Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => Tsarevich Alexei Nicholaievich => Topic started by: clockworkgirl21 on March 24, 2005, 09:09:02 PM

Title: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: clockworkgirl21 on March 24, 2005, 09:09:02 PM
I read an article that said Aleksey may not have had hemophilia, but a similar blood disease. Rasputin always told Aleksandra to tell the doctors to just leave him alone, and if the disease wasn't hemophilia, it could have just stopped on its own. Anyone have the article?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on March 25, 2005, 11:30:40 AM
Not the article as such...But Alexei most certainly DID have haemophilia as did many of his close relations in Europe with connections to Queen Victoria...the "pseudo-science" of other blood disorders is being kicked about by the mad and/or greedy who wish to claim his identity...
Rasputin was clever/caring enough to realize that the boy needed to just be "left alone" until the bleeding episode had subsided...the pushing-and-proding of the doctors only made it worse...and his promise of a recovery calmed the by-now nearly hysterical Empress to leave the boy in peace....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Sarai on March 25, 2005, 01:19:32 PM
I believe this may be the article you are referring to:
http://www.sptimes.ru/archive/times/994/top/t_13276.htm
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: clockworkgirl21 on March 25, 2005, 04:33:50 PM
Thanks, Sarai. That's not the same article, but it says pretty much the same thing as the one I was talking about.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 05, 2005, 12:15:49 PM
Maybe he didn't have hemophilia. I, too, have read otherwise.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on April 05, 2005, 04:21:26 PM
The fact that it ran in his family through Queen Victoria, and that he had all the usual symptoms of haemophilia and that the doctors all said it was haemophilia would suggest that he indeed had haemophilia. Any suggestion otherwise is by false claiments (who don't have haemophilia) or their supporters who have to get around the fact that the poor boy actually suffered from an incurable disease that is impossible to fake!
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: bluetoria on April 05, 2005, 04:30:58 PM
I have looked after peoplewith haemophilia. It would certainly be impossible to fake and it would have delighted Alix had she thought that her beloved son did not have that terrible disease.
The bleeding does often stop on its own without medical intervention.
I cannot imagine why anyone should claim now that Alexei didn't suffer from it except as Georgiy days to put forward a false claim that someone else who didn't have the disease was the Tsarevich.  ???
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: La_Mashka on April 06, 2005, 10:55:00 AM
Well..I understand why impostors would try to convince the public that he didn't have hemophilia.

We know it would have been incredibly hard for anyone to survive the shooting at Ipatiev House.... and even if Aleksei had survived the shooting itself, with bullet wounds and hemophilia it would have been miraculous if he did survived.... unless, he didn't have hemophilia.... so it makes sense that anyone claiming to be him, says it was not hemophilia
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 08, 2005, 08:26:00 AM
True, La_Mashka.

Still, I have read that Alexei's symptoms did not quite fit in with hemophiliac symptoms. And just speaking with no backing but common sense, here was an active boy who did enjoy playing about as any child of his age; yet he was only a few times badly struck with the illness. Why? I don't know.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on April 09, 2005, 09:40:57 AM
My dear Lass:  It depends on where, in what source one has ever read that the Tsarevich did not suffer from hemophilia whether such an opinion can be viewed as objective or not.  Every book or position paper that has ever proposed this hypothesis has been written with the specific agenda of promoting the claim of someone saying that they were Alexei Nikolaevich or the son of Alexei.

It is safe to say that since no hemophiliac could have survived such horrific slaughter as that in the cellar -- especially because he would have been targeted as the Heir -- dear Alexei certainly was killed with the family he could not have lived without.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: clockworkgirl21 on April 09, 2005, 11:46:02 AM
Sadly, I have no doubt that poor Aleksey was killed with his family. But I think it's possible he could have had something besides hemophilia, but travels the same way hemophilia does: mother to son.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 09, 2005, 05:11:16 PM
Quote
dear Alexei certainly was killed with the family he could not have lived without.


I am not unaware of the fact that a hemophiliac could not possibly have survived what went on in the cellar that night. And, contrary to the air of your post, Pravoslavnaya, I am not in the habit of believing nonsense. ;)


My question is not do with this. Maybe you could answer my question. Did he really have hemophilia? If so, why was he so rarely stricken with it? That is what I was asking.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: bluetoria on April 09, 2005, 05:27:22 PM
He wasn't 'so rarely stricken with it,' Lass. He was frequently laid low by it.
What do you suggest as an alternative cause of his bleeding? No other conditions quite fit the pattern of Alexei's suffering.
Besides which, it is important to take into account the rest of the family - you cannot deny that so many other princes shared Alexei's symtpoms.
(Belochka knows so much about this...she could explain it in very scientific terms.  :) )

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 09, 2005, 05:37:35 PM
I know how hemophilia works scientifically, having studied it a little. :)

From what I have read, Alexei was only severely ill a few times during the nearly 14 years of his life. I ask, being an active boy, how did he escape much worse, much more frequent cases of it, or even death?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lostfan on April 09, 2005, 05:44:38 PM
I think some people doubted because at Spala, he had a high fever, and that is traditionally not a symptom of hemophilia. However, he was probably sick on top of the bleeding, so it probably wasn't a real symptom.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: bluetoria on April 09, 2005, 05:57:15 PM
If his blood was flowing freely, presumably his white blood cell count would rise...(this is a vague recollection of something I am uncertain about) which would give rise to fever.
Haemophiliacs whom I have nursed, when suffering from an attack, often had a raised temperature.
(It's a while since I was working in hospitals & I've forgotten many details of the cause.  :-/ But it did happen.)

And, more to the point, if he didn't have haemophilia (sorry English spelling of it  :-/) what do you suggest as an alternative cause of his illness? And why hadn't his mother heard of an alternative cause, which would have greatly eased her conscience since she felt so responsible for his sufferings?  :-/
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 11, 2005, 08:18:41 AM
I am no expert on the illness or similar illnesses, and am in no position to say what  Alexei suffered from. 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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: bluetoria on April 11, 2005, 03:07:11 PM
Quote
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.


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.  :(
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 11, 2005, 04:08:56 PM
Maybe none of them had haemophilia. After all, Alexei had the same illness as his relatives. ;)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: bluetoria on April 11, 2005, 04:17:03 PM
You don't think it just a teeny-weeny bit far-fetched to suggest that ALL the haemophiliac sufferers among QV's children & grandchildren were actually misdiagnosed when no other illness fits their symptoms? ::)  :)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 11, 2005, 06:13:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: bluetoria on April 11, 2005, 06:23:30 PM
Quote
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.


I don't quite understand your point. Sorry.  :-/

Do you mean that because other haemophiliacs lived longer, Alexei might have done? If that is what you mean, then I would say: yes, he could have lived for many more years...if he hadn't been murdered.

I just don't see the point of suggesting he didn't have haemophlia when all his symptoms were those of a haemophiliac, it was known to be in the family, and no alternative diagnosis can be offered.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 12, 2005, 06:13:59 AM
No, I don't think I made myself very clear! :-/

It was in the light of this:
Quote
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. :(


What I mean is, there is no use referring to Alexei's relatives (Prince Leopald, for example) as support for arguing that the Tsarevich could have lived a life of normal length even with haemophilia. If he had the same illness as they, and his illness was not haemophilia, then it cannot be said "well, Prince Leopald had it, and he lived till the age of whatever".

Not very easy to explain. :-/ Do you get it now?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on April 12, 2005, 07:07:54 AM
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, as was a slightly elevated temperature.  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.   Throughout Alexei's diary one finds instances of his having to stay in bed, and sometimes he would dictate his entries to a family member when he could not write himself.   (Episodes sometimes involved his arms and wrists.)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 12, 2005, 09:36:57 AM
Quote
Lass:  may I ask what you have read that suggests St. Alexei did not have hemophilia?

It was not me that started the topic. ;) I am not going to say for certain either way, as I am not sure. That is why I find the discussion interesting.

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. :)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: bluetoria on April 12, 2005, 11:10:30 AM
Quote

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.


But it is a fact that many haemophiliacs lived for many years despite intermittent episodes of bleeding & near-fatal attacks. The fact that Alexei was well enough to join his father at Stavka does not mean he did not have haemophilia. Moreover, on one occasion he had to be rushed home.

Quote

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. :)


That's very reasonable but having questioned it, & having no alternative disease to fit his symptoms perhaps it is time to say, "Having examined the facts I accept that the diagnosis was correct."   ;)
His symptoms simply DO NOT FIT any other disorder but DO FIT accurately with the known symptoms of haemophilia, so I do not see WHY there is a need to question it further.  :)

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 12, 2005, 11:15:43 AM
True, and if you like, I'll leave it at that. ;)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: felix on April 12, 2005, 05:24:39 PM
I'am just reading "A Romanov Diary" and in it Grand Duchess Marie G. says that the family knew of Alexis having haemophilia.She said it was"  a great secret".Page 116.So it wasnt a secret in the family, after all. She knew the name of his illness.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 13, 2005, 04:07:02 AM
It was supposd to be a secret from the country at least, because in Imperial Russia, the ordinary people looked on their Tsar as a god, and it would not have done for his son to be known to have haemophilia.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 14, 2005, 09:41:51 PM
Quote
Lass:  may I ask what you have read that suggests St. Alexei did not have hemophilia?


First off, addressing the Tsarevich Alexei as a saint clearly suggests a pre-existing bias.  A "passion-bearer", as he has now been named by the Orthodox Church, is not a saint.

So... What makes you so certain that Alexei was a haemophiliac? Were you there as a witness?  How can you possibly know that he was not the victim of any one of more than 150 other medical disorders now known to medical science that are perfectly capable of producing all of the very same symptoms of a haemorrhagic diathesis?

Have you based your belief in the legend only on what you have read and what you have been told by others, thereby allowing the still unproven hypothesis of those before you to influence your thoughts on this subject?  Or... Do you base your beliefs on the details of your own in-depth study of the symptoms and research into the field of haematology, thereby having drawn your own conclusions purely on the basis of completely new and independent thought?

Who was the first person ever in any public record to claim that Alexei may have been a haemophiliac?  Give the name, date and source of your information.

How many times did Nicholas II actually use the word "haemophilia" in any of his personal diaries and private correspondence?  The answer: Not even once. Did Alexei's mother Alexandra ever use the word "haemophilia" in any of her personal diaries or private correspondence?  Answer: No.  Did the Empress ever actually use the word the word "haemophilia" in any of her known conversations with others? Answer: No.  Did any one of Alexei's four sisters ever use the word "haemophilia" in any of their own personal diaries or private correspondence?  Answer: No.

Did Alexei himself ever actually use the word "haemophilia" in any of his known conversations, personal diaries, or private correspondence?  Answer: No.  Is there first-hand evidence from any of Alexei's own doctors, Botkin, Fedorov, Rauhkfus, Ostrogorsky, et al., clearly stating the word "haemophilia" in any of their own hand-written medical reports or private correspondence?  Answer: No.

Absolutely every single piece of testimonial evidence that is now known to use the word "haemophilia" in reference to Alexei's case is entirely second and third hand evidence, and all of it coming long after the fact.  The closest people to Alexei to actually use the word in print were first Gilliard, three years after the murders when his book was first published in 1921, and Spiridovich ten years after the assassination in 1928.  Neither of these men were doctors and both were relying entirely on decade old memories of what little they had been told of the diagnosis by others at Spala in 1912.


Quote
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 only evidence of the new born Alexei's bleeding navel is the four brief entries in Nicholas II's private diaries from September 8th through 11th of 1904. Careful reading of this evidence reveals the bleeding had occurred only during the afternoon and evening of the first day.  There was evidence of blood on the first bandage from the night before when it was changed the next morning, but every other bandage then applied after that point was clear of any further evidence. That one single blood-stained bandage reported only by Nicholas does not constitute an "episode". No other evidence of this incident is known to exist.

When were Nicholas II's private diaries first made available for public access?  Answer: 1924 ... a full 20 years after Alexei's birth and six years after Nicholas II's murder.  Who was the first person ever to suggest that those four brief diary entries from 1904 might have been evidence of "haemophilia"?  Answer: Catherine Radziwill.. in 1931.. in a book that was written 27 years after the fact.

One curious note:  Nicholas himself had used the word "bleeding" in that first single diary entry of Sept. 8, 1904.   Sixty years later, the author Robert Massie chose to quote Nicholas II's description of "bleeding" in that same diary entry of Sept 8, 1904 by using the word "hemorrhage" instead in his now famous book "Nicholas and Alexandra" in 1967.  Massie, however was not quoting directly from Nicholas II's diary.  He was, in fact, quoting from Catherine Radziwill's interpretation of Nicholas II's words in her book "Taint of the Romanovs" from 1931.  

So, which of these quotes was correct?  Did Nicholas actually write the word "bleeding" or did he write the word "haemorrhage" in his diary of September of 1904?  There's a considerable difference in degree between those two words.  Which ever version of Nicky's September 1904 diary entry is incorrect, is it merely an innocent misquote or is it, in fact, a carefully calculated embellishment?  Which ever the case may be, it's certainly intriguing to observe how altering just one single word in the evidence can have such an incredibly huge impression on public understanding.

Just one more thing about the event that everyone points to as the very first evidence of Alexei's disease before we move on.  Umbilical bleeding in neonates is known to be fairly ordinary up to six weeks and more after birth, depending on when the umbilical stump falls away, which can take as long as a month.  This is especially true in new-born baby boys, which has nothing to do maternal inheritance and everything to do with an obvious problem that any parent of boys who has ever changed a diaper will surely understand.  New parents faced with this problem have often been told just to dab the navel with rubbing alcohol to make it dry out.. and stop worrying about it.

The bottom line? Bleeding navels in new-born babies are *not* considered to be proof of haemophilia without the aid of additional laboratory testing.  

The only evidence of the fall at the age of three is in just one single letter from Alexei's grandmother.  Thousands upon thousands of kids at that tender age have fallen and bruised themselves as they're busy running around but still trying to find their feet..  So... Who was the very first person in any public record to interpret the quote in that one single letter from 1907 as evidence of "haemophilia"? Give the name, date and source of your information.

As for Spala.. well... for that we can write an entire book.  To save precious space here on Bob's discussion board, my response to your comment about that most serious of episodes can be read in the September 2004 issue of the American Journal of Hematology.

(Continued in following post)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Olga on April 14, 2005, 09:53:04 PM
Do you have a claimant to support? I remember your name from somewhere.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 14, 2005, 09:58:51 PM
Quote
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.
 

The incidents at Mogilev and Tobolsk are certainly well discussed and the subject of considerable rumour. But they are not particularly "well documented"....  just well commented on and often claimed to be evidence.

From Nicholas II's personal diary, December 3rd, 1915: "Alexei started a cold yesterday, and this morning had a slight nosebleed after sneezing".  Once again, Nicholas II's private diary was not open to public acccess until 1924, so who was the first person ever to decide that this was evidence of "haemophilia"?   Give the name, date and source of your information.

Given that Alexei's nosebleed, in Nicholas II's own words, had started from the sneezing of a cold, this can also be considered to be evidence of a possible viral cause of the Tsarevich Alexei's actually infrequent episodes. Again, this issue is dealt with in the September 2004 issue of the American Journal of Hematology.

As for the sled on the stairs... How many original sources are there for that now famous story?  Answer: Just one... in a quote first made by Tatiana Botkin in 1921, who was not resident in the Governor's mansion at Tobolsk at the time and was not a first hand witness.  At that particular moment in March of 1918, the one and only person in Tobolsk to tell the story of the alleged "sled on the stairs" was actually was nowhere near Alexei.  In reality, the then 19 year old Tatiana Botkin was holed-up with her 17 year old brother Gleb in a completely separate set of rooms a considerable distance away from the Governor's mansion, in the middle of a snowstorm.

No one who was actually in Alexei's presence during that same week at Tobolsk had made any reference at all to the use of a "sled on the stairs".  There is no confirming second source evidence of this alleged incident of any sort whatsoever in any of the personal diaries or private correspondence that were written by members Alexei's family, or by anyone else who was actually in the Governor's mansion for that matter.  

Tatiana Botkin is the only source of this story.  During that same week, Nicholas and Alexandra had both written in their diaries that the start of that very same episode at Tobolsk had begun when Alexei developed a pain in his groin from a cough.  Given a choice, which would your rather believe?... Alexei's own parents, or a teenage girl stuck living with her younger brother in a set of rented rooms across town?

Quote
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,


All of this is pure speculation after the fact, with no supporting evidence for any single incident of bruising recorded prior to the episode at Spala in October of 1912.  That his joint problems may have been caused by bleeding into the joints is also a subject of purely second hand information and speculation.

One only need to look for proof at those now famous photographs that everyone here has seen of Alexei being given a mud bath at Livadia in the Ukraine. Mud baths of this type are perfectly useless for the treatment of joint pain caused by bleeding.  To this very day, however, these very same mud baths of the type that Alexei was administered at Livadia are known to be the traditional Ukrainian treatment for pain in the major joints that is caused by chronic and severe arthritis.

Both Doctors Botkin and Federov would have been fully aware of this fact. Known by its medical name of Balneotherapy, a total of 291 peer reviewed medical studies on the subject of mud bath therapy for joint pain in chronic and rheumatoid arthritis are listed in the archives of the National Library of Medicine.   The large majority of those very same medical papers are written in Russian.

Obviously, joint pain from arthritis has nothing at all to with haemophilia, but serious joint pain from chronic arthritis is known for a fact to occur in another equally serious class of blood disorders that most certainly can produce the same type of bleeding episodes that are seen Alexei's case.  It is also quite possible for certain examples of this other class of blood disorders to be acquired in the very same X-linked fashion of inheritance as haemophilia.

Quote
 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.


Fever is most certainly *not* a primary symptom of haemophilia.

Fevers do not occur as a direct result of bleeding caused by a clotting factor deficiency.  Generally, fevers only occur in cases of haemophilia as a result of secondary infection acquired through open wounds that have resisted healing.  Fevers of the type you have described most certainly do occur, however, when the blood's inability to clot in cases of bleeding or haemorrhage is caused by a low platelet count.  That, of course, brings us right back to the very same medical term that you have so strongly opposed elsewhere on this board... thrombocytopenia.

Sorry to rock the boat again, but, the evidence of Alexei's fevers... fevers which generally do not happen in cases of bleeding caused by a clotting factor deficiency... his famously sudden recovery at Spala... Nicholas II's doctors treating their young patient for swollen and painful joints at Livadia with a traditional Ukrainian mud bath... this evidence and much more that is recorded in Alexei's medical history, all points in the direction of a very much different class of blood disorders.

JK
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 14, 2005, 10:10:09 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on April 14, 2005, 10:43:42 PM
Mr. Kendrick -- let us agree to disagree.  Your article in the American Journal of Hematology has been discussed elsewhere and not a few of the people commenting about it on this forum are medical specialists who have concluded that thrombocytopenia in an infant would have proven fatal to him or her in weeks.  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.   Contrary to the extrapolations you have in fact devised for the sake of a claimant, the doctors attending the Tsarevich did leave a medical description of the Spala episode that points to hemophilia and its complications.  They duly recorded in a proper medical record other than the official report made by Count Fredericks (that he produced in order to mislead the public) that Alexei Nikolaevich bled into his hip joint and muscle.  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.

You were not there to see the boy suffer, either... but his mother, his father and his doctors were, and worried about him in terms of the Royal Disease it was customary for his extended family not to speak of.  You dismiss a number of smaller episodes Alexei himself noted in his diary because they do not fit your construct.  Those day-to-day mishaps attest to the fact that hemophilia was a 24/7/365 fact of life for the boy.  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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Olga on April 14, 2005, 11:50:49 PM
Quote
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.


Why are you so quick to think I'm questioning your posts*? Have I touched a claimant story nerve? You must have something to hide.

*I am, in case you couldn't guess.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on April 15, 2005, 02:26:36 AM
Quote
You probably have heard my name before.  You'll find it in the September 2004 issue of the American Journal of Hematology.


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.

Mr Kendrick, please correct me if I am mistaken, but you are not a qualified Hematologist are you?

With respect, it is somewhat unreasonable to give the impression that your "Historical Perspective" has the same meritorious standing as the accompaning  publications within the same J.

Many of us are aware that you maintain an interest with your claimant hypothesis concerning Mr Tammet, which your own website clearly demonstrates.

Mr Kendrick, it is not worthy of you to obfuscate your true intentions. >:(






Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Kimberly on April 15, 2005, 07:40:49 AM
I dont consider bleeding umbilical stumps for up to six weeks as "fairly ordinary"
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 15, 2005, 10:07:33 AM
Some of you need to remember that something did not necessarily happen just because you've always believed it did. ;) Be prepared to accept that you could be wrong, at least!

I do not know JKendrick's name from anywhere, but he has put across my thoughts on the issue in a much better way that I possibly could have done. :D Thank you!
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Olga on April 15, 2005, 11:42:51 AM
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?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 15, 2005, 11:47:46 AM
Quote
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?


Well, I don't the reasons for his comments; I am not talking about claims, but about whether or not Alexei had haemophilia... Does it really matter what JK's motives are? Surely not, as far as this issue goes, at least.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on April 15, 2005, 12:27:48 PM
Please bear in mind that these particular theories espoused by Mr. Kendrick were developed in the best interests of a false Alexei and as such serve ulterior motives - an elaborate attempt to explain away the Royal Disease known to have struck certain descendants of Queen Victoria for the sake of promoting the cause of a man that did not have hemophilia.

His melange of medical terms - aplastic anemia, thrombocytopenia, X-linked disorder, splenomegaly, central nervous system involvement... what have you - make too much of one particular episode that threatened Alexei Nikolaevich's life.  His further suggestions that one set of homologic symptoms can literally morph into the form of leukemia that took his claimant's life after what he claims was a period of long dormancy strike me as an unusual phenomenon foreign to responsible science.  Never has one disease of the blood mutated into another so completely different except in the wild speculations of someone so determined as this to fly in the face of the most logical explanation for what amounted for 14 years of suffering.

Remember, Alexei Nikolaevich's bruises could swell up into hematomas that forced his eyes closed as they did when he was a toddler (see a letter from the Dowager Empress Marie to the Tsar that discusses this), contorted his limbs as they did at three years old and later, and often sent him to bed, as the boy's own diaries testify.   Yet Mr. Kendrick chooses to ignore all empirical testimony by the Imperial Family, their tutors and even their captors that Alexei led the day to day life of a hemophiliac, regardless of whether he or his parents ever used the word in their letters and diaries.  An ordinary boy gets ordinary bumps and bruises and life goes on as always.   Doctors in attendance during the Spala episode were dismayed to find that their confidential discussions of Alexei's disease had been breached in 1912 when Reuters and the Associated Press leaked out the word 'hemophilia' in their newspaper articles.  In 1918 Yurovsky made the remark in one of his long narratives 'the boy has hemophilia', as if to say that this inconvenienced the Bolsheviks.

And Mr. Kendrick challenges me to find anything dated earlier than the death of the Tsarevich that mentions what disease he had.  It was an open secret that no one polite wanted to discuss in public what he had.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Olga on April 15, 2005, 12:31:39 PM
Quote
Does it really matter what JK's motives are?


It does. He wrote that paper which he loves to refer to , and exists on this thread for the sole purpose of saying Alexei Nikolaevich did not have haemophilia. You see, Heino Tammet did not have haemophilia. See the links?  ;)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 15, 2005, 01:32:57 PM
I do indeed see the links. But on this thread we are not discussing claimants and how they will endeavour to prove their claims. JK's comments may be useful regardless of their motives, and I don't think you can write them off just because you do not like/approve/believe in their root reasons. Is that not so?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on April 15, 2005, 02:27:36 PM
Oh, by the way --  the claims of William Lavery, the Scots headmaster who claimed to be the son of the mysterious Nikolai Chebotarev and Princess Marina of Kent, were proven by DNA testing to be false.  Blood Relative is nothing more but an interesting psychological study how a troubled man's search for his biological parents produced a sad take on the inevitable childhood abandonment fantasy, 'My real mother and father were a prince and princess'.

"Michael Gray" did borrow the term 'Thrombocytopenia' and mixed it in with his particular conspiracy theories surrounding the innocent young Tsarevich:  due to the necessity for any claimant to vehemently protest that Alexei did not have what history itself demonstrates he had.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on April 15, 2005, 02:32:12 PM
Can't we forget all that? Really, that should be of no significance in a discussion about the Tsarevich's illness. I don't know about these people who you name, but I don't think that their claims, presumably supported by the idea that Alexei did not have haemophilia, should make any difference to our views on the issue.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 15, 2005, 06:06:19 PM
Quote

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.


If that is the sort of reasoning that you feel you need to use in order to help yourself deal with this paper's publication, then that is your choice.  This research paper most certainly was *not* presented, as you suggest, as a mere curiosity.  Nor was it written by invitation.  

The American Journal of Hematology is a completely peer-reviewed journal.  Everything that is submitted to the journal must be placed before the peer review panel before it is accepted for publication.  This paper was no exception.  It was fully subjected to the same process of review that is required of any other medical paper that may be submitted to the journal.  Its historical and medical content were thoroughly checked for accuracy and its references were fully reviewed.

The fact that it was presented under the title "Historical Perspective" was not to set it apart from any other papers in the journal, as you have suggested.  It was the decision of the 31 haematology and oncology professors who sit on the journal's editorial board to give this paper its own new category for two purely practical reasons.  The first was that the AJH had never published an investigation of any historical cases before and the subject of this paper did not fit with any of the existing categories in the journal.  The second and far more important reason was simply because this medical paper is almost four times longer than the maximum permitted word length in any of the other categories.  
 
Make no mistake, this paper was fully subjected to exactly the same rigorous process of review as any other medical paper that may be submitted to the journal.   You can rest assured that if this paper had not managed to pass the peer review process that was required of it... then we would not be talking about it here today.  

In regard to other comments made elsewhere on this thread, 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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on April 15, 2005, 06:38:30 PM
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.  Surely it will take a while for a 'Letter to the Editor' to appear before the public in the American Journal of Hematology due to the publication schedules such things tend towards.  Medical specialists will have written a suitable deconstruction if they care to.

Any determination to debunk the legend of Rasputin is incidental to your real purposes.  He did a lot more to calm Alexandra than to heal Alexei.  The lad did not recover spontaneously; his fever merely broke when the long process began.  I leave it to those more qualified than myself to say more -  if in fact they care to do so without having found the boy in Yekaterinburg, on the basis of logic alone.


