cranial bleeds from the delivery. Thrombocytopenia later in life can be caused by abnormal bone marrow production of white cells,Aplastic Anaemia.abnormal spleen. The symptoms can include nose bleeds and tiny red dots forming a rash (purpura) and bleeding from the gums. Do these symptoms fit Alexei? I really feel that the poor lad suffered from Haemophilia but i find these discussions both informative and fascinating.
Dear Mr. Kendrick,
The New York Times, Nov. 10, 1912. Pg C1. "The medical publication Hospital in commenting on the recent pronouncement of the Czar's physicians that the Czarevitch has haemophilia says that this malady was frequently observed by scientists among Eurpoean royal families in the early and middle ages. (emphasis added)
(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/images/alexeinyt.jpg)
This discussion is very interesting and some of the data is being repeated on a new thread.
Bumping it up.
AGRBear
(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/img/alexeinyt.jpg)
The physicians who were treating Alexei at Spala where he was dying from the unstopped bleeding made the "pronouncement".
yes, there were almost daily reports on the condition of the Tsarevich during the Spala crisis.
This discussion is very interesting and some of the data is being repeated on a new thread.
Bumping it up.
AGRBear
Thank you Bear.
On the other thread someone mentioned that Nicholas had used the word hemophilia in his dairy. Can anyone be more specific about this entry? Year perhaps? I am unable to find an entry that uses the word hemophilia in any of the information I have.
Was "hemophilia" mentioned in Nicholas II's diary??
AGRBear
Was "hemophilia" mentioned in Nicholas II's diary??
AGRBear
No. There is absolutely no reason why Nikolai II should have.
Margarita