Just have the tests paid for as Oleg Filatov, William Lavery and the supporters of Anna Anderson did, and you will at last the denouement of this whole production -- probably not the one that you desire.  It is a pity your interesting but reckless theories about Alexei Nikolaevich's suffering were not proposed altruistically -- as you admit elsewhere here, this impressive Rube Goldberg of yours has appeared - as always for Tammet's sake.  
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Olga on April 15, 2005, 09:58:36 PM
J_Kendrick, just admit it. You think Alexei Nikolaevich didn't have haemophilia because you support Heino Tammet.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on April 16, 2005, 05:11:44 AM
Quote
I dont consider bleeding umbilical stumps for up to six weeks as "fairly ordinary"


You are perfectly correct, such an event is cause for concern and parents who experience this are urged to seek prompt medical assistance.

It is not normal, despite what the Mr Kendrick chooses to believe.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on April 16, 2005, 06:17:04 AM
Quote
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


Mr Kendrick you are not a trained medical scientist, and yet you continue this charade as if you understand Alexei's illness better than his attending learned physicians or his own mother. Hemophilia was understood to be an inherited condition. The learned Russian professors were quite well aware about the nature of Alexei's condition. To insult them as you have, only discredits you further.

Not everything which passes review, whether cursory or stringent, will bear the hallmark of credibility. Perhaps as a journalist you may recall the recent Cold Fusion publication? The world buzzed with excitement until it was proven to be a fallacy.

It is highly offensive to believe that your Historical piece is being used to further your personal agenda in favor of a survivalist hypothesis.

If this contention is mistaken then kindly direct me otherwise.

Perhaps you can explain what you are implying when you use the term "right believers", this definition is not part of my lexicon. One can only summize that at the other end of the continuum "wrong believers" must refer to some form of inventive journalism?







Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 16, 2005, 10:48:07 PM
Quote
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.  


Oh no, you don't.  You can't get away with it that easily. :-)

You can't just come out on the attack, and then when your opponent fights back .. simply expect that you can get away with beating a hasty retreat to the traditional fall back position of the "holy martyrs" cult by claiming that you don't need to prove anything because history is on your side.  Just because the Palace gossip Catherine Radziwill had started a rumour that no one at the Palace had ever denied and no one has dared to challenge since (at least, not until now)... does not make it true.   If you must insist on taking pot shots at a published and peer-reviewed paper in an open public forum, then you had better be prepared to back up your words with action.

Fair's fair, after all.   I have stated my position, done the research, submitted it to peer-review, passed the requirements of a panel of experts, and published it in an appropriate journal for all to see.   Now it's your turn.  You can't just throw rocks at me from behind the bushes and then run away.  Come out from behind that pseudonym of yours, step up to the plate, and show us what you've got.

Claiming that you don't feel qualified to write for a medical journal doesn't cut it either.  Contrary to what you may choose to believe, medical and scientific journals do not concern themselves with the qualifications of their contributors.  They are only concerned that your research has been thorough, that your conclusions are sound, and that your work can stand up to the scrutiny of a panel of experts who will check it for accuracy.  Anyone can make submissions to a journal, so long as their work will stand up to the test of review.  Given your obvious opinions about both my research, and me, then if I can write a journal submission and be successful... then surely, so can you.

If you're still not willing to go in that direction, then let's play that DNA game of which you are so particularly fond.  Empress Alexandra's own DNA and the DNA of three of her four daughters have been available for testing for the past 14 years, ever since their remains were exhumed from that burial pit in the Koptyaki Forest in 1991....  So....

Show us the DNA test results on those very same samples from Pig's Meadow that will prove to us once and for all that the Empress Alexandra actually was the carrier of a suspected faulty Factor VIII gene.  The gene is certainly big enough to see and everyone knows where to find it... at gene locus Xq28 on the long arm of the X-Chromosome.  You have four chances to find it... in the DNA of Empress Alexandra and in the DNA of her three discovered daughters.

It's no secret that Alexandra's DNA has been tested for porphyria and the results were found to be negative, even though the results were never published.  So, if Alexandra's bones can be tested for evidence of her great-great-grandfather King George III's suspected disease, then they can most certainly be tested for the evidence of that suspected faulty Factor VIII gene.

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, and you can rest assured that any curious scientist who does happen to have samples of Alexandra's DNA in his hot little hands has certainly tried to go looking for it.

And what if they couldn't find any DNA evidence of that suspected faulty gene?... 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.

Before I sign off... in response to "Belochka"...  

You speak as though Drs. Federov and Botkin themselves had known everything that there was to know about X-linked inheritance and faulty clotting factors.  An interesting notion to be sure, but quite impossible.   The concept of X-linked genes was first discussed in the journal "Elementary Genetics" in 1949... a full 31 years *after* the Imperial murders.   The research that first led to that particular discussion of X-linked inheritance had nothing at all to do with haemophilia.   In fact, the research that had led to that very first published paper about X-linked genes was a study of the inheritance patterns that lead to the birth of Tortoiseshell cats.  The clotting Factors VIII and IX that are now known to cause haemophilia were not even given names until an international medical conference in 1964, in the very same year that Robert Massie first started his research on "Nicholas and Alexandra"... a full 52 years *after* Alexei's most serious  episode at Spala.... 46 years after Dr. Botkin's death in 1918... and 28 years after Dr. Fedorov's passing in 1936.

So... I have another question for you.  Please tell me who was the very first person to diagnose Alexei's great uncle Prince Leopold as a haemophiliac?   Before you do, however, remember this:  Leopold died in 1884... and the very first use ever of the word "haemophiliac" was in the medical journal 'The Lancet'... in the year 1896.   How was it possible to diagnose Leopold as a haemophiliac when he had already been dead for a full 12 years before the word had ever existed?  

Two years before his death, 'The Lancet' had used the word "Haematophilia" in its first reference to Leopold's case in 1882.  But if we were to take that word literally and use today's modern definition of "haematophilia" then it would mean that 'The Lancet' might actually have been saying that Leopold was a vampire.  Then there is the well-known evidence of Leopold's seizures that occurred at the height of his most serious bleeding episodes... which most definitely are *not* a symptom of haemophilia!  You can read all about that too... in the American Journal of Hematology. :-)

... and you asked about my use of the term "Right Believer"... Ask "Pravoslavnaya" to explain the Russian translation.  I'm sure she'll be quite happy to tell you.

JK
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 16, 2005, 11:03:05 PM
Quote
I dont consider bleeding umbilical stumps for up to six weeks as "fairly ordinary"


Ask the closest paediatrican, obstetrician, or haematologist of your choice.  You could even ask the nearest midwife, for that matter.  You'll probably be very surprised by their answers.

Apparently, you haven't spent a lot of time around maternity wards.

JK
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Olga on April 16, 2005, 11:20:51 PM
J_Kendrick, please answer my question.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Kimberly on April 17, 2005, 02:55:34 AM
J kendrick,I am a neonatal nurse of some 25 years standing and i have also posed this question to our lead paediatrician and he agreed that he would be EXTREMELY concerned regarding long term bleeding from an umbilical stump and as far as he is concerned this is abnormal.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on April 17, 2005, 05:26:35 AM
Quote
... 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


Thank you Kimberly for confirming what I stated earlier.

Mr Kendrick I contend that it is you who would be surprised by the real answers. As a journalist you are not in the informed position to contend that bleeding from the umbilicus for six weeks is normal.

Some of us here are trained medical personnel. Please trust what Kimberly has confirmed. Bleeding from the umbilicus in neonates is abnormal. What we have stated here is absolutely correct.

Your lack of medical training is apparent, by virtue of your continuing misinterpretion of very basic medical facts, which you have tossed to suit your own, now very obvious agenda.

The majority of medical practitioners do not publish. Does that failure in your eyes imply that their learned medical wisdom must be ignored? I think not.
_____________________________________________

Mr Kendrick kindly please explain why you can "guarantee" that the Hemophilia gene will never be located on Alexandra's DNA? How can you be so confident that despite continuing refinement of DNA technological techniques, a laboratory assay will prove any assay to be inconclusive?

If and when the analytical evidence is ever confirmed, then we must at least agree on one point - since this result is unavailable at present, then any suggestion about presence or absence of the Hemophilia gene on Alexandra's DNA is a moot point.

In the absence of conclusive evidence it is erroneous to suggest that because the gene for Hemophilia has not been identified as yet on Alexandra's DNA, then, this information can be translated to reach your innovative notion that Alexandra was not a carrier. Reaching such an interpretation goes against credible investigative reporting.

Presented with the same evidence, conclusions reached can distinguish a medically trained person, to that of a person who is untrained in Hematology. Each investigator will interpret the same information from entirely different base lines. Your Historical Perspective does indicate this variance in interpretation. However what distinguishes your work even further is that you had a very different reason to interpret information in the manner in which you have.

We can be optimistic that one day an accredited medical researcher will analyze Alexandra's DNA to complement the documented physical evidence. Until that day arrives Mr Kendrick, then may I suggest you be truthful to yourself and to the Russian community.

Demonstrating respect for Russia's painful past would be an excellent beginning.

 
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Kimberly on April 17, 2005, 07:30:22 AM
My pleasure Belochka,and can i add that in a situation like this we would nowadays investigate the caus of the bleeding and run bloodtests including full blood count.pro-thrombin levels,clotting times etc. and if these were deranged i.e. abnormal,further investigations may include detecting levels of clotting factors (particularly v111 and v1x) regards kim
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on April 17, 2005, 04:42:16 PM
The fact that haemophilia was in the family (his cousins died from haemophila related attacks) would suggest that Alexei also had haemophilia.

And, Mr Kendrick, a Passion-Bearer is indeed considered a Saint in the Orthodox Church. If they were not considered Saints, there would not be icons of them. The martyred Tsesarevich and his family are included in the ranks of the Saints of the Orthodox Church. Are you yourself pravoslavny, or do you presume to tell people who are Orthodox, who has been glorified or not by the Church?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on April 17, 2005, 11:27:39 PM
Mr Kendrick,

@ p 95 of your Historical Perspective article, you contend:

... "The first thing they seized upon was four short entries in the Tsar's diary of 1904 that refer to his newborn son's one brief episode of umbilical bleeding during a single evening in early September[3]."

Reference # 3 is Maylunas A. and Mitronenko. S. A Lifelong Passion, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, The Orion Publishing Group pp 247-248

Now let us look at Emperor Nicholai's diary entries:

"Nicky, Diary - 8 September - Peterhof

At 11 o'clock I took the children to church. We lunched alone. Alix and I were very worried because little Alexei started bleeding from the navel, and it continued on and off until evening! We had to send for Korovin and the surgeon Fedorov: at about 7 o'clock they applied a bandage. ....

9 September

In the morning there was blood on the bandage: from 12 o'clock until the evening there was nothing.

10 September

Alexei did not have a show of blood all day.

11 September

Thank God, dear Alexei has had no more bleeding now for 48 hours!." [/i]
_____________________________________________

Mr Kendrick the diary entries clearly state that Alexei bled on two separate days:

1. September 9 during the day UNTIL the evening.

2. On September 10, which is the next day, Alexei bled at least until 12 o'clock.

What one can clearly demonstrate here is that the pattern of bleeding was intermittent. He presented with bleeding episodes on TWO successive days. It was certainly not one single episode "during a single evening" as you have prefered to interpret.

_____________________________________________

Now let us read the contents of your Reference # 4 titled:

"Your Newborn: about your baby; http://babies.sutterhealth.org/afterthebirth/newborn/nb_about.html

it states:

"Navel & Umbilical Cord

The stump of the umbilical cord, which remains temporarily attached to the navel, should be kept clean, dry, and free from diaper irritation. ....

... Usually the stump will fall off between seven and 14 days after birth, but may stay attached up to a month. After the stump has fallen off, there is often a pinkish discharge from the navel. This is nornal (their error in spelling) and does not need any treatment.

*Report any bleeding, unusual discharge, redness, swelling, irritation, or foul odor around the navel to your baby's health care provider."


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let us now read what you have stated in the same continuing paragraph, at p 95 of your Historical Perspective:

..."Many new parents who have witnessed such bleeding will understand that it can be fairly ordinary as many as six weeks after birth, depending on when the umbilical stump falls away, which can take as long as a month [4]. A century later, it would not now be considered a certain indication of the presence of a specific inherited blood disorder without the aid of additional testing to identify the cause."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr Kendrick, it appears you have selectively used the Sutter Health site's statements. We can agree that a brief "pinkish discharge from the navel"  AFTER the stump has fallen off, can be a normal event.

BUT the site clearly identifies that "ANY BLEEDING", is not a normal event.

This warning is presented at the end of the Navel & Umbilical Cord section MUST BE READ in totality to the section.

The Sutter Health site clearly warns parents should such an event occur in their newborn, it is advisable to seek medical attention. Parents, even a century ago would understand this simple fact. Emperor Nikolai II expressed his own concern in his September 8 diary entry. He would have understood what this would have implied. The learned Professors would have informed their Emperor on September 8.

_____________________________________________

Mr Kendrick one can only be deeply concerned about the manner of your other interpretations within the same paper.

Judging by the two examples I have presented here, I would be very surprised that the review board really tested your evidence against the references which you provided.

_____________________________________________

Furthermore please extend the courtesy of refering to Nikolai Alexandrovich as Emperor. He was not a Tsar - a title which has not been used since Peter the Great adopted the title of Emperor in 1721.

Mr Kendrick,

Georgiy is perfectly correct, a Passion-Bearer is indeed considered a Saint in the Orthodox Church.

You really need to do your homework before you  expouse your misguided interpretations.

One can safely conclude that your irrational hypothesis concerning Mr Tammet's delusive pretensions are simply just that.

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 21, 2005, 11:37:54 PM
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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Olga on April 21, 2005, 11:50:00 PM
J_Kendrick, just admit it. You think Alexei Nikolaevich didn't have haemophilia because you support Heino Tammet.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on April 22, 2005, 07:13:54 AM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 27, 2005, 09:45:49 PM
Quote

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.


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.

Ever since the Revolution, Nicholas II's modern image has been masterfully tailored by the same group of authors... almost all of whom have had some sort of personal interest in the telling.  Everyone who's here watching the parade should know that Nicholas II's historically popular image... the Emperor's new suit of clothes, if you will... meticulously woven from weak threads of palace gossip and unconfirmed witness accounts, in actual fact, has very little substance.  If you look very carefully, you can see right through that new suit of clothes that now dresses up the story to the truth that lies beneath.

"And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever to appear holding up a train, although, in reality, there was no train to hold."  
Hans Christian Anderson, 1837.

Quote
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.


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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on April 27, 2005, 11:34:32 PM
Quote

 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


There is no such place as Kostromo Mr Kendrick.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on April 27, 2005, 11:36:41 PM
Quote

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.


You have not PROVEN your thrombocytopenia/aplastic anemia hypothesis.  You have merely ASSERTED it.  You have also ignored all the other instances of Alexei Nikolaevich's sufferings, manipulated symptomology that is homologous to that of hemophilia in order to deceive the unwary, and clothed it in careful medical jargon.  You have merely challenged the simplest and best explanation of the lad's disease in order to suit your purposes.  It was not an altruistic enterprise in the least:  imagine the respect  you might have gained among actual practitioners of the medical profession if it had been so!   Imagine how plausible your assertions might have been if they had indeed been made out of respect for the Tsesarevich Alexei!!!


Quote
 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.


Just because you have written that particular paper on behalf of Heino Tammet and had it published does not make it true, and does not mean your position supersedes all the historical fact you brush aside.   Alexei Nikolaevich was said to have hemophilia in the 1912 newspaper articles appearing long before he died, and long before Catherine Radziwill's book came out.  The boy's own doctors suffered a leak of that confidential information.

Has anyone else that was supposed to have hemophilia ever had the strange melange of symptoms you claim Alexei eventually developed, or does any other disease mutate into another one completely unlike it as you assert aplastic anemia degenerates into leukemia?  Are you sure Factor VIII and Factor IX are not sex-linked and produce hemophilia only in boys?  Can you honestly say females in the royal families of Europe did not suffer from aplastic anemia, and that infantile thrombocytopenia would not have killed off an infant Tsarevich?

Quote
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.


The trouble is that you deal ONLY with the Spala episode, disregarding all the other times the Tsarevich-Martyr suffered.  And suffer he did, from August 1904 through July 1918.  Explain all Alexei's other hematomas, fevers, nosebleeds, digestive troubles and various other annoyances brought on by his chronic condition.  History could and does.  He and his parents knew its challenges well.  These were the days without Factor VIII and IX treatments.  Hemophilia was a lot worse then, and the Tsarevich suffered every moment of every episode -- not just that one that you have drawn such conclusions about that brought him so near death.  He bled into his hip joint and muscle -- an area difficult to heal because blood eats into bone and tissue and there is nothing to tether it.   The doctors' own medical report even says so, and does not mention the spleen.   Poor Alexei Nikolaevich!!!  He lost a lot of blood, and had to resorb it.  You just don't want to admit that the simplest explanation is the best, even if it refutes every claimant that has ever dared appropriate his identity.  Ernst-Heino Tammet-Veerman was as unique an individual as the Tsarevich he stole from.

Quote
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.


One day the truth about Ernst Veerman and the reasons he overidentified with Alexei Nikolaevich will come out.  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.

Quote
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


DNA testing of the Veerman-Tammet sample against that of the Empress-Martyr Alexandra is the only way this matter will be finally put to rest and you know it.  Obfuscating this by suggesting other tests against other individuals than the one you make such claims on behalf of is not going to give any answers that will vindicate the real Alexei.  

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on April 27, 2005, 11:39:24 PM
Quote
 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


How can you be so certain of this? Kindly please provide concrete documented evidence of this claim.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on April 27, 2005, 11:57:56 PM
Quote

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.


I applaud your wisdom Pravoslavnaya!

To create a false identity in order to deceive a few is stupid, but to further those claims by another is even more pathetic.



Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 28, 2005, 02:46:10 AM
Quote

There is no such place as Kostromo Mr Kendrick.


What's this?  You can't even deal with a simple typo?  ;D

Kostroma...

http://dev.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/04/15/003.html
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 28, 2005, 02:59:49 AM
Quote

How can you be so certain of this? Kindly please provide concrete documented evidence of this claim.


How can you be so certain of the haemophilia claim?   Just because everyone else before you has told you that it was.. and you don't ever dare question it?  

That's certainly not a vaild reason.  Kindly please provide concrete scientific medical laboratory proof of this claim.

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 28, 2005, 03:14:20 AM
Quote

You have not PROVEN your thrombocytopenia/aplastic anemia hypothesis.  You have merely ASSERTED it.
 


You have *not* proven your favourite haemophilia claim either.  You have merely ASSERTED it.  There is *no* medical laboratory proof.  No solid scientific proof whatsoever.  It's only a story, and nothing more.

Simply telling a story over and over again so many times that everyone eventually gets brainwashed by it... does *not* make it true.

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on April 28, 2005, 07:14:16 AM
Mr. Kendrick, your hypothesis will not be proven or disproven until Heino Tammet's DNA is compared to that of the Empress-Martyr Alexandra.  The great majority of those that care about Alexei Nikolaevich respect the weight of historical evidence and accept a simple explanation for the boy's sufferings.  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 (as opposed to the official announcement by Count Fredericks that you hang it on) without the DNA proof it needs to back it up just because it has appeared in print.  Many spurious and sensational things have appeared in print and upset many people, only to be proven erroneous in time.  You had to work hard to get what after all are the same old speculations in a convincing package.  It will take either DNA testing or the consideration and reasoning of medical professionals to render them intelligent but ultimately unreasonable from a true medical standpoint.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Olga on April 28, 2005, 09:00:05 AM
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'.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 28, 2005, 01:19:59 PM
Quote
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


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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 28, 2005, 01:37:19 PM
Quote
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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lanie on April 28, 2005, 03:05:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on April 28, 2005, 05:05:42 PM
Quote

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


It would be interesting to read the entire statement from Dr. Weatherall...rather than just one line of quotation,taken out of context....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on April 28, 2005, 05:21:56 PM
Quote
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.


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.

Deal with it.

JK
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on April 28, 2005, 10:17:42 PM
Quote

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.


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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 02, 2005, 11:28:25 PM
Quote
 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.

This has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is did the Tsarevich have hemophilia.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on May 03, 2005, 02:48:20 PM
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  
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on May 03, 2005, 03:55:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: bluetoria on May 03, 2005, 04:04:08 PM
Quote
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.


Indeed. And, having read through all the posts, apart from the fact that everyone at the time believed him to have haemophilia; that haemophilia was in the family; & that he had all the symptoms of haemophilia, some of the posters on this & other threads are experts in their field of research in haematology etc. & they believe he had haemophilia. Why are their statements are still being disputed.  ???
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Maria_Romanov_fan on May 03, 2005, 04:09:18 PM
Quote

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.  


Good points everyone, but I have a question.

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?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on May 03, 2005, 04:11:18 PM
Quote
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.


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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: bluetoria on May 03, 2005, 04:22:55 PM
Quote

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?


You often come out bruised after riding! The slightest jolt can cause a haemophiliac to bleed sometimes, just as sometimes you can get a bruise with a slight knock & other times a big knock leaves you unmarked. A bruise is kind of small internal bleeding. In a haemophiliac this bleeding would be greater. The spleen manufactures lymphocytes (blood cells) & breaks down red blood corpuscles.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on May 03, 2005, 06:38:57 PM
Haemophilia aside...and I certainly believe the poor chap suffered from this malady as did many of the descendants of Queen Victoria( please try to find and read "Queen Victoria's Gene"...by D.M./W.T.W. Potts...marvelous work)...I don't imagine the biggest,strongest 14 year old in the world could have survived that cellar of horror....Those were vicious,hardened soldiers on the giving end of those guns....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on May 03, 2005, 09:17:52 PM
Quote
Pravoslavnaya, why not debate only on the issue in hand, i.e., whether or not the tsarervich had haemophilia?


I am stressing the idea that only a person with a vested interest in contesting the most likely explanation of the Heir Tsarevich's sufferings would be so violently opposed to the diagnosis of hemophilia.  There would otherwise be no logical reason to question it or no basis on which to make an hypothesis as to whatever he might have had otherwise.  A back reference from some non-hemophiliac's diseases towards a diagnosis homologous to hemophilia deliberately serves a claimant's purposes, and that is precisely what has been done here.  This presentation was made by Mr. Kendrick with anything but an objective motive.

Quote
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.


Look at it this way... even if Alexei's bleeding were the result of a disease other than hemophilia, he certainly would have bled to death as a result of his injuries....

Quote
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.


Surviving the horrible events in the Yekaterinburg cellar would have been impossible, especially with a group of executioners bound and determined to persevere and to make sure the eleven victims were all dead.  Whether the Tsarevich were a hemophiliac or not is a moot point from that perspective.

Quote
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.

Do you in particular have any valid and specific challenge to the diagnosis of hemophilia other than to claim that those defending Alexei Nikolaevich against non-hemophiliac impostors do not have an open mind?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 03, 2005, 10:15:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on May 04, 2005, 03:19:46 AM
Quote
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.

You're not listening. ::) ;) Forget claimants, please!!

Quote
claim that those defending Alexei Nikolaevich against non-hemophiliac impostors do not have an open mind?

Putting words into my mouth there. I said:

Quote
I'm calling for a bit more open-mindedness


Note, more open-minded. And, really, don't you think that you could be more open-minded? Why just write it all off as impossible?

Quote
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.


Can we return to topic now, please? :)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on May 04, 2005, 03:20:42 AM
Quote
 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?

Spot on, Lexi. :D
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on May 04, 2005, 07:30:21 AM
Quote
Pravoslavnaya,
Why are you attacking Mr. Kendrick? We all know who he is. I have read what he has written.


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.

Quote
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.


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.

Quote
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.


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.
   
Quote
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.


I apologize if I have given the impression of personal hostility towards anyone who does not think hemophilia is the most logical explanation for the sufferings of Alexei Nikolaevich, as this is not my intent.

Quote
So, can we please stick to the topix which is Did the Tsarevich suffer from hemophilia?


I insist that those of us who oppose the claims made by Mr. Kendrick have stuck to the topic:  we feel that he supports a fraudulent cause because Alexei Nikolaevich DID suffer from the disease.

Quote
Or will I now be attacked.


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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on May 04, 2005, 10:23:38 AM
The Spanish Royal family...because of Queen Ena...were visited with the curse of haemophlia...what are the chances that the family of AF didn't have this disease as well...?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on May 04, 2005, 04:19:34 PM
That's right. The fact is, and it is verifiable, that certain descendants of Queen Victoria suffered from haemophilia. It would be most strange if all these other relatives had haemophilia, but Alexei didn't, rather having some disease that mimics haemophilia but isn't haemophilia. I reiterate, the only people that suggest that he didn't have haemophilia are those who have a vested interest to say otherwise.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 04, 2005, 04:25:16 PM
Quote

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.


I don't think it was Mr. Kendrick who brought up the topic of claimants. I for one and interested in this theories and hope this hasn't discouraged him from posting.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on May 04, 2005, 05:29:44 PM
Besides Mr. Tammet not looking very much like Alexei or any of his relations....I can't imagine the family wanting to go through any DNA testing...they'd seem rather sad....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 04, 2005, 07:59:26 PM
Quote
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.


I support no claimants. But at least a couple of us found this discussion interesting and are open to discussing it. When I am not interested in discussing a particular topic, I just don't participate. I am interested in listening to what Mr. Kendrick has to say. I have learned some things from his posts. They have made me research more to explore for myself. And that is a good thing. So, I hope Mr. Kendrick will continue to post and I hope we can stay on topic.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on May 04, 2005, 09:54:52 PM
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. :)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 04, 2005, 10:38:13 PM
Quote
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. :)

Well, I was interested in the discussion. However, this thread has digressed to personal attacks and we can't seem to get back on topic. I give up. Not worth the energy to continue.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on May 04, 2005, 11:05:47 PM
Lexi, I hope you don't think I am making personal attacks, as that is not my intention, and it is a great sin which stems from pride. However, if what i have said has been taken as a personal attack, then I apologise and will try to be more careful with how I write in the future so that things aren't misinterpreted.  All I have been saying is if one can't show any irrefutable evidence that Alexei did not suffer from haemophilia, then claiments who don't have haemophilia have an enormous, uncrossable hurdle. All evidence points to him having haemophilia, so the onus of people who say no he didn't is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he suffered from something else.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on May 05, 2005, 03:17:45 AM
Quote

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.


That particular "medical record" that you have chosen to quote..  the same one you complained about me using in my analysis of the Spala episode.. is a statement released by the Ministry of the Imperial Court.  It is not a "medical record" as the retired Irish school master William Lavery, a.k.a. Blood Relative author "Michael Gray", has suggested.   While this statement certainly is the only medical information on Alexei's condition ever published by the palace, in reality, it's actually nothing more than a 93 year old press release.   This is the same kind of public statement that's traditionally found tacked to the iron gates in front of Buckingham Palace on those very rare occasions when the Palace has considered the situation serious enough to warrant a public announcement.

No press release, be it from royalty, from politicians, or be it from anyone else for that matter, will ever contain any more information than has been deemed absolutely necessary to fulfil only the very barest minimum requirements of the public's need to know.  The authors of such published statements will occasionally throw in an impressive technical term or two to give it an air of authority and make the words appear to be honest and forthright, but they will never give out anything more than the very barest of information... unless it serves to their own political advantage.

Why doesn't that same palace statement that carries the names of Drs. Raukhfus, Federov, Botkin, and Ostrogorsky, ever make any  mention of Aplastic Crisis?  The answer is simple:  For the same reason that  those very same doctors had never made any mention at all of X-linked clotting factors.   No one even knew what an Aplastic Crisis was until it had first become the subject of a research study in 1947..  a full 35 years after the Spala episode.   All four doctors whose names were on that Palace statement in October of 1912 had long since departed this world by then.   For that same reason of chronology, no one, including Robert Massie, had ever made any mention of the clotting Factors VIII and IX until many years after the first publication of "Nicholas and Alexandra" in 1967.   The clotting factors that we now know are responsible for haemophilia didn't even have names until 1964... Sixty long years after Alexei's birth.  

All that aside...

That you would even consider supporting your rebuttal with a reference from "Blood Relative" is a much more than adequate source of mirth all by itself... but ... Where on earth did you ever get the strange idea that 'hematoma retroperitoneale' is Latin for 'hematoma of the hip joint'?  

The word Haematoma we all know, but the definition of Retroperitoneal is:- Having to do with the area outside or behind the peritoneum, the tissue that lines the abdominal wall and covers most of the organs in the abdomen.  The retroperitoneal space is in front of the lower back and behind the abdominal lining (peritoneum).

Reach behind you to where your kidneys are located inside the abdominal cavity in the small of your back.... That's retroperitoneal.  Not exactly your hip joints, is it?
See:
http://powershowz.medicalillustration.com/generateexhibit.php?ID=8478&ExhibitKeywordsRaw=&TL=16353&A=63136

So.. What's the connection between retroperitoneal haematoma, the iliopsoas muscle, and a possible Splenic Trauma?... It's interesting that you should ask. :-)

Here's an example just for starters:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14723052

Retroperitoneal hematoma in children
Baeza-Herrera C, Garcia-Cabello LM, Villalobos-Ayala D, Osorio-Arguero CD.
Departamento de Cirugia General, Hospital Pediatrico Moctezuma, Mexico D.F.

INTRODUCTION: Retroperitoneal hematoma is frequently due to blunt trauma and is a challenging problem. Incidence of this complication in adults is high, but in childhood is uncommon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of 30 cases is presented. PTS was found between 10 and 12 points, zone II, 12, zone III, 17, and zone I, only one. We observed 33 associated injuries: 17 were pelvic fractures and nine, ureteral rupture. Three patients underwent hepatic or splenic laceration. Seventy-three percent of patients had exploratory laparotomy, but did not have exploration of retroperitoneum. CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneal hematoma in infancy should be treated conservatively.

... and the obvious source of that blunt trauma?  To quote Alexander Spiridovich: "The Tsarevich 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."

Here's another that's easy to find:
E Medicine
http://www.emedicine.com/radio/topic645.htm
Splenic Trauma

The most common presenting complaint in a stable patient is left upper abdominal or flank pain; however, the pain is probably not significantly referable to the spleen but is related more to overlying soft tissue and/or bone injury and peritoneal irritation by the hemoperitoneum. This is supported by the prevalence of missed subcapsular hematomas with regards to more advanced degrees of splenic injury. This is not to say that the spleen contains no pain sensors. Pain fibers are present within the splenic capsule, and they can elicit a strong response as proven by the severity of symptoms displayed during splenic infarction. The degree of pain elicited by a subcapsular hematoma is usually overlooked by physicians and patients alike.

LUQ (left upper quadrant) hematoma, if sufficiently large, can displace the shadow of the inferior splenic margin caudally, simulating splenomegaly.
- Subcapsular hematoma can produce a similar appearance, and the appreciated mass has distinct borders.
- Associated displacement of the left renal shadow also may be evident

The constitution of findings present when retroperitoneal hemorrhage or free intra-abdominal blood exists contrasts those just mentioned.
- Little, if any, mass effect on LUQ organs is apparent.
- Splenic margins are obscured, but this finding is not specific.
- Retroperitoneal blood can obliterate the left renal outline and psoas muscle margin.


And here's a couple more to peruse:
Extraperitoneal hemorrhage associated with splenic injury in infants and children:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10587138&dopt=Abstract
Blunt abdominal trauma in children: (34 splenic injuries out of 57 cases studied)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11057553

Continued in the following post...
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on May 05, 2005, 03:30:26 AM
Quote

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.


Let me make this perfectly clear.  Every single detail of the Tsarevich Alexei's medical history has been considered, from those first moments of August 12, 1904 to the very last moments in the Ipatiev half-cellar room in the early morning hours of July 17th, 1918.  Not one single piece of the available medical evidence has been missed, despite any other suggestions that you may chose to make to the contrary.

The symptoms that are recorded in the Tsarevich Alexei's case will never change.  They are a fact of history.  Whether there is a claimant in the shadows or not, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.  My conclusions would still be the same.  Only the diagnosis has changed.  The historically popular diathesis of haemophilia has never been proved by any scientific medical laboratory tests.  The symptoms in Alexei's case are still a far better fit with today's modern knowledge of the bleeding that is seen in the platelet disorders of haemolytic anemia.

Very much to the contrary of the statement you have made above, the conclusions in my paper have already passed the peer review "from those who actually deal with diseases of the blood".  Who else could you possibly imagine would be members of the review panel of the American Journal of Hematology?  That very same paper has been open to the full public scrutiny of the entire medical community at large ever since the very first day of its publication on August 11, 2004.  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.

And just so that you know...  The medical terms 'hematoma retroperitoneale' and 'musculus ileopsoas' that you've quoted from that single Palace statement of October 1912 are not Latin. They're Greek.

JK
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on May 05, 2005, 07:05:14 PM
Mr. Kendrick:

1.  I maintain that you assume that the medical summary in Russian signed by the Tsarevich's doctors you saw in Michael Gray's otherwise spurious book had the same text as the report by Count Fredericks, which you conveniently link to your own obfuscation of the Spala episode... unless you actually can read Russian.

2.  The terms 'hematoma retroperitonale' (literally 'bloody swelling in back of the peritoneum') and 'musculus ileopsas' are Latin.  Greek is not directly used in medical terminology.  I speak as someone in the medical field who had to take my courses in medical terminology like anyone else.  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.  Post-hemorrhagic anemia would have been a given in the days before Factor VIII and Factor IX.  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.    ;)

3.  Interested parties may want to track down a British journal called Hospital for issues dated in October or November of 1912, where Alexei's condition is actually discussed.  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.

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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 05, 2005, 07:17:04 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on May 05, 2005, 08:05:13 PM
Quote

Continued attacks and again this topic has nothing to do with Heino Tammet.



I believe my point # 5 was a point of debate:  can his hypotheses, such as they are, stand up independently of his claimant?  I also stated a particular reason for doubting they could.  IF he had come up with his ideas apart from anyone but ALEXEI, then there is a lot more plausibility in his arguments.

Point #6 was a response I made to an attack he made on those who are devoted to the Royal Martyrs of Russia.

If his theories hold no water when a man's claims are disproven, then that makes one less argument that Alexei did not have what he had.  Only those speaking on behalf of claimants have ever disputed the diagnosis so far.  If an INDEPENDENT researcher without an ulterior motive had sufficient material to present a valid argument that Alexei's illness were not hemophilia, that would be a completely different matter than this.

I'm still waiting here myself for a truly objective stance that this poor gentle child suffered from anything other than what the historical record states.   NO CLAIMANTS PLEASE!
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 05, 2005, 10:47:40 PM
Mr. Kendrick,
I hope you will continue to post here. I am learning a lot from your remarks. I'll keep watching for your posts.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on May 05, 2005, 10:55:39 PM
Quote

 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


Little spare time is available in laboratories to be concerned with extraneous material published in medical journals. Spare time is used productively in medical libraries by focusing only on all publications that pertain to one's focus of concern. Historic Perspectives do not merit consideration.  ;D

It would not be unreasonable to suggest that the reason there have been no rebuttals to date is based on the fact that very few would have bothered to read that section. Curiosities have minimum priority over the extensive weekly publications researchers are compelled to sift through.

Mr Kendrick while you construct quaint definitions for those who choose not to follow your string of innovative presumptions, it does not serve your argumentation very well. >:(
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on May 18, 2005, 06:22:56 PM
He's b-a-ack! :-)

Quote
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.  


Oh....  Ancient Greek most certainly is used in modern medicine !!!   Medical terminology is described as an artificial language.. formed with words that originate in both Latin and the core language of Greek, not in small part because the man known as the "father of medicine" was a Greek.... Hippocrates.  Many of the words that we know in human biology today originate with Claudius Galen (131-201 AD), a Greek who was known as the "prince of physicians"... who just happened to live in Rome.. and so the Greek words that he used found their way into modern Latin.

At the National Library of Medicine, See:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_timeline.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_words.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_galen.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/

The root words Haem for blood.. from the Greek haima.. Peritoneum.. the membrane lining the abdomen .. Psoas for the hip muscle .. all have their roots in the ancient Greek... long before ever becoming part of modern Latin.  Even the word Anatomy comes from the ancient Greek words meaning "to cut apart"

http://www.up.ac.za/academic/libarts/ancient/latin/MTL.htm

Quote
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.  


Yes it is, and on that point we agree. Whether the problem is rooted in either a clotting factor deficiency or in the clotting problems that are also caused by any of a number of known platelet disorders, and it most certainly can be caused by both, retroperitoneal bleeding is definitely serious... and can certainly come from splenic trauma.

And by the way...  Retroperitoneal bleeding will impinge on the femoral nerve roots.. and that's what causes the massive pain in the groin and thigh with characteristic flexion and external rotation of the hip...

Quote
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.  


Ah yes... the New York Times.  This is the very same newspaper that reported in December of 1918 that Nicholas had been taken to a secret trial before he was shot alone... and that Alexandra and Alexei were then driven away to a secret location.  How's that for credibility?

The pages of original typewritten text of that same New York Times report of December 1918 can still be found in the Library of Congress.  The NY Times report that Nicholas had been sent to a secret trial before his death had been credited to a correspondent named Carl W. Ackerman who would later be named as the new Dean of the Columbia School of Journalism in 1931 and Secretary of the Pulitzer Prize Committee.... in spite of the incredibly obvious flaws that had existed in his reports from Revolutionary Russia just 13 years earlier.

And by the way... Any newspaper that was almost half a world away would never have been able to "leak" any stories out of Russia in the days of Nicholas II.  Are you aware of how difficult it was for any news report coming out of Russia to ever manage to reach New York in November of 1912?....  in the days before TV and radio, and even before the invention of those noisy, clattering old teletype machines that were still in regular use during my earliest years in journalism?

In 1912, news reports could only be sent over long distances by telegraph, relayed over and over from one local terminal to the next, probably edited each and every time it was passed on from one news desk to the next...transmitted over and over by morse code from St. Petersburg or Moscow until it reached either Paris or London.. and then that same report would still have to be sent across the Atlantic.  In 1912 there were only two ways for the news to cross that vast expanse of ocean. One was by mail onboard a coal-fired steamship. The other was by coded telegraph message sent by way of the newest... but highly unreliable... underwater trans-Atlantic cable, laid on the ocean floor between Ireland and New Foundland just two years earlier in 1910.

No one could ever "leak" news that way... Not even the New York Times.

Remember the Titanic disaster had happened in April of that same year.  It was the very first use of the new "S.O.S." morse code message sent by radio.. and nobody had heard the message before it was too late.  That was the most advanced form of communication they had in the year that Alexei was stricken at Spala.

Quote
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....


"has one skin too few"... Now there's a perfect example of just how primitive the most up-to-date understanding of hematology really was back in 1912.  I can't help but notice, too, that you've carefully avoided mentioning the part of that same quote that had claimed the Tsarevich suffered from "tuberculosis of the hip joint", which is a completely different malady... and very obviously wrong.  

If any key part of a given news report is clearly wrong, as it obviously was in the NY Times report that you choose to quote from November of 1912, then the credibility of the entire news report has been seriously compromised and its content is then highly questionable.   Given that the NY Times report in question is dated well into the following month, clearly *after* the episode at Spala and the statement made by the palace, then obviously it isn't a "leaked" report, either.  

It's nothing more than a poor translation of the original Russian reports into English by somebody taking a wild stab at paraphrasing .. somebody who tried to read between the lines by second guessing what the official palace statement of the previous month had actually said.   Reporters facing a fast approaching filing deadline will do this sort of thing all the time, summarizing in a rush and colouring up their newscopy as they go..  trying  to sell their editor on the value of their report to beat the final deadline in the hope that their story will make it to the front page "above the fold" before the finished paper gets "put to bed".

There's an old tongue-in-cheek saying in the news business that says: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"  Accuracy is often sacrificed in the quest for speed, the rush to get the story first ahead of the competition.  Make the headlines first.  Get the details right next time.  Far too often, that's the way the news game is frequently played.

(Continued in next post...)

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on May 18, 2005, 06:41:07 PM
(Continued from previous post...)

Quote
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.


Okay... Let's deal with this right here.  We don't need to discuss the bleeding navel in September 1904 because we've already dealt with that in this thread.  If, as you claim, Alexei really did have haemophilia then his navel most would certainly have started to bleed almost immediately within those first few days after birth.  The fact that it had taken almost six full weeks to happen (40 days after his birth) and that it had lasted for little more than just a single evening can actually stand as proof that Alexei did *not* have haemophilia.  That first "episode" was, in fact, far too brief and had actually taken place far too long after birth for it to have been caused by an inherited clotting factor deficiency.   But we've already agreed to disagree on that first point.

What about your evidence of the bleeding gums that can always be expected to happen when a haemophiliac baby boy first starts teething in his first year after birth?  Oh, Yes... I remember now.. There is *no evidence* of bleeding gums when he was teething... So it is *not* haemophilia.

Or would you prefer to start with a single weak piece of evidence of black eyes at the age of three?  Any one of us here who had managed to break his or her nose when they fell face first against the floor would be guaranteed to have black eyes... even without Haemophilia.. so that proves nothing.  What about the bleeding gums when Alexei's baby teeth first started falling out at the ages of five, six, and seven? Again, there is no evidence at all of that ever happening... so it's not haemophilia.   How about having a kidney/bladder infection at the age of seven?  That proves nothing either.

Of course, you'd rather not talk about Spala at age eight, because you don't seem to think that it's all that important... even though this was Alexei's most serious episode.. the one single episode that had very nearly killed the boy... and the one single episode that had most certainly guaranteed Rasputin's place in history.   But then, of course, your favourite haemophilia theory completely fails to explain away Alexei's highest fever ever of 105ºF in October of 1912 and his very sudden recovery only just a few hours later, following eight long days of agony.  That's why your favourite version relies so heavily on a mysterious healing power that's been attributed to Rasputin's ever so undeservedly famous get-well telegram. Call it haemolytic anaemia instead of haemophilia and then the symtpoms can all be explained.. high fever and spontaneous recovery included... and Rasputin's silly telegram suddenly becomes completely irrelevant.

That leads us to the mudbaths at Livadia, which are proof that Alexei was *not* being treated for haemophilia.  Absolutely useless for treating bleeding into the joints, the Tsar's Doctors.Federov and Botkin would most certainly have known that balneotherapy (mud bath therapy) is the traditional Ukrainian treatment for pain in the major joints caused by arthritis, which happens in both kids and adults alike who are afflicted with blood disorders of haemolytic anaemia ..*not* with haemophlia.

Maybe you'd like to discuss the Epistaxis at Mogilev in 1915. That's the fancy medical word for nosebleed that's now part of modern Laitn but comes from the original ancient Greek 'stazo' for drip.  Nicholas himself had said that Alexei's nosebleed had started with a sneeze from a cold.. and the presence of a cold is obviously suggestive of a viral cause for the bleeding...which means it can't be haemophilia   Very basically, viruses can hinder the production of new blood cells in the bone marrow which, in turn, can cause bleeding in patients with haemolytic anaemia... *not* with haemophilia.

Moving on...

In Tobolsk on January 30th (O/S) of 1918, Alexei twisted his right ankle playing on an ice hill.  Naturally, we're all expected to believe that this is yet another example of haemophilia, just because Alexei had experienced an uncomfortable night and spent the rest of the next day in bed because he couldn't get his boot on.  Come on now, let's be honest... How many of us here can remember having seriously sprained an ankle when we were kids and having had trouble putting on our shoes for the next day or two because of the swelling?  And besides, what else is there for any teenaged boy to do but to stay home in a nice warm bed when it's 30 degrees below zero outside in the howling wind and snow when he can't get his boots on?

What Alexei had described in his diary on that particular occasion was a perfectly ordinary event in the life of any active teenage boy.  If he had been a haemophiliac, as everyone now claims, then he couldn't just get his boot on for only a single day or two.  Any haemophiliac twisting his ankle likely would have had a great black bruise reaching all the way up to his knee (and there's no such evidence of any large scale ecchymosis... yet another originally Greek word.. in any of the letters and diaries at any time during his young life) and he probably would have been incapacitated for the better part of a month.  But instead, Alexei's right back out there in the snow within days and manages to do it all over again to the other ankle just ten short days later.

On February 19th, when the soldiers have finally had enough and decide to tear down the ice hill, that very same boy who everyone here now believes was a hemophiliac, admits in his own diary that he was actually passing his time by carving wooden daggers with his knife.. and then using those daggers in play fights with his friend Kolia.  Now, does this honestly sound to you like the sort of activity that any parent or doctor would ever allow a teenage boy to do if they really did believe that he was haemophiliac?  What parent in his right mind would ever give their young haemophiliac son a knife to play with??

Naturally, we can't leave out that last episode at Tobolsk that had caused the family to be separated for a time.  Everyone still delights in telling that now infamous "sled on the stairs" story.. even though there isn't even one single first hand witness.  The only person ever to tell this ridiculous whopper was the still teenaged Tatiana Botkin, and she wasn't even in the same building at the time.  No one else had ever even hinted at the young Miss Botkin's claim of a sled on the stairs. Alexei's own parents, Nicholas and Alexandra, had both said in their diaries during that very same week that the same episode that Miss Botkin was referrring to had actually started with a cough... and that's clear evidence of yet another viral cause.. which again points to the bleeding of haemolytic anaemias.. and *not* to haeemophilia.

If you're going to be a supporter of the haemophilia legend, then you are forced to go with the young Miss Botkin's totally unsupported claim of a sled on the stairs in order to support your interpretatiion... because all haemophilic episodes will invariably require some sort of physical initiating cause. If we are to use the evidence for the start of that very same episode that actually comes from Alexei's own parents, then it simply won't fit with your favourite diagnosis....because the cause of the episode, coming as it does with a cough, was clearly viral rather than physical.

Tell you what.  Favourite episodes at 20 paces.  You go first.  Give the date and identify the source of your information for the episode of your choice. Then tell us all why you think it was evidence of haemophilia... and then I'll tell you why it's not.  Better still, summarise it all into a proper medical paper and submit it for peer review.  Once your paper has passed the review process and gets published in an appropriate medical journal, then we'll actually be playing this game on a level field.

(Continued in next post...)

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on May 18, 2005, 07:08:06 PM
(Continued from previous post...)

Quote

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.


And if Tammet is proved to be Alexei? .. hyothetically, of course.. What would you be willing to admit about my hypothesis then?  ;D

Quote
 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?


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.

.. and start studying...

http://www.humed.com/humc_ency/ency/article/000571.htm
http://www.humed.com/humc_ency/ency/article/000565.htm
http://home.uchicago.edu/~adamcifu/anemia.htm
http://www.aplastic.org/diseases.shtml
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic2695.htm
http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00057470.html
http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/diseasemanagement/hematology/myelo/myelo.htm
http://healthlibrary.stanford.edu/resources/internet/bodysystems/blood_leukemia.html
http://www.infobiogen.fr/services/chromcancer/Anomalies/CMMLID1098.html
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_is_myelodysplastic_syndrome_65.asp
http://serenelli.net/randy/glossary/glossary_a.htm

Quote
It may take a publication cycle or two to see any  reaction from the readership of the American Journal of Hematology in print.


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..

Quote
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.


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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on May 18, 2005, 07:25:56 PM
The last word on this entire matter will go either to the people who perform DNA tests on Tammet's sample and find it does not match or to those who find the definitive evidence in Siberia that poor Saint Tsarevich Alexei was treated as the Bolsheviks said.

While it is one thing to make observations about bleeding disorders that no one would disagree with in themselves if made on objective grounds -- and the study of disease does not tend to lead to such debate as this -- what I strongly object to is the implications you draw from a deliberate construct of various interesting symptoms that you insist on pinning to the child for no other reason but to support someone who did not have a disease that you CANNOT RULE OUT as Alexei's.

The fact that you haven't ruled hemophilia out says enough.  There is plenty of room for doubt on the part of anyone who feels strongly enough that the appearance of this article in fact constitutes a disservice to the memory of the Tsarevich and an intriguing but frankly misleading example of speculation by someone outside the medical field.

Retractions of articles, recalls of prescription drugs found to be hazardous to one's health and corrections of misconceptions happen all the time these days, for the reasons you cite.  I trust that it will happen again when misinformation is exposed as such.  The same New York Times you decry for misinformation duly reported that the Tsarevich was slain with his entire family in 1918 when the truth finally came out of the Bolsheviks.  It is almost a truism about the Romanov tragedy that admitting to the murders of children did not make them look good, but that they eventually had to do so.

It's useless to argue when you make too little of things that happened to someone who was NOT a typical teenager, and frankly DISTORT an episode that even you would have to admit could easily fit into the etiology of hemophilia in the days before anti-hemophilic clotting factors.  He still bled far too often into his joints and suffered outright hematomas that sent him to bed for days suffering those same kind of pressures on nerves and shooting pains and slighter fevers than that at Spala whenever he got into childhood scrapes -- as the sort of average, normal boy you claim he was would not.  Given that tendency, it most logically follows that he still died at 13 as a captive of the Bolsheviks -- which he would have done no matter what kind of bleeding deficiency he had.  Heino Tammet's end stage history does NOT make him Alexei Nikolaevich Romanov by any stretch of the imagination.  Except maybe yours and his.

I won't bother to write any more on this:  Hemophilia as the best and most logical explanation for the Tsarevich's sufferings requires no defense.  Yet it seems ONLY the DNA test will settle this, and it may just have to be up to those who believe in Heino Tammet to arrange it.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on May 18, 2005, 08:58:46 PM
DNA...let those with the huzpah take the test....and no weinie,whining when you don't prove out to be the less than probable person you claim to be....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 18, 2005, 11:12:01 PM
Quote


That's fine, I do hope Mr. Kendrick will continue to write. His posting are informative and make me think.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: ptitchka on May 19, 2005, 07:02:29 AM
Quote
(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


Such a big if.  If Tammet becomes a Holy Royal Confessor -- which I doubt, as any resemblance to Alexei Nikolaevich was acquired and superficial, then you will be vindicated.  If not -- nothing against you personally, but you hitched your wagon to a black hole.


Quote
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.


You may have your descriptions of what TAMMET HAD down to a t and can describe these symptoms like an expert because you have rehashed and refined your presentation for quite some time.  But you have NOT proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that what ALEXEI had was hemolytic/aplastic anemia in the first place, having dismissed his other episodes so lightly and not having actually RULED OUT hemophilia.  You will recall I asked if your theories could stand alone without linking them to Tammet's etiology; you may have said 'the simple answer is yes' and then demonstrated that you could not do so, as is shown below.  This can hardly be seen as an objective position that Alexei did not have hemophilia because you focus on hemolytic/aplastic anemia and a rare complication, having once again lost track of the Tsarevich himself.  My question was whether you could stand by your theories without linking them to Heino Tammet or the possible sequelae of any disease homologous to hemophilia.  And you quote sequelae instead of giving a straight answer.   You may have written a paper that can snow the experts because you got all the details of all the medical syndromes right, in terms of a few degrees of separation.  But it stands or falls on the DNA.

If Tammet was not Alexei, there goes your theory.
Quote

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..


You know all the medical terms, sequelae and developments of the Tammet case down pat, and one cannot argue with details of the disease process.  But don't confuse details of the disease process with a position that someone other than Tammet had what Tammet had.  Publication of a medical theory - some of which get shot down like prescription drugs that are taken off the market because they are hazardous to health - merely implicates exposure, not so much acceptance in the wider medical community.  And it certainly does not necessarily lend credence to your claimant.
Quote


The subject of this thread is whether or not Alexei actually did or did not have haemophilia.


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.

Quote
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.


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.  Medical facts can be referred to in the treatment of disease... and can be twisted in order to make sensational copy.  Rattling them off without a definitive link to Alexei does not constitute an argument that he did not have hemophilia, no matter how impressive the presentation is.  You did not rule it out.  Then again, you were not able to.
Quote

  
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


The last word will go to those that find Alexei in a Siberian forest.  
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on May 19, 2005, 09:58:03 PM
Quote
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.


As usual, you have made no effort whatsoever to produce any medical evidence to support your position in favour of the popular, but still very much unproven, haemophilia diathesis.  Once again, the best you can do to oppose this hypothesis is to continue your highly vocal opposition against any and all claimants and to repeat the same old and totally unproven Romanov dogma.

You need someone to find the clear genetic evidence of a faulty X-Chromosome in Alexandra's DNA to prove your position... and no such evidence is known to exist.  Without that required DNA proof that Alexandra had actually carried a faulty Factor VIII or IX Gene.. you have nothing more than a story that's been told a thousand times over... which does *not* make it true.

Quote
The last word will go to those that find Alexei in a Siberian forest.  


No it won't.

Fourteen years of constant searching since the Ekaterinburg remains were unearthed in 1991 has produced nothing more than four topaz beads, a small number of bullets, and a military trouser button.

You will not find what was never there in the first place.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on May 20, 2005, 04:13:44 PM
Quote
But it stands or falls on the DNA.

I'm tired of that one, lol. ::) Leave the claimants out of it; or have I said that enough times already?...

A bit 'thank you' to Mr Kendrick for his very interesting contribution to the forum. His answers are well researched, easy to read and, as far as I am concerned, credible. :)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 20, 2005, 05:51:29 PM
I agree Lass. I think he has done important work and I am tired of having to sift through the claimant stuff to read what this topic is supposed to be about. Did Alexei have hemophilia? In my mind, the jury is out on that. They did not have the knowledge about blood diseases we have today. Any discussion about Tammet belongs on another thread.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on May 21, 2005, 10:16:37 AM
The close desendants of Queen Victoria are generally accepted as being vulnerable to haemophilia....Leopold,Duke of Albany a well founded case...and the family of Queen Ena of Spain....I think the jury can come back in....well refreshed with a few fags,Pepsis,coffee...and hopefully...that most uncommon animal..."Common Sense"....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on May 21, 2005, 10:22:56 AM
fags=cigarettes...t-hee... ::)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 21, 2005, 10:29:53 AM
Medical science has advanced over the years. Now, doctors have other methods, besides speculation and observation, to diagnose. Why is it out of the realm of possibility that, with what we  know today, Alexei had some other type of blood disease? Those of you who are so convinved there is no other possibility, I ask you this. How did make the diagnosis? Can you find one record that indicataes any kind of testing that was done? Were there any hemotologist involved? Or were the doctors making the assumption that Alexei had hemophilia based largely on his family history? I would agree that family history is part of a diagnosis, but only part. And one more question, who was the first person to use the work hemophilia?
I would like to just explore this whole topic as a possiblity, with a open mind, research, discuss and draw my own conclusions. PLEASE keep claimants out of this. I am tired of reading that Kendirick has an agenda, who doesn't. If you want to talk about a claimant, there are other threads for that.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on May 21, 2005, 10:52:34 AM
Erm...I don't have every medical record of the late Czar Alexei Nicholaiovitch...but then who does?..."The Bleeders Disease(haemophilia)" was a well known phantom in the female descendants of Queen Victoria...hush-hush...
But Alexei had all the visable signs of this disease...like other male members of his relations...if it walks like a duck...etc. ::)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on May 21, 2005, 04:19:52 PM
More's the pity I can't remember the arguments against Prince Leopald's 'haemophilia'. But if I did, it would make no difference to some people. ::)

Quote
..."Common Sense"....

Just a thought - say Prince Leopald did have haemophilia, and others of Queen Victoria's descendants; this would not mean that the tsarevich had haemophilia. Not in the least. That, I think, is common sense. ;)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 21, 2005, 06:11:03 PM
Lass, That would be great if you could find that information.
And as for if it walks like a duck,,,,, but what kind of duck????
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on May 22, 2005, 03:42:21 PM
It always bothers me when someone, who is not in the box, ends up always being  treated without any respect.   Although I am not a supporter of any claimant at this time [reserve this point just in case someone does prove their case],  I think the question:  Did Alexei have hemophilia?  is an excellent subject for this forum.  And, in this discussion no one has to talk about anyone's view on claimants since this is not part of this thread.

J. Kendricks has asked some pretty interesting questions and, now, I am getting interested because no one has responded with answers which seem to disprove what he is telling us.

Since I know absolutely nothing about hemophilia,  I would like to read  "on topic"  responses on the subject:  Did Alexei have hemophilia? .

Now, I'm going to go back and reread this thread and maybe tomorrow have some questions.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on May 22, 2005, 03:44:58 PM
Let's start one point at a time:

J. Kendrick: >>What about your evidence of the bleeding gums that can always be expected to happen when a haemophiliac baby boy first starts teething in his first year after birth?  Oh, Yes... I remember now.. There is *no evidence* of bleeding gums when he was teething... So it is *not* haemophilia. <<

Since most of us do not have any medical background, please, make the responces with this in mind.

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 22, 2005, 04:16:39 PM
Glad to see you hear Bear. Maybe we can keep this on track.
Here are a couple of questions I have:
1. How did they diagnose hemophia at the time? Was it merely observation?Or were there any kind of tests.
2. Exactly how many recorded episodes are there that are cited as examples if hemophilia? My understanding of this disease is that even the slightest cut can be life threatening for someone with hemophilia because it is difficult to stop the bleeding. Is this correct?
3. Could you explain thrombocytopenia/aplastic anemia in laymen's terms? Something like thrombocytopenia/aplastic anemia for dummies?  ;)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on May 23, 2005, 09:39:49 AM
The Massie book is still a very poignant work on the health of Alexei...perhaps because he knew it first hand with his own son....fortunately born later in the 20th century...when medecine was able to help the suffers of haemophilia...and their guilt-ridden parents....

Yes...I'd like to see any works which dispute the haemophilia of Prince Leopold and other "bleeders" from the descendants of Queen Victoria.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Tasha_R on May 23, 2005, 12:02:14 PM
I, too, am interested in understanding if there is a possibility that Alexei suffered from a bleeding disorder other than hemophaelia.  I am of a similar opinion as Lexi that medical science has advanced over the course of the last hundred or so years to more specifically diagnose such medical conditions.

That Alexei had a similar affliction to a number of his relatives, I have no doubt.  But whether each one had hemophaelia, I'm not sure.  A bleeding disease, yes - but were all bleeding disorders at that time lumped under the generic name "hemophaelia"?

The reasons why I wonder about it have nothing to do with claiments... they are purely personal.  I have a bleeding disorder.  I am female.  The doctors only started recognizing it as a bleeding disorder in my early '40's.  And while I have been tested for von Willebrands disease, and a variety of other disorders, the tests have to date proven "inconclusive" (which only goes to show that even now they don't have all the answers).

The doctors do recognize it as a hereditary condition.  It proved lifethreatening once (mostly because no one recognized that I was hemorraging internally at the time), and horribly painful each time.  I came to learn that the doctors now treat it almost the same way that helped Alexei - they essentially eased the pain as best they could so I would stay still.  During the life threatening episode they did operate, but actually found that the bleeding had already stopped by the time they got in.

As to an earlier question as to how Alexei could have bled after a mere carriage ride - my first episode was triggered by riding a horse.  During the ride, an ovarian cyst burst, rupturing a blood vessel which just continued bleeding.

So, thank you for asking the question, and thank you to all the respondents for offering their information.

Sincere regards,
Tasha
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Elocin on May 23, 2005, 05:38:11 PM
You know, as one of the resident lurkers in these parts the personal attacks and zealous defense of accepted theories are amusing and at the same time rather a bore to sift through.

That being said this thread certainly is interesting.  As a person who is completing a degree in biological science (major molecular genetics) I am most amused by the thought that the family tree of Victoria as used in many text books could have to be revised if anyone were to prove that the haemophilia diagnosis was incorrect tickles my funny bone.  I know that would hit my pcoket book if several of my favourite texts had to have a new edition published due to error!

Please continue the fascinating discussion but with less of the throat crushing please!

Perhaps we should fund some gentic tests to ascertain whether or not the Queen Victoria hemophilia hypothesis is correct or incorrect.

Nicole
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on May 23, 2005, 08:00:42 PM
Do you, Elocin,  have a reason why Alexei's gums, while cutting teeth, didn't bleed as it is suggested they would if Alexei had  hemophia?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Tasha_R on May 24, 2005, 08:43:41 AM
LOL... it wouldn't be the first time textbooks had to be rewritten  :)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on May 24, 2005, 06:54:53 PM
Maybe the simplest way would be to test Queen Victoria's DNA and establish if she was a haemophilia carrier, and if she was, then we could say that it is very likely that Alexei Nikolaevich was a sufferer of haemophilia. (Which I myself don't doubt, but if direct DNA medical evidence of St Alexei's medical condition proved otherwise....)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on May 24, 2005, 07:44:06 PM
If a woman is a carrier of hemophilia, does this mean one of her grandchildren could not have a different form of a blood diease?

Hey, don't laugh at my question.  If I knew the answer, I would not have asked.

Where are all the posts about the question about cutting teeth by a hemophilia?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on May 24, 2005, 08:53:10 PM
I would imagine it is possible, but more likely that the grandchild inherits the original disorder.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Tasha_R on May 25, 2005, 11:07:29 AM
Agreed.  It's certainly possible, but probably more likely that they shared the same disease.  After all, many families have cancer running through them, although different forms - but more usually the same.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: reve4iexelA on May 26, 2005, 08:32:23 PM
When it comes to giving this particular question an answer the concrete is infinitely preferable to such debate as we have seen here.  It definitely would make sense to look at the DNA of Queen Victoria, Princess Alice or the Empress Alexandra, if not any taken from the actual bandages of the young man in question said to have been in the Luton Hoo collection and to have been used in the DNA testing on the Tsarist remains.

Barring that, would it not be fair to suggest the medical bibliography in Robert Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra as additional reading for those genuinely interested in investigating both sides of the question and drawing an informed conclusion of their own?   The one drawback is that these materials might not be found on the Internet.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 27, 2005, 10:24:37 PM
Thanks Tasha and Elocin.
Instead of testing Victoria, why not just test Alexandra? They already have the DNA. I don't know much about this, but it would seem to me that while the scientists were testing the DNA of the IF they would have done a thorough job and I can't imagine that they didn't check for hemophilia. Doesn't it seem a little sloppy if they did not? And if they did, why haven't they said anything? That would settle this once and for all.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on May 29, 2005, 10:28:50 PM
There's some people that aren't sure if the Ekaterinburg remains are really of the Romanovs, so to avoid any controversy, it would be better to test the remains of someone we definately know is whom it is supposed to be.

As for when they tested the remains, I suspect they were more interested in testing for who they were, not for genetic abnormalities such as haemophilia. Don't forget, everyone for decades has presumed Alexei had haemophilia (and it is only now when there are claimants who don't have haemophilia that anyone has suggested otherwise) - no reason to make a special search to see if anyone was a carrier or not, esp. since his own remains weren't found.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 30, 2005, 12:40:16 AM
Wouldn't genetic abnormalities be part of who they were? After all they found one in Nicholas. As I  recall, it caused some concern initially. So obviously, checking for abnormalities is either part of the deal or no big deal to do.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on May 31, 2005, 04:57:01 PM
I think, in that case, and I haven't looked at or read data on their DNA (and it propbably would be above my head anyway), if these anomalies stick out like a sore thumb when they do the tests, then they would have expected to find haemophilia-carrying genes in Alexandra's DNA. Since we heard about an abnormality of Nicholas's which no one expected, if they hadn't found haemophilia as expected in Alexandra, then that would have set alarm bells ringing at the time, and we would have heard about it. Also if it is something that can be observed easily in the DNA it would have been another way of confirming for the scientists involved that the remains were of the IF.

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?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on May 31, 2005, 05:33:38 PM
Quote


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?


I think that is a great idea Georgiy. It should show in Alex or any of the grils for that matter. I wonder if they did test the remains. If they did, it seems we would know about it. If the did not, they might not be so forthcoming because you would think that would have been checked imho
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Tasha_R on June 01, 2005, 09:00:54 PM
Georgy,

You mention that some folks question whether these really are the remains of the Imperial Family.  I wonder if one of the reasons why they question it is because they did the test and did *not* find evidence of the hemophaelia gene.

IF Alexis actually did have something other than hemophaelia, then even if the gene were not found,  it could still be the IF.   Interesting Catch 22.   ;)

(I'm afraid I haven't done a lot of research on this particular subject, hence this is simply an arguement of logic.)

Tasha
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: shadowfox4089 on June 01, 2005, 10:26:20 PM
i think alexei did have hemophilia cuz i read one time when he was riding a stagecoach in the country i think and they hit a bump and alexei got really ill because of that and almost died.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on June 02, 2005, 04:10:56 PM
Tasha, the people I mentioned as being uncertain as to whether the remains are of the IF or not are important clergy of the Orthodox Church. It is absolutely vital that we know if the remains are genuine or not, because the IF are venerated as Passion-Bearers (Saints) in the Orthodox Church, and we wouldn't want to be venerating false relics. That's all ;).
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 02, 2005, 06:43:41 PM
Erm...after 3...he said...3....independant DNA tests showed that the remains were related to known relatives of the Czarist family....I think we can be pretty certain that the remains are those of the saintly folk...but I just don't know if haemophilia was looked for in the testing...that is where I once again wish we had an expert to ask...
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 02, 2005, 07:04:30 PM
I agree with etonexile, but would like to know why the Greek Orthodox Church questions whether or not the remains belong to the IF. I have always wondered that. Can you help me here Gergiy?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lanie on June 02, 2005, 07:09:02 PM
I recall reading somewhere why the Church doesn't think the remains are of the IF is that some people had been venerating remains somewhere in Europe (was it from that box Sokolov had, that ended up in Brussles)...so therefore it might have looked bad if they would accept that the remains were of the IF?  I dunno.  Apparently the bones in the box were not human bones anyway...
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 02, 2005, 07:20:36 PM
The ROC's position was that it was not positive the remains were or were not those of the IF. This is discussed in other threads dealing with the burial and the dna  questions.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on June 02, 2005, 09:01:05 PM
Thanks Lanie and Robert, that was more or less what I would have stated. My personal opinion is that the box in Brussels contains relics as do the graves in Petersburg - after all, they were flung down the mineshaft first of all, so it would make sense for there to be some remains in both the mineshaft and then the later common-grave too.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 03, 2005, 05:20:43 AM
Yes...I think if I'd been a bad old Bolshi...I'd have tried to create as much confusion as possible with the remains of the Czar and family...
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on June 14, 2005, 08:24:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Abby on June 14, 2005, 09:18:44 AM
Well said, pinklady. I agree, I think he had hemophelia as all of his symptoms were consistent with descriptions of the disease, and genetically speaking, there would have been a very slim chance that Alix had not passed the disease.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 14, 2005, 10:58:59 AM
The best doctors in the land, back in the early 1900s, were very limited in their knowledge.    So, they were only as good as the knowledge they had at the time.  

Anyone ever taken a look at an old medcial book?

The medical schools were stealing bodies out of cemetaries and the best way to treat the wounded at the battle front was to cut off a limb......  Dark age stuff.

And, when did they start using transfusions...?  At the end of WW I....   Remember, they killed a lot of people because they didn't know there were different types of blood....

So, what did these doctors know about hemophilia or other blood dieases that had the same symptoms?  

Since I'm not familar with the various diseases that do have the same symptoms,  can anyone give us a short list?

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 14, 2005, 12:30:41 PM
Quote
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...?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 14, 2005, 05:25:39 PM
Quote

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...?


The simple answer is NO.

Of the 950 known descendents of Queen Victoria, there are only seven suspected hemophiliacs, another three highly questionable possibilities, and only six suspected female carriers.  In a family that has often been claimed to be plagued by the disease, that's barely just one percent of the entire family line.

The suspected disease is confined to just three generations, starting with Leopold and ending with Alexei and Waldemar. There are no known hemophiliacs in Victoria's family line in any of the generations after Alexei. There are no hemophiliacs at all among any of the more than seven hundred descendants of Victoria and Albert now living today.

JK
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 14, 2005, 07:46:43 PM
Being a recessive trait carried on the X-chromosome originally supplied, after all, by a hemophiliac father to any of his daughters, the disease delimits 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.   Also, in the Tsarevich's time, boys with the disease tended to die young rather than to marry.   Any daughters of Alexei Nikolaevich, of course, would have carried on his disease all over again.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on June 15, 2005, 05:37:53 AM
Lizameridox, that is true, the children with the disease tended to die young before they have a chance to have children themselves. And out of every family there might only be one or two sufferers of the illness, ( as an example, out of Queen Victoria's large family, one son suffered and 2 daughters were carriers) So in that ratio it does not strike everybody of course.
Robert K Massie says  " Hemophilaia is as old as man. It has come down through the centuries, misted in legend, shrouded with the dark dread of a hereditary curse. In the Egypt of the Pharoahs, a woman was forbidden to bear further children if her firstborn son bled to death from a minor wound. The ancient Talmud barred circumcision in a family if two successive male children had suffered fatal hemorhages."

The reason Alexei appeared so well ( and remember "appeared") is because he was Heir to the throne of Russia and a hemophiliac and so  because of these 2 reasons he was pampered and protected like no other child, when you think about it, a very over protective environment designed to keep him healthy and safe.
When he was a baby and toddler nurses surrounded him,when he turned 5 he was assigned the 2 sailors who doubled as bodyguards and nurses and were there to keep him from all harm.

Massie also says " Hemophilia is a fickle disease, and for weeks and sometimes months, Alexei seemed as well as any child. By nature he was as noisy, lively and mischevious as Anastasia."

Unfortunately poor Alexei had accidents from time to time in spite of the lavish care that surrounded everything he did.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 15, 2005, 12:32:51 PM
Quote
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.


That's a very convenient explanation for the unusually sudden disappearance of an X-linked recessive inherited blood disorder... for those who want to believe it...

But...

The suspected disease did not just "gradually peter out".  It had vanished just as suddenly as it had appeared... with the suspected carriers disappearing after only two generations and the suspected sufferers disappearing after only three.

There are only two suspected carriers and just one suspected sufferer in the first generation, only four suspected carriers and just three suspected sufferers (all dying violently) in the second generation. There are no known carriers at all and just four suspected sufferers other than Alexei in the third and final generation, three of those four dying violent deaths in motor vehicle accidents.  

After the death of Alexei's cousin Waldemar of Prussia in his 56th year in 1945, this suspected X-linked recessive blood disorder did not just "gradually peter out".  It had vanished completely.  In fact, the faulty gene that's suspected to have been responsible for the disease had actually vanished in just two generations... the generation before Alexei... because there are no known carriers at all in Alexei's own generation.

The births of the suspected carriers all occur within the very short span of just 44 years in only two generations.  The births of the suspected sufferers all occur within the very short span of just 61 years in only three generations.  The last suspected sufferer was born in 1914, just two years after the episode at Spala.  

At the very same instant that the requirement to explain away Alexei's suspected inheritance of a recessive X-Linked disorder has conveniently disappeared with Alexei's own disappearance in 1918.. that same suspected faulty X-linked gene then also completely vanishes into thin air.. as if it had never been there in the first place.

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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Elisabeth on June 15, 2005, 12:46:21 PM
Quote
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!
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 15, 2005, 01:46:39 PM
I suppose this has been asked before, so forgive me for asking this again, but, then maybe it has not, anyway the question is:

Since there are samples of bone from which DNA can be taken, can a test to show Alexandra was a carrier of hemophilia?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 15, 2005, 05:11:42 PM
Quote

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"....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on June 15, 2005, 05:13:41 PM
You mean that King George's illness was caused by inter-marrying?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 15, 2005, 05:35:14 PM
As I recall...Porphyria came down from Mary,Queen of Scots...to her Son,King James I and VI...and then into the royal families of Europe....King George's attacks were made worse by the drug given him...altimony....which contains arsenic....but then biology was not my favy subject in school...
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on June 15, 2005, 05:47:52 PM
Okay, I see. Didn't know Mary of Scots had anything to do with it. I'm going off topic anyways... ahem, the tsarevich's haemophilia.

EDIT: Or lack of it - how could I forget that bit?!
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 15, 2005, 09:29:49 PM
I think it is only fair to give those who protest against the record of history and maintain that Alexei did not suffer from hemophilia a place to explain just what has convinced them that the Tsarevich did not have the disease.

It is obvious that given the overwhelming historical record any claimant without hemophilia simply had a lot of explaining to do.  It was a lot harder for anyone claiming to be Alexei to maintain this ruse because of his unique situation.  The only people that have come up with any definite theories about the boy's disease not being hemophilia so far are non-hemophiliac pretenders or their supporters.

Would anyone other than a claimant or a person involved with a claimant ever have grounds to question the nature of the child's illness in the first place, and if so, what specific grounds would they be?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 15, 2005, 09:40:19 PM
Quote

Yes...try not to marry cousins,aunts,uncles,et al....Porphyria was a pre-Victoria disease....read "King George And The Mad Business"....


And Porphyria was a post-Victoria disease as well... suffered by Queen Victoria's granddaughter.. Kaiser Wilhelm II's sister Charlotte.  Read Professor John Röhl's latest book on Wilhelm II.

This means that we are now expected to accept that the Porphyria gene must have passed through Victoria from her grandfather George III through her eldest daughter The Princesss Royal to her granddaughter Charlotte... just as we are also expected to accept that a faulty Factor VIII gene that causes haemophilia must also have passed from the same Queen Victoria to her fourth son Leopold, her second daughter Alice, and her fifth daughter Beatrice.

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... without us ever daring to question the evidence even once?  

Yeah, right...

Not very likely....

JK
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 15, 2005, 10:21:14 PM
The filtering out of hemophilia from family trees is something Robert Massie would have backed up.  The violent deaths of some possible carriers and some of the sufferers is a function of the times in which they lived and brought things to a halt in their lines more suddenly than the gradual fade seen in most families.

For those that question whether the Tsarevich had this particular disease:  is it more logical to assume that he had a one-time episode of aplastic crisis, to underestimate the significance numerous bleeding and bruising episodes that left him bedridden throughout his childhood, and to believe that after a long period of remission the childhood bleeding disorder had metamorphosed into a form of blood cancer?  Is this dramatic scenario -- not seen to such a degree in any other male member of the royal families of Europe -- more realistic than to accept without any difficulty that more than one hereditary disease might run in a family prone to intermarriage?

Come on.  Claimants that didn't have hemophilia had a lot of explaining away to do.  But physiology does not share the properties of even the simplest mathematical processes.  An Estonian does not equal a Russian.  A Finno-Balt does not equal a virtual Anglo-Dane.  A doctored up photograph of a man's head on top of a body wearing a badge does not hearken back to the image of a boy playing with a King Charles spaniel in the snow at a Russian army headquarters.

Could Sandra Tammet ever face the Veerman family?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 15, 2005, 10:23:52 PM
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"?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on June 15, 2005, 11:35:41 PM
Quote
just what has convinced them that the Tsarevich did not have the disease.


I think it is merely people clinging to a very dubious straw of romanticism that hope against hope that someone (especially a sick boy) could survive such a bloodbath, and so if someone comes along and says "I am Alexei", even if he doesn't have haemophilia, they will start to think, "Hmmm, well maybe the real Alexei didn't have haemophilia after all, so this person really might be him!" As Fox Mulder would say "I want to believe." But i think most people know my opinion on what disease the Tsesarevich-martyr had.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on June 15, 2005, 11:40:13 PM
Quote
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...

Well, these people were that inbred, it's surprising there's only two inheritable diseases that seem to crop up with regularity!
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 16, 2005, 06:43:57 AM
My dear Georgiy --

The murder of innocent children -- while, alas almost commonplace in our day -- has always been horrific, and that of the Martyred Tsarevich and his sisters (along with their parents and four servants) has been described, among other things, as a prelude to twentieth-century mass murder.  Their royal blood is just one reason this crime stands out.  We hear of very few wholesale killings of people that young because that prior to the twentieth century puericide (have I got that term right?) was unthinkable.  Some prospective members of the 'execution' squad drew the line and refused to be involved in such a thing.  But, alas, the job was done, and the job was thorough, so that a poor boy died not of his disease but still of traumatic bleeding.

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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on June 16, 2005, 08:08:58 AM
Quote
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.

How sad but how true.
The pretenders cannot escape the fact the poor child had this inherited illness, so they make up reasons against the truth.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 16, 2005, 09:02:25 AM
Quote
Well, these people were that inbred, it's surprising there's only two inheritable diseases that seem to crop up with regularity!


Very well said , Sir...recessive genes meeting each other on a far more regular basis than in the general population....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Tasha_R on June 16, 2005, 10:11:20 AM
Liza,
In answer to your original question that started this thread:

[Would anyone other than a claimant or a person involved with a claimant ever have grounds to question the nature of the child's illness in the first place, and if so, what specific grounds would they be?]

Aside from our fantasy world in the Imperial Claimants 11 thread, I think I can fit the description above and give at least one answer.

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.

In terms of what happened to the family, probably not.  In terms of claimants, probably yes.

Sincere regards,
Tasha
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 16, 2005, 01:31:20 PM
Quote
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.


Okay... Let's get serious here.

Put aside and forget all of the unproven medical allegations in some 90 years worth of history books. Forget any mention of claimants.  Leave out all of the incessant speculation about allegations of inbreeding... and there's certainly no mixing of Russian Revolutionary politics and Orthodox religion allowed.  Claims of martyrdom, whether they be real or imagined.. have nothing at all to do with medical and forensic fact and must not be allowed to interfere with acheiving a properly objective and scientific conclusion.

You're all so convinced that the Tsarevich Alexei actually did have hemophilia...

Okay... Then....  PROVE IT!!

.... and we'll have none of this silly business of claiming that no one has to prove it because history is on your side.. because that sort of baloney simply doesn't cut it.

You must use first hand evidence only.  Only statements and documents from Alexei's closest immediate family and personal physicians.  State the date and identify the original source of your evidence and match it with a known source of modern medical information in the study of hematology to support your conclusions about why you believe the selected evidence to be proof of hemophilia.

No second hand sources are allowed.  No quotes from people like Pierre Gilliard claiming things like so and so told him on the quiet that it's hemophilia.. because that's hearsay evidence ... and hearsay is not allowed.

No mention of Alexei's various cousins or uncles is allowed to support the unproven claims of X-linked inheritance is allowed either... because X-linked recessive genes were completely unknown in Alexei's time and did not become a part of published scientific research until 1949, 31 years *after* the murders.

Stick the the factual evidence in Alexei's case alone... and there will be no mentions of the opinions of previous authors.. and especially not the opinions of Robert Massie.

Find any direct quote from Nicholas, Alexandra, or any of Alexei's four sisters where even one of them ever actually used the word "hemophilia"... (Of course, you won't find any.. because no such evidence exists)

Better still... Find any actual medical laboratory evidence to support your conclusions.  Show us the evidence where the DNA of any member of the Royal family line has been proved to show evidence of that suspected faulty Factor VIII at the gene locus Xq28 on the long arm of the X-Chromosome.  Find any evidence of the suspected faulty gene in any of the discovered Ekaterinburg remains.  You have four chances... in the putative bones of Alexandra and in the discovered bones of three of her four daughters.

No speculation.  No falling back on the claims of others who have gone before.  Just straight up medical facts from Alexei's case alone with supporting knowledge of hematology from only known and published 21st century medical sources.

Prove your case... and if you can't... then you have nothing more than an unproven claim....

....and just because that same unproven claim has been told over and over a thousand times before... does *NOT* make it true.

You're all so convinced... so let's see you back it up with medical and scientific fact.

Try as hard as you might... but it can't be done without scientific proof... and *NO* such proof exists

JK




 
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 16, 2005, 02:00:22 PM
John, this is why I asked just when was the "disease" of Alexei made known to the general public ? And, who made such an announcement ? Was it the revolutionary powers, exiled family or court ?  When and who named his illness haemophilia ?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2005, 02:01:02 PM
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.

From "Les Derniers Annees de la Cour a Tzarskoie-Selo":
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.
     As always, the illness was assiduously hidden to the entourage.  They did not feel it necessary to call in a specialist doctor.  They put him totally under the care of the family doctor, Botkin.  It was the Empress herself who directed his treatment.  They cancelled the concerts which the Cavalry Regimental band, whose squadron formed the military guard of the Palace, would give during lunch and dinner.  The Tsarevtich was very upset at that, begged them to resume the concerts, but his request was in vain.
     When he became better, a Cossack from the escort was ordered to carry him around in his arms.  The child suffered greatly and everyone felt his illness."
...

"They called the surgeon Serge Petrovitch Fyedorov from Petersburg, and the old Rauchfuss.  They arrived on October 4th, the night before Alexis Nicholaiovitch's Name's day. 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 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."

Vol. 2 Ch. 15 : "Taking advantage of this lack of his being watched, the Tsarevtich one day climbed up on a bench in the class room, fell and hurt his knee.  He immediately began to bleed sub-cutaneously with a swelling that quickly encompassed his entire leg.  He was, again, required to be confined to his bed. He began again to moan in pain, suffering again, and nothing could be done to relieve his pain."

These are first hand statements, from someone physically present, who had spoken to the doctors and had first hand knowledge of the state of health of Alexei.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 16, 2005, 02:27:23 PM
So this is the first actual mention of what ailed him ?  And from this description comes a diagnosis of haemophilia ?  This was published after the revolution, of course. Like most people, I accept that diagnosis, just from the reading I have done as a lay person, not a medical expert. I am simply wondering when the first time the word  "haemophilia" was used.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 16, 2005, 02:55:56 PM
I have a question about this for those who do not think it was hemophilia (or anyone who could fill me in :-/ )

What is your take on his getting it from his mother, and how on Alix's side, a brother died of what we assume was hemophilia? Can the diseases people think Alexei might have had be passed on from mother to son like that?  

That's why I thought it was hemophilia, but maybe the other diseases could be passed down too?  :-/

Thanks,
-Dana
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2005, 03:01:25 PM
Robert, according to Spiridovitch, the diagnosis word "hemophilia" was obviously used at least as early as 1912. Simply because he wrote this in the 1920s does not discount his knowledge of what happened at the time. In all of this book, he is very scrupulous about saying what he "learned later" about things. From the tone of the whole text, this is clearly "as it happened"
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 16, 2005, 03:05:42 PM
OK, I was just wondering if, Massie was the one who came up with it, just going from various descriptions of Alexei's illness, injuries et al. I was pretty sure he was not.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 16, 2005, 04:35:48 PM
Quote
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.


Hello there, Bob!  I wondered just how long it was going to take to draw you out of hiding. :-)

Are you speaking in this instance as an impartial moderator.. or are you posting this material to support your own personal opinion?

The quote you give us from Spirodovich was written in 1928..  a full ten years after the murders and sixteen years after Spala.  Sure Spiridovich had first used the word hemophilia in 1928, but he was not a doctor.. and a full 16 years had passed between Alexei's fall in the bath at Spala and the publication in Paris of "Les Derniers Annees de la Cour a Tzarskoie-Selo".

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.   Nor do you have any idea at all where Spiridovich had first heard the word "hemophilia"  The sixteen years that had passed between Spala and the publication of his book is more than enough for Spiridovich to have been influenced by all the rumours that had been swirling around this case.

Unless you can identify for certain the original source of the good General's medical information, then his first known use of the word "hemophilia' in 1928 is still only second-hand... and still falls under the legal definition of hearsay evidence.

The unconfirmed word of a security officer, no matter how close he may have been to Nicholas, does not constitute either medical or scientific proof... not even to the slightest degree.

Quote

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.


I've been waiting for just that precise moment when you were sure to post this gem again  :-)

Alexei jumps across the bath landing hard on the far side, hitting the edge of the tub just below the costal margin.. that's the bottom edge of the rib cage for those who don't know.. and seriously bruises his already swollen spleen.  This is the swelling that was previously observed on his left side when he was examined three weeks earlier after his fall in the boat.

The boy then passes out as his spleen starts to swell like a balloon... what's now called a subcapsular splenic haemorhage.  Not surprisingly, Alexei feels totally miserable for the next couple of days... so his mother takes him out for a ride in the Caleche to get some fresh air... but that's the final straw.  The shaking of the carriage is just to much and the boy's now massively swollen spleen borders on rupture.. and he's rushed back home to bed in absolute agony.

This then leads to that retroperitoneal bleeding, which in turn impinges on the femoral nerve roots, thereby causing the onset of severe groin and thigh pain with a characteristic flexion and external rotation of the hip.

Quote
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.


Putting aside the question of where, exactly, Spiridovich had first heard the word "hemophilia"...

There's one thing about this quote that you have always failed to notice:
 "but it was for him ... the start of many severe complications that could never be totally healed."

Here's Spiridovich... one of your favourite sources... saying very clearly that Spala was "... the start of many severe complications.. "  He wasn't saying it was in the middle of Alexei's case.  He wasn't saying that it had ever happened before.  Spiridovich was saying very clearly that Spala was "the start" of Alexei's "many severe complications".

Quote
The illness got worse.  October 6th, his temperature rose to over 39 degrees (102 F.) and would not go down.


...and by October the 8th Alexei's temperature had reached an extremely dangerous peak of 105 F before the fever finally broke.

As it has been said here many times before, high fever is not a primary symptom of hemophilia. Neither is the delirium that Nicholas had spoken about in his dairy of that same moment...  but both are known to be primary symptoms of crisis in haemolytic anaemia... which also known for showing a tendency to spontaneous and very sudden recovery.

Quote
 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."


Come on.. Read this part of the quote again!  ... And please tell us, do... Bob... exactly what type of surgery Dr. Federov would have been considering if he really did believe that his patient was a hemophiliac?  What competent doctor in 1912 would ever have dared "...to open the swelling..." if he really did believe that his patient had suffered from a clotting disorder?

There's was only one possible surgery that they knew of in 1912 for the haemorrhage that's described at Spala... and that is splenectomy... which can have everything to do with abdominal haemorrhage... but nothing at all to do with haemophilia.

And you've ignored the most important part of Gen. Spriridovich's quote from Dr. Federov...

  "Only a miracle could save the child's life, he said.  And when they asked him what that miracle might be, he responded by shrugging his shoulders and said that the swelling might spontaneously be reabsorbed, but that the chance of that actually happening was only less than one in a hundred."

Oooh, lookee here!  In the Imperial doctor's own words, quoted by Gen. Spiridovich!  Dr. Federov had already known that *spontaneous recovery* was possible.. even before it had happened!   .. and that can only mean that Dr. Federov really did know what the problem was.. and that it wasn't haemophilia.

Serious splenic injury in adults can be disastrous... but in small children like Alexei was at the age of eight at Spala... doctors have always known that they are able to recover spontaneously because the capsule that surrounds the spleen is considerable thicker in young kids than it is in adults.  The only thing that doctors can do, however, even today, is to give the kids lots of bed rest and keep them comfortable until the recovery happens in eight to ten days time... just like it did in Alexei's case. :-)

The resulting hemolysis and its associated... and here's that word again that nobody here likes ... thrombocytopenia... are also known for that spontaneous recovery that Dr. Federov had hinted at in your favourite Spiridovich quote.  

These things have everything to do with the possibility of spontaneous recovery that Dr. Federov himself had hinted at.. before it had ever happened... and they have no known medical connection whatsoever with a diagnosis of hemophilia.

Be extremely careful which evidence you chose, for there's always a very good chance that it might turn out to be a great deal more supportive for the other side of the argument. :-)

JK


Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 16, 2005, 08:28:15 PM
You're not the least concerned that  several male descendants of Queen Victoria are considered to have been haemophiliacs...?

And who knows what was going through the minds of the Czarevitch's doctors?....Do we do an operation to try to relieve a swelling?....Do we just leave the boy to die slowly and painful?...I can well imagine the parents begging..."Please...please....do SOMETHING..."
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 16, 2005, 08:40:09 PM
I don't think that Alexei did have Thrombocitopenya. His sympthoms are clearly these from Haemophilia. The most clear of them was hemartrosis (Do you remember the Spala problem with Alexei leg? ) .

These who said that Alexei didn't have haemophilia are not saying the truth. And you know that I'm open to accept claimants and pretenders, I mean I'm always ready to analyze their claims without denying them "a priori". Perhaps Semionov WAS Alexei (he suffered from a long hematuria all time he spent in the psychiatric institute in Carelia), but for me, one thing is for sure: a tsarevitch claimant MUST be haemophiliac. If not...It's a little odd to me to try to show that Alexei didn't have haemophilia, just to fit one or two of his claimants... :-/

RealAnastasia.

P.S: Doing surgery to open an haemophiliac swelling is JUST the thing we MUST do in those cases. For an haemophiliac patient it's always better to bleed OUTSIDE than INSIDE.  But for Alexei's case in Spala the wound was so bad that surgery could have caused another serious injure.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 16, 2005, 08:49:54 PM
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....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 16, 2005, 11:40:01 PM
Well.... the only thing the asserted but UNPROVEN 'aplastic anemia/thrombocytopenia' theory does prove is that a claimant without hemophilia can go to great lengths to press his suit.  The only thing that will PROVE that Alexei did not have hemophilia is any bona-fide scientific evidence that the X-linked gene for hemophilia could not in fact be found in Alexandra's DNA or in a DNA sample from Alexei himself that can confidently be dated prior to 1918.  

Whether or not one assumes that the Tsarevich was murdered in 1918, pre-1918 DNA evidence one way or the other about that one gene would be the only satisfactory way to answer that question.   Nothing else is that definite.  Nothing else will settle it.  It is impossible to assert Alexei Nikolaevich did not have the disease without anything indisputable to go on from HIM or his doctors.  All a claimant has to go on is his own experience.

Have any other so-called hemophiliacs been proven to have been misdiagnosed, or just Alexei?  Has any other so-called hemophiliac ever gone through one such spectacular episode with splenic involvement, etc.  or was it just Alexei?  Could the poor Tsarevich have had such a thoroughly unique medical history as has never been seen before or since as this man apparently outside the field of medicine proposes?  Or is this all based on a claimant's medical history and therefore suspect?

Why would ALEXEI - as opposed to any claimant - not have had hemophilia?  State your proof without resorting to anything related to a claimant.

I'd be willing to bet that it can't be done without DNA evidence showing the lack of a gene, since Alexei died long before most of the medical breakthroughs of the twentieth century.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on June 17, 2005, 05:27:20 AM
Quote

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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 17, 2005, 03:05:41 PM
Perhaps Alexei was a product of the "Mother Ship" from a distant world....you can't prove it didn't happen...and I say it did...so you MUST give respect to my ideas and thoughts...
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 17, 2005, 04:16:25 PM
I am the first to state that I know absolutely nothing about hemophilia accept in the most broadess of terms.

I found J_Kenrick's post quite interesting and full of interesting questions which, I, too, would like to know the answers.

All the symtoms he described about the injury to the spleen certainly were the same as a friend of mine's son's spleen injury after a car accident.

And, as I have said on the other thread,  what the doctors knew then is certainly different than what they know, now.

Quote
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.


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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 17, 2005, 04:31:34 PM
Quote
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.


You do realize, of course, don't you, that there is no more medical scientific proof that the disease believed to have been suffered by Alexei's various cousins and uncles was hemophilia than there is in Alexei's own case?  There is no medical laboratory proof at all of the true identity of the disease in any of those cases... not just in Alexei's case.

Of course, you also realize that it's entirely possible that certain examples of the hemolytic anemia/thrombocytopenia explanation of bleeding disorders can be inherited in the very same X-linked recessive fashion as hemophilia...

Of course, you don't.. or you never would have asked the question.

No matter how much you may choose to oppose it, remember this :

This alternative medical hypothesis has received the approval of leading hematologists, now having passed the medical peer review panel process and having been published in a leading hematology journal.

Whether you approve of this new interpretation of Alexei's medical evidence or not, it's now a matter of public record in the achives of the National Library of Medicine... so you'll have to get used to hearing about it.

JK
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 17, 2005, 06:09:41 PM
Yeah, I see your poin, but the disease that was passed down seemed to have the same symptoms and effects...
do you really think that could be coincidance or that they could they all be seperate diseases? :-/ Are any of the other diseases Alexei might have had can be passed down in the same fasion as heamophilia? (I'm afraid I do not know much about the diseases in question apart from heamophilia.)

Regards,
Dana
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 17, 2005, 07:00:18 PM
While an alternative theory about the Tsarevich's illness - which most accurately fits in with the symptomology of hemophilia whether claimants without it or their supporters like it or not - has now appeared in print and must now be contended with whether the rest of us like it or not -- that theory has NOT been proven, ONLY PRESENTED.  The only thing that will satisfactorily resolve this issue is whether or not one can find a particular X-linked chromosome in Alexandra's or Alexei's pre-1918 DNA.  

HOW WOULD ANYONE *KNOW* that the swelling referred to by Dr. Feodorov was in fact a swelling of the spleen as opposed to an obvious massive haematoma in the child's hip and groin area that flexed his leg so badly?   As we all know, no invasive procedures were in fact performed on Alexei.  Is Mr. Kendrick a bona-fide medical specialist able to diagnose things with an uncanny scientific ability that in such a distant context as the passage of time reminds one ironically of Rasputin?

Do you have the sort of medical credentials that render you fit to diagnose and treat diseases of the blood, Mr. Kendrick?   Or are you speculating, based on second or third hand information from those who observed or treated the Heir, extant ever since it first became widely available in English thanks to the father of a hemophiliac who did his homework, which you as a publicist and writer have manipulated in order to support a claimant?  Please observe the same demands you have made on those of us who do not concur with your theories.

And here is a valid disclaimer common to many forms of media.  Even if this technically impressive but unproven theory has been allowed to appear in print, it may not necessarily represent the views of those that publish the American Journal of Hematology.  
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Tasha_R on June 17, 2005, 09:32:17 PM
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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Tasha_R on June 17, 2005, 09:49:36 PM
Having been diagnosed with "probable" von Willabrands, I went back to the National Hemophilia Foundation (gee, I've been spelling it wrong all this time... :-/ ) and found the following links which ought to help, at least in terms of history and differentiation between different types of blood disorders:

http://www.hemophilia.org/bleeding_disorders/bleeding_disorder_history.htm

http://www.hemophilia.org/bleeding_disorders/types.htm

As you can see, they call out specifically that Alexei had hemophilia.  However, they also point out that after he was diagnosed with it, different variations were found to be known, and indeed a lot more research was done.  This is only the tip of the iceberg, of course.  But I offer it for those who wish to dig deeper.

Sincere regards,
Tasha
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 17, 2005, 10:46:04 PM
Those are very interesting links, Tasha. Thanks for taking the time to look that up. From this,k I think it probably was heamoplilia.....

-DD
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 17, 2005, 11:28:41 PM
Quote
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


Dear Tasha:

You should consider starting your research with the fact that, despite all that's been claimed about Queen Victoria's part in this play, it is entirely possible that Victoria herself had never even heard the word "haemophiliac"... because the first known use of the word was in the medical journal LANCET in the year 1896... in the 59th year of Her Majesty's reign and just five years before her death.

This fact very obviously means that Victoria's son Leopold and her grandson Friedrick (Alexandra's brother Frittie) have both clearly been diagnosed *after* the fact.    

Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, had died in 1884... and that's 12 full years *before* that first known use of the word "haemophiliac" in the medical journal 'LANCET'.  Leopold's nephew Friedrick (Alexei's uncle Frittie) had died eleven years before his uncle in that tragic fall from the palace window in 1873, which very clearly means that Alexei's three year old uncle Frittie had died a whole 23 years *before* it was ever possible for anyone to have called the boy a haemophiliac, because the word "haemophiliac" did not even exist until 1896.

JK
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 17, 2005, 11:29:09 PM
Dear Tasha:  Many thanks for those links.  It was very thoughtful of you.

The Canadian Hemophilia Society has a website:  

www.hemophilia.ca

And so does the World Federation of Hemophilia:

www.wfh.org

Also, a site created by and for those who suffer from the disease:

www.haemophilia.org.uk
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 17, 2005, 11:44:16 PM
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... :) )
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 17, 2005, 11:45:15 PM
PS- by "read about it" I meant diary entries of doctors and such people who witnessed an attack.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 17, 2005, 11:55:28 PM
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.  Hemophilia was a dreaded, mysterious ailment before it bore that name.  By the time Alexei was born with it, doctors had at least a little more to go on about it than in prior generations.  But episodes of hemophilic arthrosis, hemophilic synovitis, pseudotumors, and other manifestations of the illness in young boys had been going on long before they were codified, long before these symptoms typical of the disease were seen, dealt with, and often despaired of in the case of Alexei.

No better explanation exists of the boy's condition.  

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.  Your insistence that we must ignore the historical evidence and believe in the novelty of your unproven hypotheses does not validate your hypotheses or supercede the general consensus that Alexei's symptoms were those of hemophilia.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on June 18, 2005, 04:08:34 AM
Quote
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


ERR UMMM I meant that Aunt Irene's 2 sons had hemophilia and so did Alexei so that makes 3 little cousins who had inherited it.....Very interesting from the one maternal grandmother.

And also, Mr Kendrick, if I can repeat that before the modern day name for the illness was conceived, the sufferers were referred to as "bleeders" and the illness commonly called "the bleeding disease" and Queen Victoria did refer to the illness. She spent her life worried for her son Leopold.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on June 18, 2005, 04:18:18 AM
I will bore you all again with what Massie writes in his book,
"Hemophilia is as old as man. It has come down through the centuries, misted in legend, shrouded with the dark dread of a hereditary curse. In the Egypt of the Pharoahs, a woman was forbidden to have further children if her firstborn son bled to death from a minor wound. The ancient Talmud barred circumcision in a family if two successive male children had suffered fatal hemorrhages".
Respectfully Mr Kendrick, you cannot keep going on about how children were "diagnosed" after the illness had a name. These people involved in the first instance knew of this illness and knew their family was cursed and their sons were afflicted with the bleeding disease and dying early.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 18, 2005, 01:37:26 PM
Leopold,Duke of Albany,was perhaps QV's most charming,artistic and interesting son....as well as a "bleeder"....which has been mentioned....one of the loves of Lily Langtry.....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 18, 2005, 02:44:00 PM
Quote
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.

JK
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 18, 2005, 08:52:00 PM
Quote

Hello?.. Knock, Knock?..  Is there anybody home?


Yes, indeed.   And I see you've (typically) cut away much of what I had to say, particularly those specific medical terms that best describe the Heir Tsarevich's symptoms to this day.....

Quote
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!!


You have most definitely not been able to refute the most plausible explanation of Alexei Nikolaevich's symptoms through this typical argument of yours.  You have convinced yourself of an intriguing but deliberate fabrication and perpetuated it for a long time.  It is your favorite version of the story, and one you cannot prove without the DNA.   The pot here calls the kettle black once again.

Quote
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.


The hemolytic anemia/thrombocytopenia story that you and you alone have told, edited, and embellished is not evidence in the least.  It is a colorful deception by someone who has himself been overwhelmingly enamored by novelty and notoriety.

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.'  Huh?  As a curiosity and an aside, would Mr. Tammet  have been any less interesting to Romanov aficionados as a famous impostor like Anna Anderson was?      

Quote
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


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?   Isn't it understandable that the empirical observation of Alexei's symptoms has most logically pointed to hemophilia for all these years, and would it be surprising at all that doctors in fact learned a lot about that once mysterious bleeding disease from the case of Alexei?  

Quote
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.


But anyone can see that you have done precisely this in the case of the Tsarevich, and this without your demonstrating any bonafide medical credentials of which we might have been made aware.  The child died in 1918.  His own doctors diagnosed him as a hemophiliac;  and this was a state secret that no one outside the family circle and most intimately involved staff -- such as Pierre Gilliard and Spiridovich -- was supposed to know.  They saw Alexei.  They diagnosed and treated him according to the best methods of the day, which involved methods largely developed in the 19th century.  I would not sneeze at Ostrogorsky, Feodorov, Derevenko or even Botkin, all of whom demonstrated great compassion and discretion in the care of their young patient.

Quote
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.


There are many reasons I doubt anyone here would actually believe the hemolytic anemia/thrombocytopenia diagnosis fashioned to suggest a link to Heino Tammet, since it lacks a indisputable, definite and verifiable link to Alexei Nikolaevich, demonstrated by DNA.  If you are using late 20th century terms to bring this up at the start of the 21st, use a DNA test to confirm your story.  Nothing else will do.  We all know Ernst-Heino Tammet-Veerman DEFINITELY did not have hemophilia in any of its various manifestations based on whatever factor is missing from the blood.  You did not arrive at this theory based on Alexei and Alexei alone.  

Quote
As you have just so accurately stated yourself, the repetition and publication of your theory does not make your theory true.


Let's put it on record that in fact you are twisting my words to suit your purposes.  Of course it is highly possible that something other than DNA may well shatter this whole illusion and I can think of two possibilities right off the bat.  Looking at this realistically, the general consensus of *most people* would be that it is much too obvious that Mr. Tammet-Veerman was *not* the Tsarevich.  Treating him as a interesting curiosity would be a far more honest approach to telling his story than perpetuating his claim.


Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 19, 2005, 12:22:14 AM
Quote
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"?

Robert,
I beleive the first time the word haemophelia was used was by Massie. Prior to that, I do not think any of his doctors had actually used the term haemphelia. I'll do some checking, if I am wrong, I will let you know. Or someone else will post letting me know.
:) :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 19, 2005, 12:25:15 AM
Thank you, would be interesting to find the actual cites.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: bluetoria on June 19, 2005, 08:06:21 AM
Quote
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... :) )


The qualified people on this forum (e.g. Belochka - a medical pathologist & others) have posted their views that the Tsarevich definitely did suffer from haemophilia which so obviously ran in the family in spite of attempts to suggest it was some other illness, to explain away the common symptoms as coincidence, or to give the poor little boy's condition another name.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 19, 2005, 09:41:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 19, 2005, 11:07:38 AM
Quote
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.


Would it be possible to give a quote...?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 19, 2005, 11:34:27 AM
The relevant material from Spiridovitch's memoirs has been posted by the Forum Administrator in another thread similar to this one.  BTW:  as has been stated in this thread before, hemophilia was mentioned in the PRESS as early as 1912 when the Spala episode on which so much of the Tammet theories hinge actually occurred.  The source of that information was reportedly a leak from the child's own doctors.  Hard to argue with that if you've actually read the papers from that era, when Alexei Nikolaevich was front page news in England and America.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 19, 2005, 11:37:36 AM
This info needs to be put forward...on a regular basis....as very odd theories seem to come out of dark corners....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 19, 2005, 04:58:10 PM
Quote

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?


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.

Quote
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?


Well.... At least we can agree on something.

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.

JK
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 19, 2005, 07:52:04 PM
Quote

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.


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.

Quote
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.


Isn't that what people here have been saying for quite some time, including myself?

Quote
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.


It's far from a naive assumption.  So much points to hemophilia in Alexei Nikolaevich that experts on that disease might call it a foregone conclusion.  ;)

Quote
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?


Accept the results and the alteration of history, knowing the young man who was murdered in 1918 along with her still suffered greatly.  The chances that Her Majesty's DNA would show a result that YOU would like to see, however, are highly unlikely.

Quote
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?


What if it were faulty Factor IX or Christmas disease that Alexei had, or perhaps one of the even rarer forms of hemophilia that can affect both genders?  It would still be hemophilia, right?

Quote
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...?


If the remains of St. Empress Alexandra showed that her beloved son suffered from anything else than the effects of a faulty Factor VIII gene, that would not necessarily make the boy any less a martyr himself.  His sufferings still remain poignant and his patience still inspiring to lesser mortals like myself.    

Quote
I just can't wait to see how you're going to wriggle out of answering this one.


It is high time your claimant's DNA were tested were things to go that far, though as I have said at least two other possibilities exist that would deflate your entire theory if it were in fact entirely based on Tammet -- which everyone here knows it was.  It is FAR more certain that the Tsarevich had a form of hemophilia than anything you yourself have stated.

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on June 19, 2005, 08:00:02 PM
Let's all face the facts.
The poor child had hemophilia.
It ran in his family, from his mother, grandmother, great grandmother.
IF a Romanov had survived (HA HA ) they would have lived with Royal relatives somewhere. (until they married within their station)
They would not have lived in obscurity like all the peasants that were annoying claimants.
The claimants had sad pathetic lives and so became dellusional. (perhaps they were bi-polar or something)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: rskkiya on June 19, 2005, 08:08:22 PM
Mr Kendrick,
   I am afraid that I believe Mr. Tammet was not a relative in any way to Alexie Romanov. He appears mistaken in his claim. Sadly your rather vulgar and vitriolic posts have only made me very unsympathetic to your arguements.
   I strongly doubt that Alexie did NOT have hemophilia - all the viable and reliable evidence suggests that he did - so please in the furture I should suggest that you post your theories in a less bombastic manner... That way people here might be willing to consider your points.

rs
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 19, 2005, 11:42:26 PM
Quote

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.

Do you want your question that started this thread answered... or do you not want your question answered?

And 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?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 20, 2005, 12:06:37 AM
It seems to me that when we have certain physical facts about one of the Romanovs, we can pretty accurately weed out false claimants based on those facts.

Fact:  Alexei had that testicle issue.  Any claimant who did not have the testicle issue is therefore ruled out as being valid.

Fact:  Alexei had hemophilia OR, if you insist on needing some modern diagnosis that cannot be done, then most certainly a bleeding disorder that showed no signs of disappearing or getting better as he entered puberty.  Therefore, any claimant who did not have a bleeding disorder of this kind cannot be valid.

We can also use plain old logic.  Victoria brought the mutation that generates hemophilia into the family somehow.  One of her sons had it.  Several of her daughters were carriers.  Sons of those daughters had hemophilia.  Daughters of the daughters were carriers.  One of those daughters of a daughter was Alix.  When she had a son who had a bleeding problem, chances are extremely high that it was the same hemophilia disorder as her cousins and other relatives had.  

I'm just popping into this thread, but can someone tell me what the big deal is here?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 20, 2005, 12:57:54 AM



When a sovereign dies pretenders to the throne volunteer
[/b][/color]


;D
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 20, 2005, 07:18:27 AM
Quote

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.

Quote
Do 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.

Quote
And 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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 20, 2005, 09:25:23 AM
"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.
     As always, the illness was assiduously hidden to the entourage."
Spiridovitch, Vol. 2, Ch. 12. re the fall at Byelovezh.

NY 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 European royal families in the early and middle ages."
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 20, 2005, 09:34:50 AM
(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/images/alexeinyt.jpg)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 20, 2005, 09:39:52 AM
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)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 20, 2005, 10:02:23 AM
Thank goodness...some evidence in what most folk had considered "common knowlege"... ::)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 20, 2005, 11:01:39 AM
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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 20, 2005, 11:07:36 AM
Family history of haemophilia?...Excessive bleeding from bumps and thumps....?...If it walks like a duck...?...Need I go on...?....sigh...
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 20, 2005, 11:34:52 AM
Hmm,
A British medical journal, "Hospital", writes an article about the announced diagnosis of "heamophilia" made BY ALEXEI'S doctors, but "we don't know what is in their medical reports"???
What was IN his doctors' reports WAS A DIAGNOSIS OF HAEMOPHILIA...

*bangs head on wall*
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 20, 2005, 11:40:24 AM
Could grow up to be a swan  ::)

as in the tale THE UGLY DUCKLING.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 20, 2005, 11:43:03 AM
FA...Save that head....I think your case is well made for the rational..... ::)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 20, 2005, 11:47:58 AM
Quote
Could grow up to be a swan  ::)

as in the tale THE UGLY DUCKLING.

AGRBear


Witty...erm...yes...but I believe that Alexei was one ickle,tuff duckling who tried his best to survive....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 20, 2005, 11:48:14 AM
This is not a personal debate between you and I, this is about a topic of hemophilia which I and others know very little.  If you wish to mock us,  that is your preference, meanwhile, I hope others have answers to Kenrick's questions.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 20, 2005, 11:51:29 AM
Erm...without being indelicate....might we know the nature of the testicle issue?...I think most of us are mature enough to handle it....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 20, 2005, 11:51:53 AM
Quote
.... [ 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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 20, 2005, 11:54:53 AM
Bear...calm down...just 'BREATH"...You and I were on the same wave length about the H.C.Andersen fairy-tale of the 'Ugly Duckling"...The debate continues to swirl around us.... :-*
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 20, 2005, 12:05:06 PM
eton
Alexei had a condition where one of his testicles did not descend properly
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 20, 2005, 12:15:44 PM
Quote
eton
Alexei had a condition where one of his testicles did not descend properly


Thank you FA...I thought it might be this somewhat common chaps problem....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 20, 2005, 12:57:30 PM
Thank you FA-
"the recent pronouncement by the Czar's physicians that the Czarevitch has haemophilia..."  9 Nov. 1912.
That is what I was asking for.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on June 20, 2005, 06:24:42 PM
Quite frankly the way some people are addressing other posters is really quite rude and uncalled for, talking to a grown and intelligent woman such as lizameridox as if she were a somewhat slow and dull child, and I am sure I am not alone in feeling insulted and put-down when reading some posts. There are ways to say you disagree with someone without resorting to childish put-downs and rudeness.

A thought - if the Tsarevich didn't have haemophilia but some other disease of which we know much more these last few years, wouldn't scientists etc have said "Well, wait a minute, it looks like everyone has been wrong - for decades it was thought the Tsarevich had haemophilia, but his symptoms are actually that of XYZ." I haven't seen any recent books on the Romanovs that suggest anything other than haemophilia. Once again, it seems the only real dissenting position comes from the supporters of a haemophia-less claiment.

If it was proved by DNA the Tsarevich-martyr didn't have haemophilia, I would accept that, but until it is proven otherwise, I will agree with what has been common knowledge, since, it would seem, 1912 - that the poor kid was a 'bleeder'.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 20, 2005, 07:12:35 PM
Well said,Georgiy...I've been looking at every site I can find on the Net...and they all say that AN had haemophilia...Oxford,Cambridge,Harvard,Yale,et al...seem to agree on this issue....one person disagrees it seems....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 20, 2005, 10:01:12 PM
Quote

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


Mr Kendrick why not follow your own dictum?  ;D


Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 20, 2005, 10:33:39 PM
Quote

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?


Mr Tammet died from leukemia in the apparent absence of any underlying significant congenital hematological condition, in his seventh decade.

To have succeeded with his claim, "Alexei" had to now argue that he did not suffer from an inherited condition such as hemophilia.

Presenting with leukemia in his final years, the veracity of any claim, in the absence of DNA verification, became more difficult. To solve this dilemma, the use of innovative "best fit" scenarios became the obvious step.

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 20, 2005, 10:40:11 PM
Quote
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....



Thank you! I'm very touched! Well, no..Speaking seriously, I actually enjoy my arguments with you!  ;D

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 20, 2005, 11:01:53 PM
Quote
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)


We've already dealt with this article in another thread a couple of weeks ago... but .. If you insist...

First off.. Look at the date of the article.  November 9, 1912... just six days after that single official palace statement we've all seen that came only ten days after the end of the Spala episode.  The statement from Baron Fredericks carrying the name of the four doctors was dated October 21 old style... November 3 new style... and the article you post is dated less than a week later.

Given the date, obviously this is the New York Times way of reporting the events at Spala, but it's amazingly short on detail about the episode that everyone on this board now knows inside out. The Heir to the Imperial Russian throne almost dies from a massive internal hemorrhage just two weeks earlier... and the best the NYTimes can say about it is only that he's a bleeder?  No details of the episode? Nothing about the political implications?  Just a tale about other members of the family who may have had a similar problem?

Any Editor who sees a reporter filing a story that's as short on the details as this one is should be telling his reporter to go back to the source, do more digging, and then file the story again when he gets it right.

The bold type line that says "Special cable to the New York Times" tells you exactly how the story was transmitted.. and explains why it took six days from the publication of the palace statement before the story reached New York.  In 1912, news reports were sent by telegram.. hopscotching from one telegraph station to the next.. and quite often altered as the operators of one morse code key after another slightly revised the message as it was sent from one telegraph station to the next.

Spala tells St. Petersburg the boy had an internal  hemorrhage... St. Petersburg tells London that he nearly bled to death... London editors cut back on the detail of the episode but add what they know about Prince Leopold... and by the time the story reaches New York six days later Alexei has been "diagnosed" with hemophilia...

... even though we all know that the palace statement released six days earlier does *not* actually use the word "haemophilia".. but it does use the words "significant anemia"... which, to a modern day haematologist, is *not* the same thing.

All that aside... Take a good look at the wording of that NYTimes article again....

Do you not see something very wrong with the details of that report?  

Mary and the Hohenzollerns? Come on... It should be obvious to everyone here that the authors of this New York Times report of November 9, 1912 were mixing the stories of both Hemophilia and Porphyria into a single disease....

... which should prove to everyone here just how little the authors of that article actually knew about the medical facts that they were attempting to report.

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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on June 20, 2005, 11:08:58 PM
If you read it carefully again, you will see that they are saying that the "one skin instead of three" is a popular fallacy and that haemophilliacs have as much skin as anyone else.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on June 21, 2005, 03:07:39 AM
Quote
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

Take a good look at the article again, Mr Kendrick, under that little headline grabbing announcement it clearly says that hemophiliacs have as many skins as everybody else. Respectfully I must say you are good at ignoring what is plainly written and only reading as far as it suits.....

Have you ever thought that the newspapers could not release much information (or indeed have access to it)as it involved the health of  a member of a Royal Family, even now, in our information down your throat age, we dont have access to Royalty's health problems, it is private information known only to the family.
And we know Nicholas and Alexandra fiercely guarded the secret of Alexei's condition as he was their only Heir to the throne and they wanted everybody to beleive he was a healthy normal boy who would grow up to become a strong Tsar.
That article would not have been possible had not somebody leaked information, and we know that to be true here.
I dont know why it is difficult for some people to believe this beautiful "perfect" child had hemophilia, a tragic hereditary condition in his family, a chemical imbalance in the blood which prohibits normal clotting. That is what he had. If his sisters had married, there would have been more affected children.
I think it shocking that people throughout last century pretended to impersonate this innocent child. ( and worse others encouraged them).
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 21, 2005, 10:16:46 AM
JK: "why it took six days from the publication of the palace statement before the story reached New York.  In 1912, news reports were sent by telegram.. hopscotching from one telegraph station to the next.. and quite often altered as the operators of one morse code key after another slightly revised the message as it was sent from one telegraph station to the next. "

Please read some decent history. The trans-atlantic cable was laid in 1866 by the Great Eastern. Within 20 years there were 107,000 miles of undersea cables linking all parts of the world.  In 1894, the Commercial Cable Company laid its third submarine telegraph cable between Ireland and Hazel Hill, Guysborough County, Nova Scotia. This additional cable was needed because the heavy telegraph traffic had grown beyond the capacity of the two earlier cables. The 1894 cable was an improved design, and was able to handle telegraph messages at a considerably faster rate than the earlier cables.  In 1905, the Commercial Cable Company laid its fifth submarine cable between Hazel Hill, Nova Scotia, and Waterville, Ireland. This was one of the heaviest submarine telegraph cables up to this time. Its speed was remarkable for its day, and it quickly took a heavy load of telegraph message traffic.  According to Prof. Randy Katz at UC Berkley, "typical" speed for transmission in 1901 was 4-5 minutes for a cable sent in London to reach NY.  By 1912, it was even faster. A cable sent in London would only go through four Telegraphers. London to Ireland to New Foundland to New York. Typical accuracy in a message was 99% plus for Western Union and the other companies.  A "special cable" would be VERY accurate, no doubt. Further, the Marconi Wireless company could send a cable virtually instantly from England to New York in 1912. Remember the Titanic??

JK: No details of the episode? Nothing about the political implications?  Just a tale about other members of the family who may have had a similar problem?

NY Times Oct 23, 1912 pg 4: "St. Petersburg Oct. 22- 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". and goes on to repeat the official court bulletin.

NY Times Oct 25, 1912 pg. 1: "St. Petersburg , Oct 25 1 am. by Marconi Transatlantic Wireless Company to the New York Times. Dispatch to the London Daily Mail.   The condition of the Czar's son remains serious. Prayers for his recovery continue throughout Russia.  His Imperial Highness is now suffering from peritonitis.  It is impossible to ascertain the real cause of his illness." Then goes on to discuss the possiblity theat Admrial Chagin  committed suicide out of some connection with the illness resulting from an accident on board Standart, or the truth of the love affair, "It is said that the Prince injured himself while imitating sailors diving, although it is positively affirmed that he slipped and fell in his bath."  The details of Chagin's suicide are then discussed in detail. (485 words total)

NY Times Oct. 26, 1912, pg. C5. " The latest reports recieved in Court circles from Spala give assurances of the recovery of Crown Prince Alexis.  Apart from the meagre details of the doctors' bulletins, not a single fact has been allowed to appear in the Russian newspapers regarding the illness of the heir to the throne and the whole nation is deeply incensed by the rigid censorship.  The secrecy with respect to the injuries from which the Crown Prince is suffering has bred a crop of sensational rumors." A long discussion follows of the rumors, slipping off a cupboard, boat, etc. then a discussion of the importance of succession, why Alexei can't die, and the possible war over succession rights if he did. approx 600 words total.

For the period between October 15 and November 23 1912 there are ten separate articles disucssing the Tsarevich's health and the succession implications in the New York Times.


Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Tasha_R on June 21, 2005, 10:28:56 AM
A number of folks have asked "why even question it?".  From my perspective, in questioning it, I have learned even more of the history surrounding the Tsarevitch's condition than I knew was possible.  Many of you have brought forward pieces of information which I have never seen/heard before, and it is informative and enlightening.

I have a habit of constantly questioning anyway, as things do change, and I like to constantly test my assumptions against any new evidence brought forward.

Sincere regards,
Tasha
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 21, 2005, 06:48:23 PM
Great fact-finding by the FA lately....kudos....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 21, 2005, 07:21:43 PM
I agree, but then, we have come to expect it, have we not ?
I would say the standard for Romanov information has been set here. at least to us amateurs and casual interest folks.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 21, 2005, 09:02:56 PM
Quote
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


Here here. Thank you Bear.
I have read all the posts here and I do have some questions.
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?

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 21, 2005, 09:17:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 21, 2005, 09:37:49 PM
Quote

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.


Since Alexei Nikolaevich's hemophilia was always meant by the Russian Imperial Court to be a state secret, it does not surprise me that as the boy and his family accepted that it was their family's cross to bear 'hemophilia' was almost a household non-word.  I have had cerebral palsy for over 40 years and while this has been a fact of life for me, my parents and sisters and every one who knows me, the term 'cerebral palsy' never comes up in conversations.  'Braces' might once in a while, 'joint pain' might more often.  So in diary entries or letters written by Alexei and his family, look for phrases like 'Baby can't bend his arm today', 'had to put a compress on my ankle', 'stayed in bed all day'
or 'my leg feels better. I am still in bed.'  That's day to day suffering on the part of Alexei.  Being a bleeder did not always mean a threat to the Tsarevich's life, but it certainly meant bruising, discomfort and being confined to bed for days at a time on a frequent, unpredictable basis.  Remember, these were the days before Factor VIII or Factor IX treatments....

Another more sinister parallel might be in the case of some people who suffer from certain mental illnesses.  This is a family secret some people are careful never to reveal.

Since Alexei Nikolaevich stood to inherit the throne, the revelation that he was ill would have had bad consequences, through no fault of the boy's own.  That is why when the news of hemophilia was leaked in Russia (there were rumors in the papers prior to the article posted by our intrepid Forum Administrator!), Count Fredericks wrote a very evasive court bulletin meant to diffuse the notion and deflect people from having the truth stick in their minds, crystallized in that single word 'hemophilia'.  This bulletin of Count Fredericks should not be confused with the only known fragment of the Tsarevich's medical record, which rather than stressing 'significant anemia' did mention a massive hematoma -- bleeding into the hip joint and muscle -- inflammation of the joint, flexing of the knee and other symptoms typical of hemophilia.  No mention of the spleen was made in this particular medical record, written in Russian and not translated to this day.  It should be....

Quote
2. Do people who have hemophilia always bleed instantly and profusely?


It depends on the site of the injury.  When Alexei bled into a joint, there was more room for the blood to expand into, and more shooting pains as pressure set in on his nerves.  The hip joint is very large compared to the elbow, ankle and wrist, so Spala was serious business.  If he bled into a muscle, it may not have been as evident.


[/quote]
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 21, 2005, 09:43:53 PM
Thank you Liza,
That was very informatative. Do you think Alexandra realized she was a carrier? I dont she how she could not have. It must have worried her during her pregnancies, yet there seems to be no written record of her expessing those concerns.

FA, I will look for the article. I can't read the post because the print is to small, at least for me to read.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on June 21, 2005, 09:46:31 PM
It's a bit like Russian Roulette, and a carrier doesn't know if a child will have the disease or not. Probably like most people she had the idea of "Oh, it wouldn't happen to me." We should never be complacent about things!
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 21, 2005, 09:48:59 PM
Thank you Georgiy.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 22, 2005, 02:21:34 AM
Quote
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.


Yes.. The "H" word was used by the New York Times and the newspaper did attribute it, incorrectly, to the doctors.   In actual fact, however, the "H" word most definitely was *NOT* used by Alexei's doctors in that very same palace announcement that the New York Times was reporting.

This would not be the first time in the Romanov story that the New York Times had managed to get things wrong.  Six years later, in December of 1918, that very same New York Times had reported that Nicholas had been taken to a secret trial just three hours before he was shot alone.. and that Alexandra and Alexei were then driven to a secret location.  The same journalist who had reported that obviously spurious claim that Nicholas had been given brief secret trail immediately before his death would later be named as the new Dean of Journalism at Columbia University and Secretary of the Pultizer Prize Committee in 1931.

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.

... and you still haven't said anything about the fact that the text of that New York Times article makes it clear that its authors were obviously mixing the separate stories of both haemophilia and porphyria in the Royal family line and describing them as if they were a single disease.

JK
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 22, 2005, 08:41:59 AM
I just read what is there. You are of course quite free to fantasize and imagine it to mean whatever makes you happy.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 22, 2005, 09:17:20 AM
Dear Mr. Kendrick...
We are all to believe your research...which seemingly the entire rest of the known World doesn't believe....and ignore common sense and the obvious information of research by people here in this forum...such as the FA?...
Best-of-Luck on what ever book,magazine,film offers you might have in all of this....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Tasha_R on June 22, 2005, 10:14:44 AM
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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 22, 2005, 10:28:21 AM
Quote
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.... :'(
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: rjt on June 22, 2005, 10:45:44 AM
Quote

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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 22, 2005, 12:52:04 PM
Quote
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.


Thanks for that great question...Don't know,me...looks like the photo of that corner was around 8x10-ish foot...but can't be certain....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on June 22, 2005, 04:25:50 PM
Quote
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?

The story of so many gunmen just doesn't seem quite accurate; they were ranked in the doorway of not a massive room and the bullets were said to have "ricocheted" off all over the places. Why, then, did the gunmen emerge unscathed?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 22, 2005, 04:47:27 PM
Quote
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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: rskkiya on June 22, 2005, 05:06:26 PM
Quote

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

    Well this last post not only appears pointess, but tasteless and quite nasty...

Mr. Kendrick,
    PLEASE feel free to express your medical doubts in a manner which avoids pettiness and name calling - and you may well find an interested audience for your evidence, but again this sort of thing is only making you look like a petulant 6 year old!
-I do hope that I am incorrect in this assessment of your intended tone.

I am not convinced. Please try again.

rs
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 22, 2005, 06:23:35 PM
Stop attacking JKendriks personally,

JKendricks is not the topic.  Alexei is.

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?

Gosh, back then they didn't even know there were different blood types let alone different blood disorders that had similar symptoms.

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?

Thank you.

AGRBear

PS-  It accomplishes nothing to mix words with someone who only wishes to draw you into a personal battle so the person can become, once, again, center of attention and spoil the flow of our topic which is:  "So WHY would it not have been heophilia?".




Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 22, 2005, 08:16:56 PM
Mr. Kendrick seems to take great pride in being in the minority...heaps of practice...? ???
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 22, 2005, 08:24:14 PM
Um, I don't have a list of all of the blood disorders that mimic the disabilities that Alexei had.

But I do know that none of them go into remission and allow someone to be shot and not bleed to death.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 22, 2005, 08:24:51 PM


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."

"...a majority is always wrong"?...and they BOTH said this?...then they are both off my Christmas card list....  ::)


Might we have the source of these quotes,Mr. Kendrick...?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 22, 2005, 08:25:55 PM
Immune thrombocytopenic purpura can be inherited or acquired, but is not truly serious as Alexei's illness was:  see

www.itp-helper.com/what_is_itp.html.

A remote possibility that the Spala incident might have been due to Schoenlein-Henoch purpura exists if one really wants to make a great deal of that episode -- except for the facts that Alexei's symptoms so often involved his joints and that he survived to the age of 14:

www.ecureme.com/emyhealth/Pediatrics/Schoenlein-Henoch_purpura.asp

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura and associated hemolytic uremic syndrome sounds nasty.  It also is seen more often in little girls than little boys and doesn't sound specific enough to describe Alexei's varied episodes:

www.emedicine.com/MED/topic2265.htm

Of course, none of these sound too much like Alexei had them....

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 22, 2005, 08:32:48 PM
Quote
Do you think Alexandra realized she was a carrier?


Yes lexi4, Alexandra was more than aware. Her own brother, Frederick succumbed to this condition as a youngster, aged only three.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 22, 2005, 08:42:40 PM
Quote
Why, then, did the gunmen emerge unscathed?


This is an excellent question Lass. I believe that some of them would have incurred injuries. Those murderers were commisioned in the line of "duty". Had one or few died from "friendly fire", then we might have learnt about their "heroic" death. Injuries were part and parcel of the task before them, and therefore irrelevant.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 22, 2005, 08:57:09 PM
Quote
Stop attacking JKendriks personally,

JKendricks is not the topic.  Alexei is.

 

 

 

AGRBear

 

 





Exactly, Bear! I agree strongly with you. Personnally, I think that Alexei had haemophilia and not Thrombocitopenya, but all the same, I don't think it's fair to treat Dr. Kendrick in such a nasty way. He is a profesionnal, after all.

  As for Kendricks affirmation about minorities having right and majorities being wrong, I must said...he is right. At least, sometimes. Some years later, you and me will be aware of what was the truth about Anastasia, Alexei, Heino Tammet, etc...By the time, all of us think that we know already the truth.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 22, 2005, 08:57:25 PM
Quote
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?


There is only one reason why Mr Kendrick and no other, is attempting to convince a very small minority that Alexei did not suffer from an inherited condition. That reason is expressed in his website. I have already alluded to that connection in my previous posting (20 June).

All the best,

Belochka ;)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 22, 2005, 09:03:17 PM
There were two shooters, I think, who suffered injuries during the execution.  One was to an unnamed guard who injured his finger and  Yurovsky who claimed he lost part of his hearing in his one ear.  Now, you're going to want sources....  :-/  .  I don't remember.....  I think Penny and Greg had a bullet count and there was a huge number they thought had been fired.  And, after reading their book,  I often wondered how everyone didn't end up wounded with the way the bullets were bouncing around in that small room [the size is debated on another thread as well as different books], also, there was  the smoke which hindered their vision......

Thank you Lisameridox for your list.

Are there any other blood disorders which Alexei could have had if he didn't have hemophilia?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 22, 2005, 09:09:07 PM
Quote
He is a profesionnal, after all.


Mr Kendrick does not possess formal medical qualifications. That is why it is most unsafe for him to interpret selective medical information simply to serve his personal fantasies.

One might like to consider that those "minorities" who Mr Kendrick prefers to convert to form a majority in his favor must also reform!  ;D
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 22, 2005, 09:15:24 PM
Quote
Are there any other blood disorders which Alexei could have had if he didn't have hemophilia?

AGRBear


No.

All the symptoms the Tsesarevich experienced episodically throughtout his life were because of hemophilia. One cardinal symptom is spontaneous bleeding, which was what Alexei presented with within the first year of his life.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Tasha_R on June 22, 2005, 09:18:16 PM
Yes, Bear, there are a number of bleeding disorders, many of them only "discovered" in the beginning of the 20th century.

I have not had enough time to do research on all the international Hemophilia Foundation sites, but I looked closely at what there was in the U.S.  The following ones were listed which all have common symptoms, but are caused by a different difficiency.  While there were more listed than this, these were the ones which could have "fit the bill":

- (Hemophilia A) Factor VIII Deficiency
- (Hemophilia B )Factor IX Deficiency
- von Willebrand Disease
- (Afibrinogenemia) Factor I Deficiency
- (Prothrombin) Factor II Deficiency
- (Parahemophilia, Labile factor or Proaccelerin Deficiency) Factor V Deficiency
- (Stuart Prower Factor) Factor X Deficiency

Now, mind you, I haven't had the chance to look into any cancers which could also mimic the symptoms, so please don't take this as a complete list.  It was noted in some of the descriptions that they could be "acquired" as opposed to inherited, and mention of the fact that they could be acquired through kidney diseases or cancer.

I was thinking of posting several of the descriptions, as they are quite enlightening and get one to thinking, but it would be rather lengthy, even a synopsis of it.  We've already posted the links to the sites earlier in this thread, but it might still be helpful to have some of that information here.  Let me know if folks want me to post what I've synthesized from it.

Best wishes,
Tasha
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 22, 2005, 09:23:10 PM
Quote

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."


When I ran across a whole series of articles on the crisis at Spala a few years ago while looking up sources on Alexei Nikolaevich, I did realize that Spala was located in an isolated area in Poland, and that at first the usual hesitation to have much about their son revealed would have been typical of the Imperial parents.  When the news filtered out of this rustic royal vacation retreat, a lot of rumors as to the cause of the boy's apparent injuries flew.  He had been said to have been shot and wounded on the Standart, to have been maimed by an anarchist's bombs, to have jumped off a high cupboard, and to have fallen off a horse.  There was not anything about the boy's illness flying about in the press in the wake of the Spala incident until the effort to deny that the boy had hemophilia was started by that official court bulletin composed by Count Fredericks.

Quote
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.


As the articles written in the New York Times and in the London Times show, the wildest rumors were NOT about Alexei's illness, but about the cause of the incident.


Quote
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.)


Put yourself in the shoes of the Marshal of the Russian Court at this time.  The young Tsarevich had elicited the sympathy of the entire nation and there had apparently been 'a pronouncement of the Czar's physicians' that the boy had hemophilia.  The state secret had been leaked!  How to deny this and quell this news?  He had to write a bulletin in order to convince the Russian people that the boy would be all right, and had to hedge around the child's illness.  That 'significant anemia' he mentions?  He explained that it resulted from an 'abdominal haemorrhage....' that,  'as can be seen from  the specialist literature....' took 'a very specific and extremely severe clinical form.'

That form according to the fragment of Alexei's medical record that actually did come from his doctors, was that of a haematoma retroperitonale -- that manifested itself in bleeding into the hip joint, inflammation of the OUTER peritoneum, flexing of the knee joint and the high fever due to the 'absorption of excess blood...' and 'the reactive inflammatory process'.

Quote
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...


In 1912?  Maybe the delay can be explained because of the remote location, the reluctance of Nicholas and Alexandra to reveal too much until Alexei Nikolaevich's condition became too grave not to say something, and the necessity to translate from the Russian or the German.



Quote
... but you'll doubtless go to great efforts to try shooting that down too... so I won't bother.

JK

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 22, 2005, 09:55:48 PM
Quote
There were two shooters, I think, who suffered injuries during the execution.  AGRBear


I doubt that all the injuries incurred by those murderers would have been identified after the fact.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 22, 2005, 10:09:50 PM
I read in Robert K. Massie's "Final Chapter" that many of the gaurds were wounded from not only bouncing bullets, but burned from gun powder (or something) because they were that close to eachother, and some were deafened.  I usually find Mr. Massie to be a reliable scource.
-Dana
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on June 22, 2005, 10:47:46 PM
I also find Robert Massie to be a most reliable source, after all his own son suffered from hemophilia and that is why he became interested in Alexei, as the world's "most famous hemophiliac" as he was trying to find out how other families coped with the illness.
In his book he states that Alexandra knew she could be a carrier of the hemophiliac gene as her Uncle, nephews and brother suffered from the illness.

Mr Kendrick insists that Queen Victoria had never heard of hemophilia even though her dear son Leopold was a bleeder and she knew her own grandchildren were afflicted in her lifetime as well. It may not have been called hemophilia then but it was called the bleeding disease.
According to Massie, the genetic pattern had been long known:
"It was discovered in 1803 by Dr John Conrad Otto of Philadelphia and confirmed in 1820 by Dr Christian Nasse of Bonn.
In 1865, the Austrian monk and botanist Gregor Johann Mandel formulated his law of genetics, based on twenty five years of breeding garden peas. In 1876, a French doctor named Grandidier declared that "all members of bleeder families should be advised against marriage."
And by 1905, a year after Alexis was born, Dr M Litten, a New Yorker, had had sufficient experience with the disease to write that hemophilic boys should be supervised while playing with other children and that they should not be subjected to corporal punishment. "Bleeders with means", he added, "should take up some learned profession; if they are students, dueling is forbidden." "

Quote: When one of Victoria's grandchildren died of the disease she said,  "Our poor family seems persecuted by this awful disease, the worst I know." I think that statement proves Victoria knew of the illness, what with a son of her own afflicted and numerous grandsons.



Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 23, 2005, 11:38:57 AM
Quote
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?


Hi Bear

Haemophilia is only just one of a very, very long list of potential blood diseases... and here's a good place to start looking... with a known list of blood diseases from Columbia University that's 12 pages long.

http://www.dmi.columbia.edu/hripcsak/icd9/1tabular280.html

The larger majority of these blood diseases all have a possible haemorrhagic diathesis with the ability to produce the very same symptoms of bleeding, easy bruising, and haemorrhage that are known to have appeared in Alexei's case.... and the causes of as many as three dozen of these same diseases can be inherited in the very same X-linked fashion as Haemophilia.

JK




Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 23, 2005, 12:01:13 PM
Thanks everyone.  Now, the topic is flowing nicely and we can start to learn and make some kind of  investigation into what is possible and what is not.

Are there any more suggestions of what Alexei may have had if he didn't have hemophilia?

As to the injuries of the shooters,  maybe, someone would like to continue this topic wth me over to the thread about the shooters, Reply #33:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=lastdays;action=display;num=1102980524;start=0#0

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 23, 2005, 05:07:02 PM
Thanks for posting the website JK. Now I have a place to start to do more research.
Now, like bear said, maybe we can all start to learn something.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 23, 2005, 08:48:03 PM
Well -- things are starting to open up here.  I have thought of a way to keep this discussion objective now that possible alternative diseases have been suggested.  Let us proceed with this discussion further under the following condition.

IMAGINE we have all read a news item much like the following:

St. Petersburg, RUSSIA, ------- ---.  200--.  

A party of five investigators have confirmed the discovery two weeks ago of the remains of Crown Prince Alexei, located in what had once been a churchyard seven miles from Yekaterinburg, the city in which the 1918 massacre occurred.   The boy was found in a rather good state of preservation and was positively identified through DNA comparison to that of the bones found in the Koptyiaki Forest.  The Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church have directed that no further scientific testing be performed upon the young Tsarevich and plan on having him laid to rest in the parish in Kashino, Russia that bears his name, consecrated in 2005.

++++

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....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 24, 2005, 02:41:20 AM
Quote
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....


The most obvious circumstances that would make one ask if Alexei had something other than haemophilia are the facts that... as well as the bleeding... Alexei was also known for symptoms of high fevers, delirium, and unexplained sudden recovery.  These symptoms do occur in a number of blood disorders on that previously posted list... but they are *not* known to be primary symptoms of haemophilia.

These are symptoms that generally occur together in blood diseases that are the cause of, or are caused by, platelet disorders.  These same symptoms do *not* generally occur together in blood diseases that result from clotting factor deficiencies.

The same is true of Prince Leopold's symptom of epileptic-like seizures, known to have occured at the height of his most serious episodes.  Seizures or delirium... indicating a direct involvement of the central nervous system... are known to happen with the extremely high fevers that come with a platelet disorder in crisis.   These symptoms are *not* known to happen as a direct result of the clotting factor deficiencies of haemophilia.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Kimberly on June 24, 2005, 02:59:51 AM
Quote

These symptoms are *not* known to happen as a direct result of the clotting factor deficiencies of haemophilia.


May be not as a direct result but high fever and , with that, delerium, would result due to the body's reaction to the inflamation that would follow a bleed into the joint.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 24, 2005, 07:00:54 AM
Thank you, Kimberly:  high fevers and delirium were after all highly unusual in the case of the Tsarevich Alexei, noted only in the episode at Spala that nearly took his life, involving the reaggravation of a hematoma at an especially troublesome site and the complications thereof.

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.  No seizures or other symptoms of the central nervous system per se were ever noted in Alexei Nikolaevich's case, not even in this one unusual episode.  The boy had so many other varied episodes of bleeding that to construe too much from the complications of just one of them is 'not being able to see the forest from the trees'.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 24, 2005, 10:53:41 AM
What sources are you using about Alexei's conditions?

You've mentioned the diaries.  Can you give me book name and page numbers for the several events which is so commmonly mentioned here?

Forum Admin. has mentioned a newsclip.

Are there medical records mentioned in books which used mediical sources?  If so, can you tell me which ones?

I noticed that R. Schweitzer mentioned Dr. Bothkin had medical records that have been preserved.  Do these papers have information about Alexei?

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 24, 2005, 10:56:27 AM
Quote
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.  


A rising temperature.. no matter how much you want it to be.. is *not*a symptom of haemophilia.

... and a "lack of blood to the brain" caused by his hemorharging elsewhere as an explanation for his delirium?

You do realize, of course, that a "lack of blood to the brain"... which would also mean a lack of oxygen to the brain... would be likely to result in serious neurological damage... which we do not see in Alexei's case.

You mention, too, the known symptoms regarding Alexei's irregular heartbeat.   Here again, these symptoms... most notably the symptoms of systolic murmur and/or tachycardia... are known to be symptoms of a platelet disorder.  They are not known to be symptoms of a clotting factor disorder.

It's obvious right from the outset that you're still not the least bit interested at all in looking at any of the many other possible blood diseases.  You're still determined to make your favourite diagnosis first ... and to then force each and every one of those symptoms to fit that favourite diagnosis.. even if they don't.

That's completely the wrong way to make any diagnosis.  You search for every single symptom first.. no matter how small... and only *after* you have tabulated every single symptom do you then start looking for the diagnosis that best fits *all* of those symptoms.

You cannot be sure that you've reached the correct diagnosis unless you can at least try to put that haemophilia word out of your mind for even just a minute or two.  You must go through all of the other possibilities first and eliminate them one by one before you can even be the slightest bit certain that you have reached the correct diagnosis.

Only when you have successfully eliminated all of those other possibilities first... can you ever be certain that your favourite diagnosis is also the *correct* diagnosis.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 24, 2005, 11:10:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 24, 2005, 11:14:07 AM
Let us focus on just this one bit of information.

JKendrick:  >>A rising temperature.. no matter how much you want it to be.. is *not*a symptom of haemophilia.<<

Did his temperature rise in just one time or many times or with each injury which caused bleeding?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Kimberly on June 24, 2005, 11:17:19 AM
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?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Kimberly on June 24, 2005, 11:19:03 AM
Also, the rising temperature is not a symptom of the disease but a possible side-effect due to inflamation.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 24, 2005, 11:26:46 AM
Quote
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.


As far as I know, JKendricks has never said he was a doctor, therefore, he is probably like many of us, just well versed in a particular subject.  His subject is hemophilia and other data which has to do with Alexei.    I respect his knowledge just as respect your own and others.  

It would be nice, however, if sources were given, but in the subject of hemophilia,  that means digging into stuff meant for people in the medical world and not all of us care to be doctors, just informed posters.

To continue the flow, we do not need constant reminders that many of you believe Alexei had hemophilia.  We know this.  What we are trying to understand is if Alexei did not have hemoophilia what other blood disorder could he have had.  Presently, we are searching those theories.

We would appreciate your respect in making this search as pleasant as possible.

If this subject is allowed to continue and all the facts known are presented,  then we'll have discovered the truth and the truth is where we all are headed when all is said and done.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 24, 2005, 11:35:41 AM
Quote
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?


For the medicaly disimpaired old bear,  what does this mean?  Was Alexei  suffering from more than one medical problem?   Or, in this particular event, the temperature is not a symptom of someone suffering hemophilia?

Since I am not trying to fit a symptom to any particular blood disorder,  did Alexei often have a temperature with these attacks?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 24, 2005, 11:40:59 AM
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....?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 24, 2005, 11:43:57 AM
Lisameriadox: >>Thank you, Kimberly:  high fevers and delirium were after all highly unusual in the case of the Tsarevich Alexei, noted only in the episode at Spala that nearly took his life, involving the reaggravation of a hematoma at an especially troublesome site and the complications thereof.<<

Was Alexei rising of temperature usual or was it not usual?  According to Lisamericaox, it was unsual.

So, anyone care to button down the percentages on this?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 24, 2005, 11:52:31 AM
Quote
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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 24, 2005, 12:06:27 PM
Quote

Oh dear,  etonexile,  you've been hanging around old bear and must have caught the "out of the box"   disease.  ;D

AGRBear


Thinking outside the box is the easy part..it's thinking inside the box which can be a struggle for me....and others? ::)....And I've yet to recieve my answer about the illness of AN....and alllllllll those other close descendants of QV.......
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Kimberly on June 24, 2005, 01:56:33 PM
dear Bear, sorry,systolic murmur is an extra heart sound you would hear if there was a hole in the heart.Its the blood flowing thro the hole. So instead of hearing a "lubb dubb " noise ,you would hear "lubb dubb whoosh" or something similar. Tachycardia means fast heart rate. If you ran 1 mile (or 100 yards for me  ;)" you would have a fast heart rate temporarily. Hope this helps
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Kimberly on June 24, 2005, 01:58:43 PM
P.S congenital means that you are born with it,acquired means it is something that has develpoed later in life.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 24, 2005, 02:34:36 PM
Thank you bear, for bringing some logic into this discussion. I am aware of JK's credentials and know that he is not a doctor. I know nothing of Lisamericaox's medical credentials. It's all good. They both make valid points.
Maybe one place to go from here, is to start a list of all of Alexei's symptons? Then we can group them by disease.
Lisamericaox has given us a place to start with the guidelines she has posted. I'll start researching symptons.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 24, 2005, 02:46:49 PM
Anyone here ever sprained their wrist or ankle and also had a mild virus at the same time?  You get a FEVER.

I once had a pulled hamstring and at the same time caught a cold...got a fever.

Once I had a plantar wart on my foot and also had a slight fever due to stomach flu.

Once I stubbed my toe and also had a headache.

Recently I had a hangnail AND a sore throat.....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Kimberly on June 24, 2005, 02:53:04 PM
Spot on Finelly, well said
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 24, 2005, 03:42:30 PM
I have an idea. Instead of "armchair diagnosis" by non trained non-physicians, lets see what a few TRAINED Hematologists, who know HOW to diagnose Hemophilia,  have to say:

"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

" Haemophilia is sometimes referred to as the Royal disease. Queen Victoria had no ancestors with the condition but soon after the birth of her eighth child, Leopold, in 1853 it became evident that he had haemophilia. Queen Victoria was thus an example of how the condition can arise as a spontaneous mutation. Leopold's medical condition was reported in the British Medical Journal in 1868...It also subsequently transpired that two of Queen Victoria's own daughters, Alice and Beatrice, were carriers of haemophilia. The condition was transmitted through them to several Royal families in Europe, including Spain and Russia. Perhaps the most famous affected individual was the son of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. "The history of haemophilia" by Dr. P.L.F. Giangrande, Nuffield Dept. of Medicine, Oxford University, citing "The history of haemophilia." Ingram GIC. Journal of Clinical Pathology 29: 469-479 (1976)

"For a month or so all seemed well with little Alexis, but it was then noticed that the Tsarevitch was bleeding excessively from the umbilicus (a relatively uncommon feature of haemophilia.  At first the diagnosis was not admitted by the parents, but eventually the truth had to be faced although even then only by the doctors and immediate family. Alix was grief stricken: ‘she hardly knew a day’s happiness after she realized her boy’s fate’. As a newly diagnosed carrier she dwelt morbidly on the fact that she had transmitted the disease. ... Whilst the army commanders begged the Tsar to stand down, Nicholas questioned his physician, Dr Federov,about his son’s future. Federov summed up the state of haemophilia in the early twentieth century. ‘Science teaches us, Sire, that this is an incurable disease. Yet those who are afflicted will sometimes reach an advanced old age. Still, Alexis Nicolaivich is at the mercy of an accident’. "
THE HISTORY OF HAEMOPHILIA IN THE ROYAL FAMILIES OF EUROPE, British Journal of Haematology, 1999, 105, 25–32.Dr Richard F. Stevens, Consultant Paediatric Haematologist, Royal Manchester Children’s Hospital, Manchester.

"Although the type of hemophilia, hemophilia A or hemophilia B, is not known, the occurrence of hemophilia in the family of the last Tsar of Russia and other descendants of Queen Victoria through the maternal lines is well documented (McKusick, 1965)."  Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, Johns Hopkins University. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?/cmd=Search&db=OMIM&doptcmdl=Detailed&term=?306700#306700_HISTORY

I could go on. Oh, but wait, these people DON'T KNOW what they are talking about, that's the point of this discussion I think.  ???
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 24, 2005, 04:24:21 PM
Geez, Forum Admin.......just where do you get off quoting scientific journals and physicians who actually TREATED Alexei?

<sheesh>
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 24, 2005, 05:50:33 PM
Our FA is the best....dead brilliant....I bow....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 24, 2005, 06:17:22 PM
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.

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.

When I read JKendricks questions,  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 suffereing hemophilia.  

Oh, and, thanks for explainations on the other stuff.

Data from Forum Admin's post: >>"For a month or so all seemed well with little Alexis, but it was then noticed that the Tsarevitch was bleeding excessively from the umbilicus (a relatively uncommon feature of haemophilia.<<  

Is it still an "uncommon feature"?

AGRBear

 
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 24, 2005, 06:36:12 PM
Yes..let's see how carefully and distinctly we can analyse Alexei's symptoms...I'm not a doctor...but I want to understand....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 24, 2005, 09:17:11 PM
Quote
Yes..let's see how carefully and distinctly we can analyse Alexei's symptoms...I'm not a doctor...but I want to understand....

Ditto.
I am reading through books looking for those symptons, which I will post.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 24, 2005, 10:03:01 PM
Quote
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.

AGRBear

  
Dear Bear
There is some difference of opinion on some points, but last I checked in the shower, Forum Admin is "his post" not "her post".
;D
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 24, 2005, 10:36:05 PM
Dear Forum Admin - without your word on the subject, how are we to KNOW and BELIEVE that you are a "he"?  What objective proof can you provide?  
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 24, 2005, 10:51:01 PM
Lol, I'm pretty sure FA is too clever to lie about something such as gender... ;) but yeah, this post proves how "proff" is everything these days.  ::)

-Dana
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 24, 2005, 11:17:25 PM
<narrowing eyes....>  And are we really sure he IS Forum Administrator?  That's an odd name........he could be someone PRETENDING to be him.....we should ask for a DNA test.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 24, 2005, 11:51:05 PM
Yeah, and then we need to find his REAL DOCTOR to tell us all about FA and give us quotes to post.....and you know, DNA tests might not be proof enough.....but anything to make sure nobody is out there claiming to be our FA.  ::) ;)

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 25, 2005, 12:52:17 AM
Quote
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.


Yes, indeed I would also be extremely interested in reading what formal medical credentials are held by Mr Kendrick.


Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 25, 2005, 01:03:24 AM
Quote

A rising temperature.. no matter how much you want it to be.. is *not*a symptom of haemophilia........


Mr Kendrick your commentary here is very misleading.  

High fever and delirium is NOT inconsistent with hemophilia episodes!  

If you fully comprehended the topic which you are attempting to describe then at least get it right! It is most unjust for you to convolute information for the purpose of deceiving a general audience.

 

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 25, 2005, 01:26:24 AM
Quote
"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


Many years ago I had the privilege to professionally consult with Dr Ekert in relation to my research on leukemia. He was an extremely competent and helpful professional.  
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 25, 2005, 08:17:10 AM
here is my photo. Compare it to known photo's of the "real" FA and make sure to do ear analysis and facial feature analysis:
(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/robsmall.jpg)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 25, 2005, 10:44:54 AM
Not good enough. We need your shoe size.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 25, 2005, 10:47:20 AM
Hmmmmm.  Those are not the ears I had imagined.......In fact, they are VERY different.  I'm suspicious.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 25, 2005, 11:25:14 AM
Hmmm...my calculations show that one point of the ear is .76 of a centimeter shorter than FA's...therefore you are automaticly a fraud and therefore must die.  :P ::)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 25, 2005, 11:30:59 AM
Ok, I see the ear thing.  On the other hand, although we cannot do a handwriting analysis, we can do a TYPING analysis.  Did you notice that his typed word looks IDENTICAL to the REAL FA?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 25, 2005, 11:44:03 AM
He must have stolen the real FA's computer. We need an investigation.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 25, 2005, 12:04:18 PM
Teddy want's to know the FA's DNA...and his taste in Techno-House music....Teddy says this is relevant.... ???
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 25, 2005, 12:18:10 PM
As to the topic, here are some references I found.

"I had a long talk with Dr. Derevenki. He told me that the Heir was prey to haemophilia, a hereditary disease which in  certain families is transmitted from generation to generation by the women to their male chilrdern. Only males are affected. He told me that the slightest wound might cause the boy's death, for the blood of a bleeder had not the power of coagulating like that of a normal individual. Futher, the tissue of the arteries and veins is so frail that ane blow or shock may rupture the blood-vessel and bring on a fatial haemmorrhage."
Gillard: "Thirteen years at the Russian Court." pp. 37 & 38.


"The Czarevitch was in the schoolroom standing on a chair, when he slipped, and in falling hit his right knee against the corner of some piece of furniture. The next day he could not walk. On the day after the subcutaneous haemmorage had progressed, and the swelling which had formed below the knee rapidly spread down the elg. The skin, which wa greatly distended, had hardened under the force of the extravasated blood, which pressed on the nerves of the leg and thus caused shooting pains, which grew worse every hour.
".....Dr. Derevenko was anxious, as the haemorrhage had not been stopped and his temperature was rising. The inflammation had spread further and the pain was even worse than the day before." Golliard page 43.


"....As we were going on board the Czarevitch jumped at the wrong moment, and hs ankle caught the bottom of the ladder leading to the deck. At first I though this accident would have no ill effects, but towards the evening the boy began to be in pain and his suffering rapidly increased. Everything pointed to a serious crisis. Gilliard p. 97.

I'm sure those aren't all of Gilliard's references, but are some of the highlights. He does describe some syptoms. Will post more as I find more.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 25, 2005, 12:33:25 PM
FA does not like Techno-House music.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 25, 2005, 12:41:59 PM
Quote
FA does not like Techno-House music.


Teddy will get him out out on the dance floor...swinging his....glow stick....

How weird and scary for Gilliard,the suite,and the IF....one day their charge is healthy and full of "spit-and-vinegar"...the next...near death....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 25, 2005, 12:48:01 PM
Quote
He must have stolen the real FA's computer. We need an investigation.


Ooo, a fraud and a computer theif....double the crime. But even if it turns out FA's computer was indeed NOT stolen, and it IS his typing......would that really be enough? Perhaps he's a computer hacker and can forge people's *erm* typing?

and lol, we never did get "FA's" shoe size that lexi4 wanted.  It would be simply impossible to figure this ut without his shoe size, faveorite color, and least faveorite vegetable.  ::)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 25, 2005, 01:38:06 PM
9 1/2 E. Lapis Blue. cooked cabbage.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 25, 2005, 01:40:22 PM
Next you will be asking for DNA of all things, and obscure medical records, all in dispute of course. Where will this obsession stop ?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 25, 2005, 01:59:06 PM
It stops now, we've had fun, but gone too off topic. I'm as guilty as any on that. Besides, I'll have to have all my teeth pulled so my dental records can't be compared if this goes any further... ;D
Back to the point, please.
FA
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Kimberly on June 25, 2005, 03:38:12 PM
Just finished a 14 hour shift at work and someboby let the air out off my bike tyres so a long walk home. Any hoo, Bear, bleeding from the umbilicus to this extent IS NOT NORMAL.Sometimes there is a tiny ooze when the cord seperates but not enough to mention in a diary, surely. By the way FA you are a very handsome chap. :-*
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 25, 2005, 03:46:21 PM
Sorry Forum Admin. [Bob],  my fingers added an "s" and made you a "she" yesterday in my post.  I apologize.  It does seem that my error created fun for some of you  :D.

The description Gibbs gives on Alexei's injury sounds treadful and as I read it,  my stomach turned and my motherly instincts kicked into full gear....  Yes, it must have been awful for Alexandra and his sisters to stand by and not be able to ease his pain.

Thank you for the source and copying part of it for us to read.  No matter how many books I buy I'm always missing  something because I don't have all the books on the Romanovs.

So, what do we know about Dr. Derevenko?  Is there a thread on him?  Evidently Dr. Botkin chose Dr. Derevenko to treat Alexei's blood disorder.  Why him?  Where did he go to school?  What experience did he have with hemophilia?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 25, 2005, 04:40:44 PM
Bear,
I found a couple of other passages in Gillard's book I thought you might like to read.

Autumn, 1913
"One morning I found the mother at her son's bedside. He had had a very bad night. Dr. Derevenko was anxious, as the haemorrhage had not been stopped and his temperature was rising. The inflammation had spread further and the pain was even worse than the day before. The Czarevitch lay in bed groaning piteously. His head rested on his mother's arm and his small, deathly white face was unrecogfnisable. At times, the groans ceased and he murmured one word "Mummy!" in which he expressed all his suffering and distress. His mother kissed him on the hair, forehead and eyes as if the touch of her lips could have relieved his pain and restored some of the life which was leaving him. Think of the tortures of that mother, an importent witness of her son's martydom in those hours of mortal anguish - a mother who knoew that she herself was the cause of his sufferings, that she had transmitted to him the terrible disease against which human science was powerless!A Now I understand the secret tragedy of her life! How easy it was to reconstruct the stages of that long Calvary." p. 43


April 12, 1917 "Alexis Nicolaevitch confined to bed, as since yesterday he has had a violent pain in the groin caused by a strain. He has been so well this winter. It is to be hoped it is nothing serious." P.258


April 15, 1917 "Alexis Nicolaevitch in great pain yesterday and today. It is one of his severe attacks of haemophilia."
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on June 25, 2005, 08:41:57 PM
Quote
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


At least you would be willing to submit to a DNA analysis, I am sure, to prove your noble pedigree!  ;)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on June 26, 2005, 04:27:21 AM
Here are some more:
From Robert Massie
From the beginning the disease of hemophilia clung over the sunny child like a dark cloud. The first ominous evidence had appeared at six weeks, when the boy bled from the navel. As he began to crawl and toddle, the evidence grew stronger, his tumbles caused large, dark blue swellings on his arms and legs. When he was three and a half, a blow on the face brought a swelling which completely closed both eyes.
Once the Tsarevich almost died from a nosebleed.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on June 26, 2005, 04:37:07 AM
I have found the exact passage that relates to Alexei from Nicholas diary when Alexei was 6 weeks old. From Nicholas and Alexandra by Massie.
" Alix and I have been very much worried. A hemorrhage began this morning without the slightest cause from the navel of our small Alexis. It lasted with but a few interruptions until evening. We had to call.....the surgeon Fedorov who at seven o'clock applied a bandage. The child was remarkably quiet and even merry but it was a dreadful thing to have to live through such anxiety."
The next day "This morning there again was some blood on the bandage but the bleeding stopped at noon. The child spent a quiet day and his healthy appearance somewhat quieted our anxiety."
On the third day the bleeding stopped. But the fear born those days in the Tsar and his wife continued to grow. The months passed and Alexis stood up in his crib and began to crawl and to try to walk. When he stumbled and fell, little bumps and bruises appeared on his legs and arms. Within a few hours, they grew to dark blue swellings. Beneath the skin his blood was failing to clot. The terrifying suspician of his parents was confirmed. Alexis had hemophilia.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 26, 2005, 10:29:09 AM
Yes...one can barely imagine the anxiety of the parents...especially Alexandra....who must have known how this disease came to her son.....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 26, 2005, 12:35:10 PM
Data from Forum Admin's post: >>"For a month or so all seemed well with little Alexis, but it was then noticed that the Tsarevitch was bleeding excessively from the umbilicus (a relatively uncommon feature of haemophilia.<<  
 
If this is not a common feature of hemophilia than is this event to be listed as a sypmtom on our list of why we would think Alexei had hemophilia or the list of why we would think Alexei did not have hemophilia?

And what spelling are we using "hemophilia" or "haemophilia"?  I am using the American College Dic..

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 26, 2005, 01:05:51 PM
hemophilia in the US. haemophilia in UK/Australia and Commonwealth. Both acceptable spellings.  The reference to the umbilicus is "pro" hemophilia. The specialist is acknowledging that while it is "not common in haemophilia" it still IS heamophilia.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 26, 2005, 01:12:23 PM
Why isn't it common?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 26, 2005, 02:20:20 PM
Do Yanks know the term..."bloody minded"...?

Just wondered...
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 26, 2005, 02:23:46 PM
This one doesn't. What does it mean?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 26, 2005, 02:27:35 PM
...Stubborn,willful,difficult....tres useful expression.... ::)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 26, 2005, 03:28:50 PM
Ah, sounds like me.  ;) Glad you taught it to me...heehee...I'm gonna have fun using this term.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 26, 2005, 03:36:10 PM
Me too. Especially when I look in the mirror.   8)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 26, 2005, 05:38:25 PM
"Teddy...have we created a monster...."?


Teddy flicks ash from cig...shrugs....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 26, 2005, 06:09:04 PM
We interrupt this levity for a little reminder:

:) :) :)  Tsarevich Alexei :) :) :)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 26, 2005, 06:33:05 PM
Thankyou Lizmeridox.  ;)

I think a lot of people are "bloody minded" (heehee that was fun) about the topic about heamoplilia, but I have a question...those diseases in question? Can any of them be passed down, or if Alexei was not a heamophiliac, would it have been a coincidance he didn't have it like the rest of his family? (Or under these circumstances would it have been none of them had it, but just had a blood diaorder or sickness that weakens you in some way?) Sorry I can't word this better. I hope someone gets the qustion, because it's this lingering fact that is keeping me from being a little more open minded I think...

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 26, 2005, 09:56:26 PM
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

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on June 26, 2005, 10:09:46 PM
Quote
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 would think that testing for this particular defect would be not only double confirmation but of the utmost historical value.

Too bad.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 26, 2005, 10:27:50 PM
I agree.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 27, 2005, 07:06:05 AM
So -- does this mean that one can only check for given gene markers when the DNA extract is in a fluid state?  It must...  but you are absolutely right - if the scientists had looked for the hemophilia (A or B) gene at the time they were looking for others that matched both each other and those of royal relatives, perhaps there would have been no doubt of their identity had that gene been located.

The only means possible now short of obtaining new extracts would be to find poor Alexei Nikolaevich and test His Highness' DNA for that gene.  
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 27, 2005, 04:30:49 PM
I am amazed that they did not check for it. It just would have been further confirmation. Now I guess we will never know for sure.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on June 27, 2005, 05:25:04 PM
I guess they just assumed there was no point in checking for an accepted and known fact. Go figure.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on June 27, 2005, 08:01:32 PM
The thing that bothers me is that there wasn't enough time or money. How sad is that?

They laid in a an unmarked grave for how long?

They had cousins who could have easily footed the bill.

And yet questions go unanswered because there just wasn't enough time or money.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 28, 2005, 07:10:44 AM
Quote
I guess they just assumed there was no point in checking for an accepted and known fact. Go figure.


Since everyone knows that St. Alexei was ill, why check for the illness everyone knew he had if there was no question that he had it?  At the time it would have been far less important to check for genetic information on diseases than to check on the family relationships, given all their constraints.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 28, 2005, 09:01:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Tasha_R on June 28, 2005, 11:41:08 AM
I've been away for awhile, so have just been catching up.

Liza, you wrote the following:
<<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?>>
Other than for "claimant theories", those who might be researching Grigory Rasputin and his affect on the Tsarevitch would undoubtedly find this information useful.  Those, for instance, who might be writing a history of him.  It would be helpful to understand how Rasputin was able to intervene and help the Tsarevitch where others could not.
I, for one, understood his intervention to essentially mean 'have the child lie still, totally undisturbed, so as to not restart the bleeding and allow the system to repair itself.'  I actually used this advice and I believe my doctors did as well during my last bleeding episode where they simply waited it out and medicated me so that I would be in less pain and lay still.  The bleeding did stop on its own, but was carefully watched to see if they would need to take more drastic measures (which would have been surgery, as strange as that sounds).

Bear, you asked if it was true that umbilical cord bleeding was unusual for hemopheliacs.  From what I have read in terms of symptoms of the other blood disorders, it is certainly more common with the other blood disorders than it is with hemophelia.

Mr. Kendrick, in regards to delirum being caused by a lack of blood to the brain, I did experience this in my first bleeding episode with no real serious neurological damage.  I did find it difficult to remember words (and still do today, 20 years after, although more often when under stress).  The exhaustion of having bled for over 15 hours and losing half my blood supply before action was taken (in this case, I did require surgery to stem the bleeding.) did result in delirium.  Interestingly enough, they thought I required a second surgery because the numbers continued to go down, but when they went in, they found that the bleeding had stopped and there wasn't really a reason for the second surgery.

The most recent episode, one might have called me delirious, however it was more that I was inarticulate due to pain.  I remember hearing the emergency respondants say "Get her husband.  We're not able to get anything out of her (meaning an understanding from me was to what was happening)."

Remember, however, that I do not have hemophelia.  It has been diagnosed as "probable von Willabrands", which causes its own problems.  My hemotologist believes I have von Willabrands and my general practitioner doesn't believe it because the tests haven't come back "positively conclusive" and prefers to call it "thin blood", which other doctors will tell you doesn't exist.  Which only goes to show that, it's possible that even today, with all the medical knowledge we do have, it could be possible that we'd still get disagreements from the professionals on what Alexei had.  It is interesting that, to date, all that has been written on Alexei (except for Mr. Kendrick's analysis, understood) everyone agrees on hemophelia as the diagnosis.

Whether or not Alexei had hemophelia, the symptoms do match several bleeding disorders - none of which I understand to go into remission, which means he would have had a very difficult time surviving - although not impossibly so.  But again, I haven't looked into the cancer possibilities.

Just my 2 dollars worth,
Tasha
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 28, 2005, 02:03:58 PM
Quote
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.


Which is why they didin't test..it was a money issue. imho
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 28, 2005, 07:40:20 PM
Quote

I would think that testing for this particular defect would be not only double confirmation but of the utmost historical value.

Too bad.


Testing for the suspected defective gene most certainly would double the confirmation of the identification of the bones of Body No. 7 as Alexandra... presuming, of course, that the suspected defective gene is actually there.

But...

What if it isn't there?  What if a test of the bones of Body No. 7 for the suspected faulty gene had actually proved to be negative?  Knowing the controversy that a negative result would inevitably provoke, would any brave scientist who had actually discovered through laboratory testing that the bones of Body No. 7 showed no evidence at all of the suspected haemophilia gene ever even dare to publish the results?

What would happen next if a negative test result really had been published?  Would everyone here suddenly turn against the original Peter Gill/Pavel Ivanov 1993 DNA identification of the Ekaterinburg remains?  Would there be a sudden onslaught of calls for the removal of those bones now buried at the Fortress of Peter and Paul?

... even if the bones of Body No. 7 really are the mortal remains of Alexandra?

In preparation for his latest book on Alexandra's cousin Kaiser Wilhelm II, University of Sussex Professor John C.G. Röhl had managed to obtain permission to exhume the remains of the last Kaiser's sister Charlotte to test her bones for evidence of Porphyria.  Prof. Röhl now reports that the results of those tests on Charlotte's remains were shown to be positive.

Professor Röhl is also claimed to have asked for a similar test for evidence of Porphyria to be done on the samples from Wilhelm II's cousin Alexandra that are still in the possession of one of Dr. Peter Gill's original Romanov DNA team.  Prof. Röhl has been quoted as claiming that the tests performed at his request on known samples from the bones of Body No. 7 of the Ekaterinburg remains were shown (in unpublished results) to be negative for evidence of Porphyria.

So...

If samples from the bones of Alexandra are still known to be available for testing... and if those very same samples and samples from the remains of Alexandra's cousin Charlotte have both been tested successfully to search for evidence... or the lack of evidence.. of the suspected "Royal Purple" disease of Porphyria...

... and if all of this could be done at the simple request of a University Professor who was only gathering evidence to finish his book...  

Then why is it that... whenever the suggestion is made that those very same samples from the bones of Alexandra should be tested for evidence of the suspected hemophilia gene... all we ever hear from anyone is all of the reasons why it can't be done?  

Any claims of cost coming from the investigating authorities are only an excuse.  The samples are known to be available for testing.  The equipment and the necessary lab supplies are also known to be available for testing.   The only true cost to those same investigating authorities who have all the necessary supplies at their immediate disposal is to pay for the scientist's time to actually do the tests.  The potential political costs, however, are enormous... if the tests don't go their way.

If tests can be done for the suspected evidence of Porphyria... tests which certainly have been done... then tests can most certainly be done for the suspected evidence of haemophilia as well....

That is... if the tests haven't been done already...

... and the results are being withheld....

... only because they don't like the answer.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 28, 2005, 07:44:54 PM
I gather that you, yourself, have not requested that such tests be performed.

Shall I assume that you know that they have been done, and that YOU are the one who doesn't like the answers?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 28, 2005, 07:57:05 PM
NOR has Mr. Kendrick, rather saliently IMO, answered my question, seconded by others, that he identify his medical training qualifying him to be a hemotological diagnostician.  Interesting that Mr. K. ignores what he does not like to discuss.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 28, 2005, 08:10:43 PM
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?

Tasha_R.,  I , and I'm sure others,  are greatly interested in your own blood disorder and the information you are giving us is outstanding and we thank you.

Also, I'm still in the dark about the medical records of Alexei by Dr. Derevenko's.  Do they exist?  If they do, where are they held?  If they do not exist, then there is no actual medical record of Alexei which states in black and white that he had hemophilia, only, heresay.  If there is only heresay, how can anyone, and I don't care how quailifed they are, determine in todays terms that Alexei had hemophilia and not another blood disorder which can have the same symptoms discovered after 1917?  Can they?  If they can, then how can they?

AGRBear
 
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: rskkiya on June 28, 2005, 08:23:01 PM
Quote
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

Well his posts sometimes are awfully "tart" - so if he has some advanced medical experience, his claims might appear a bit less dubious...


Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 28, 2005, 08:28:55 PM
Well said Bear.
Thank you.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 28, 2005, 08:30:34 PM
If he has advanced medical education, this would strenghen his opinions, but if he does not, this doesn't subtract from the information he is providing us.  

If, however, you have facts and sources which contradict his information, then, please,  post them.  I for one would like to read posts from all sides in this subject.

Remember, this is a debate.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 28, 2005, 10:53:43 PM
It seems pointless to debate:  either the Tsarevich had a form of hemophilia (which from all the empirical and anecdotal evidence is most likely) or he had a disease that closely resembled hemophilia.  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.  The average boy might have thought nothing of taking a tumble and having his skin scab over, but the Tsarevich would have been confined to bed for a week or two after taking that same sort of tumble.   A kid might stub his toe and not even think about it an hour later, but Alexei would not be able to put his shoe on for a few days if he'd stubbed his.   A boy might actually get a bruise or a sprained ankle, and a young boy might cry for several minutes.  Alexei would take the same fall, but his bruises would swell into hematomas the size of a grapefruit, he would feel shooting pains as they pressed on his nerves, and instead of crying for several minutes he would cry for hours.  Try as one might, one cannot dismiss what the majority of Alexei's episodes point to -- a coagulation disorder.

Either he did have hemophilia (which a far more complete set of medical records than the one we do have would likely confirm) or he did not.  A debate per se is far more a question of persuasion having to do with taking a position.   A few here may not like the obstacle of having to deal with the historical record in the first place.  A few here may wish that the funds had been made available to do anything more than the most necessary mtDNA sequencing.   But we can only look at what we have:  mostly anecdotal evidence, and a highly understandable diagnosis in the light of that evidence.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 29, 2005, 08:38:10 AM
Bear,
JK's medical training is of GREAT importance given his pronouncements of "diagnosis" he makes, and the disparaging of diagnoses made by highly trained specialists. Whether JK is a genuinely trained specialist who has the education to make such diagnoses and declarations of "medical fact" or a dilletante making unfounded allegations is the point.  JK's credbility must be assessed as part of any debate.

I for one believe this information highly relevant so that readers can give the proper weight when analyzing the evidence presented.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 29, 2005, 09:17:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on June 29, 2005, 09:48:53 AM
Quote
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.

Nah. He's done his research and produced a paper that has yet to be answered. Whatever his qualifications, the result is the same. Please, give the man some credit.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 29, 2005, 09:52:11 AM
No, it DOES matter.  People at the National Enquirer do research and write articles.  That doesn't make them worthy of our attention.

I could research and write an article stating that we don't know if Elvis is really dead.  Doesn't make it reasonable.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on June 29, 2005, 10:27:14 AM
A paper does not need to be written by a highly-flying academic to be credible. Provided that sufficient research has gone into it, the status of its author should be of little consequence. The information might have been found by a professor of a university, or a teenager studying history; it's the same information.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 29, 2005, 10:41:09 AM
While the "information" may be the same, it is the INTERPRETATION of that information that is the fundemental issue here. Who's interpretation about medical diagnosis of YOUR OWN physical symptoms would you rather have, your personal physician who is well trained, or your next door neighbor who googled a search?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on June 29, 2005, 11:55:44 AM
Oh yes, indeed. And if the information has clearly been interpreted properly, the paper is credible in that respect also. But you and I will differ there, for whether or not the interpretation is correct is very much a matter of opinion in this case.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 29, 2005, 11:59:14 AM
Hey, don't knock google.  When I went into emergency,  I told the doc my symtoms and what I thought I had.  He shook his head and said I probably was mistaken.  Well, guess who was right.  My data from google didn't guide me wrong and it  was confirmed by other doctors, tests,  and surgery produced farther evidence google had great information.

To me this debate is failing because JKendrick and his opposition are being too emotional.  Whereas,  some of us are just here reading and trying to understand something we know very little but hope to learn more, understand, and gain enough information so we can gain our own opinions, no matter what they may or may not be.

Meanwhile,  it seems no one has answered by simple question about medical records of Alexei from Dr. Derevenko.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 29, 2005, 12:32:55 PM
"it  was confirmed by other doctors, tests,  and surgery" Is that not the very CRUX of my point?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 29, 2005, 12:48:50 PM
Yes, and, guess what, I agree.

I am not the enemy in this debate.  Like I said,  I've always thought Alexei had hemophilia.  However, JKendricks has presented some interesting theories and doubts have entered by thoughts on this subject.  So,  if it is true Alexei had hemophilia then it shouldn't be hard to prove it in this debate with hard facts.

Alexei's medical reports by Dr. D. would tell us his views and give us valuable information.

Here is where we must turn first so we can go forward with this debate.

Do they exist?

If they do not exist did he write any letters to other doctors to whom he discussed Alexei's condition?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 29, 2005, 01:08:51 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on June 29, 2005, 01:20:01 PM
and yet, JK STILL refuses to even answer the question raised.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 29, 2005, 01:42:52 PM
Quote

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.


Well...as most haemophiliac males seem to survive into at least boyhood....there must be a natural process for teething vs. bumps and bruises....JK...you seem an intelligent,educated man...."WHAT IS IT" with you and this haemophilia thing?....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 29, 2005, 01:49:17 PM
Quote

..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.
.....


Can anyone tell me if this is a true statement?

Frankly,  I don't care about JKendrick's, Forum Admin.'s or anyone elses medical background because with or without a medical degree, this answer can be presented as a simple "yes" or "no".

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on June 29, 2005, 02:12:05 PM
etonexile, it appears other posters are concern because of JKendrick's interest in one of the claimants.  Here was his answer on another thread:

Quote
...[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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 29, 2005, 02:38:10 PM
All very cool,calm,and collected there Bear....but why shouldn't we consider the various candidates and their claims...however absurd?....and one recently was very absurd....and still sending me e-mails....laughing at his naive supporters.....



OMG...I want certain people on my defense team should I commit murder....they will NEVER submit.....O.J. Simpson...move over.....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on June 29, 2005, 02:55:32 PM
Quote
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.  



Here's just a little light reading to begin with for those who might be interested in looking into some of the alternatives:

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic987.htm  
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic979.htm  
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000586.htm  
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000571.htm  
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003270.htm  

... and for those who aren't interested in the alternatives at all...

Here are five examples of sites devoted to haemophilia that list the symptoms of that best known of blood diseases.  You're welcome to go through those lists of the known symptoms of haemophilia and tell us all exactly where you see evidence of any of Alexei's other known symptoms.. such as a rising temperature, fever, severe pallor (evidence of jaundice?), irregular heartbeat, delirium.. and of course the symptom that made Rasputin so undeservedly famous as a healer.. unexplained sudden recovery.

... and let's not forget Prince Leopold's symptom of epileptic-like seizures at the height of his most serious episodes..

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/6481-3.asp  
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9339/10115/216738.html?d=dmtHealthAZ  
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/en.asp?TopicID=226&AreaID=1322&LinkID=925  
http://www.medic8.com/healthguide/articles/haemophilia.html  
http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&con=505#q2

In fact, Hemophilia really only has one symptom...  and just that one symptom alone.. the symptom of Bleeding.  The only other questions to be asked are the location, the form, and the cause of the bleeding and the degree of severity.  Any additional symptoms that accompany the bleeding, whether the bleeding is just a bruise or it's a life threatening hemorrhage, those additional symptoms are not the direct result of a clotting factor deficiency.

Either those additional symptoms are completely secondary to the bleeding... caused by the bleeding having made the body vulnerable to some other outside problem or infection... or the bleeding isn't caused by hemophilia at all.  It's caused by some other blood disease that actually includes those additional symptoms.

In haemophilia, the bleeding itself has no direct connection to any symptoms of fever.  If an excessively long bleeding episode exposes the body to infection.. then it's the infection that might cause a fever .  The bleeding has nothing to do with it.

If, however, the fever and bleeding are obviously connected... with the intensity of both the bleeding and the fever clearly linked hand in hand as they noticeably increase and decrease together in severity... then it is *not* haemophilia. It's some other blood disease.

... and here's one just for those who insist on pushing the notion of X-linked inheritance to support their favourite theory..

The link below is to the Gene Map location Xq28.  The highlighted point on this page is for an enzyme known as G6PD, which is short for Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase.  G6PD is one of the most common causes of haemolytic anaemia.  In fact, G6PD Deficiency is the most common disease causing enzyme in humans with more than three hundred known variants....

But... Just for me.. :-)  Look just a little bit closer at this same tiny section of the human gene map.. and then count five positions down from the highlighted position for G6PD... and what do you see?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/maps.cgi?ORG=hum&CHR=X&maps=loc-r.morbid.gene&R1=on&query=G6PD&VERBOSE=ON&ZOOM=3

No.. Your eyes do not deceive you.  There it is. The human gene map location for the AP Board's favourite gene... F8... the Factor VIII Gene.. the X-linked recessive cause of classic Haemophilia... and it's sitting almost right next door to G6PD..  one of the most common known causes of another blood disorder called Haemolytic Anaemia.

And there you have it. Only four other gene points on that gene map separating the known cause of classic haemophilia and one of the most common causese of haemolytic anaemia. Both in the same place on the long arm of the X-Chromosome and both inherited in the same fashion. Just five positions away from the F8 gene of haemophilia, G6PD, one of the most common genetic causes of haemolytic anaemia, a blood disorder that is known to be the cause of easy bruising, bleeding, and haemorrhage... as well as all those other additional symptoms of rising temperature, pallor, fever, irregular heartbeat, delirium, Leopold's epileptic-like fits at the height of his most serious episodes, and yes... even Alexei's most famous symptom of mysteriously spontaneous recovery... all of those very same symptoms that a diagnosis of haemophilia simply cannot explain.

Please see:
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic900.htm  

And that's just one known cause of the platelet disorders of haemolytic anaemia that can be found on the same X-Chromosome. There's more where that one came from.

Oh... and the most common cause of excessive and irregular bleeding? An abnormally low platelet count. Not a clotting factor deficiency.

http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual_ha/sec3/ch49/ch49c.html  

So... Is anyone starting to see it yet?.  Or are you all still going to keep on fighting it tooth and nail?

Anyone here who continues to doubt any of this information is totally free to take anything at all that I have posted on this thread to their closest haematologist and ask for confirmation. You don't need to go any further than the closest hospital or university medical school... and I'm not the least bit concerned about what any recognised haematolgist is going to tell you about all of this same medical information... because it has already been approved by a full medical review of their peers.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 29, 2005, 04:18:02 PM
Etonexile - having now received one of those pms myself, all I have to say is that this is EXACTLY why I wear stainless steel pots on my head.  To prevent the alien radio waves from getting thru.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 29, 2005, 09:06:07 PM
I feel so left out. I got one pm from that claimant and no more.   :( ;D ;D
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 29, 2005, 09:17:42 PM
Hey, I only got one.  Wanna make a club?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on June 29, 2005, 09:42:35 PM
Quote
Hey, I only got one.  Wanna make a club?


Yes!  I love clubs.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 29, 2005, 09:48:29 PM
What should we name our club?  And we need a secret handshake and stuff....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 29, 2005, 11:27:21 PM
Quote
 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.


Alexei Nikolaevich's actual medical records have probably been misfiled somewhere in the State Archives of the Russian Federation.  According to Pierre Gilliard, Dr. Derevenko told him confidentially soon after he became Alexei's tutor that what he had was hemophilia.   It is unwise to dismiss 99 per cent of Alexei's episodes just because the one we do have the most documentation of (including the one extant medical record and the attempt by Count Fredericks to obfuscate a leak of the doctors' diagnosis) brought on secondary symptoms over and above the primary one of massive hemorrhage.  

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.  

'Alexei's recovery will be slow,' the Emperor wrote to his mother after his fever had broken and the threat to his life had passed.  The breaking of the boy's fever was not a complete recovery but the turning point that began it.  The exhausted Alexei still needed to regain his appetite and his strength.  The blood that had pooled in his hip joint and upper leg still had to be reabsorbed -- part of the normal recovery process N., A., and their son expected thanks to their experience with the many other episodes that had preceded this particular one at Spala.   According to the specialist literature available to the Imperial doctors at the time Count Fredericks wrote his bulletin, those episodes were typical not of the spectacular one-time scenario theory being presented as if to eclipse everything else the boy suffered, but of a bleeding disease that doctors of the 19th century had only recently begun to codify shortly before the birth of the Tsarevich.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on June 30, 2005, 07:13:12 AM
Quote

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.


I recall saying at one point that I had imposed a few conditions on this thread in order to keep speculations pure, and to avoid any discussion of claimants.  

If the Tsarevich-Martyr in fact had some other disease that mimicked hemophilia, it really shouldn't lead to such squabbles.  But having no definitive proof since we lack documentation of a certain gene marker, look at the field day we are having out of all proportion to this question -- that was originally asked by someone who brought up William Lavery's claim.  

Alexei was murdered in 1918, so the skeptical may never know what he had unless the bulk of his medical records were to turn up or DNA testing is performed on remains that are undeniably his.  But the important thing is how he rose above his suffering every time, regardless of its nature.  It was never Rasputin that healed the boy, and never 'spontaneous' that he did recover from every bleeding episode but the last one.   There is nothing mysterious or that lends itself to a conspiracy theory about the power of the human spirit.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on June 30, 2005, 07:39:54 AM
The episode at Spala was not a spontaneous recovery. After the bleeding stopped it took a month of recovery for Alexei before the family was able to move back to Tsarskoe Selo. Almost a year passed before Alexei could walk again.
For several months his left leg refused to straighten out, and the doctors had to apply a metal triangle with sliding sides which could be moved as the leg permitted it to be moved. Slowly the leg was able to be extended this way.
Alexei underwent a series of hot mudbaths for  more than a year after Spala as a form of treatment for the limp he had acquired.
And throughout all this time (more than a year) official photos of Alexei had to be posed either seated or on steps so that the bent leg would appear normal.
So this demonstrates that recovery for the poor child was slow.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on June 30, 2005, 09:09:26 PM
Quote
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...?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on June 30, 2005, 09:11:52 PM
Wow, that IS a tough decision.  It's giving me a headache just thinking about it........

Hey, my neighbor has been experiencing severe bruising for no apparent reason.  I diagnosed hemophilia, of course, but her dr. told her it's a Vitamin C deficiency.....so maybe that's what Alexei had....
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on July 01, 2005, 03:14:56 AM
Quote
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...?


You have no right to call any member of the board "mad", etonexile. As if scorn and mockery were not enough, you feel the need to name-call as well.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: pinklady on July 01, 2005, 04:25:47 AM
I am feeling so left out - I have received no pm's  at all.... :( ::) :-/

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Finelly on July 01, 2005, 10:33:38 AM
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.

Pinklady, darling, you are missing nothing except a good laugh!
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2005, 10:48:56 AM
Quote
...[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.  

....


So,  it wasn't  Thrombocytopenia  because he never suffered from ulsers and because it  is never found in young chldren?

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Tasha_R on July 01, 2005, 11:21:59 AM
Pink Lady,

I believe the question of "spontaneous" referred more to the fact that the bleeding stopped, as opposed to a full "recovery".  When one experiences a bleeding episode, it takes about 6 months for all the blood to be reabsorbed by the body, not matter what type of disorder.  At least, that's according to my doctor.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Tasha
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lass on July 01, 2005, 11:47:16 AM
Quote
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.

And when did it suddenly become acceptable to call someone who you think is mentally ill "mad"? I don't care who that's said about, but it's out of order. 'Tis a wonder one of the mods hasn't edited your post.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on July 01, 2005, 12:02:52 PM
On the heamoophilia bit:
I was told there were 200 blood diseases and 36 were simmilar to Alexei's.....and the term has changed a bit over time, so wouldn't heamophilia have a different meaning now, and it's odds would only be one out of thirty six? :-/
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Kimberly on July 01, 2005, 02:05:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2005, 03:31:53 PM
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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on July 01, 2005, 07:35:56 PM
Quote
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


Perhaps once again a "knee-jerk" reluctance to say the..."H"...word...?

Bear and others....do you NOT think that the uncles,cousins,and various relations of AN,descendants of Queen Victoria,had haemophilia...???
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2005, 08:01:02 PM
The question is about Alexei.

Since 1917 a lot of new blood disorders which seem to have the same symptons as hemophilia have been discovered.  

Someone said there were 36 possible blood disorders, so, some of us are trying to eliminate 35 of the possibilities and see if what we end up with is hemlophilia.

Evidently, there are no medical records of Dr. Derevenko's which survived / or we know exist.

What we have are a lot of people telling us he had hemophilia because it's a proven fact, when, in fact we don't know that it is.

We realize that Alexei had the best of doctors just as we realize that medicine wasn't that far advanced to even know there were blood types  "O",  "AB" etc.   at that time.

We also realize that we don't need to squable because the facts and evidence should take us all to the same conclusion.

So, help us fiqure out which of the 36 to eliminate.

I am not sure if one can prove Alexei had hemophilia because a cousin may have had hemophilia.  I believe a person has to work separately with each individual.  

If we had a sample of Alexei's blood then the answer could be discovered by tests.

As far as we know, the bones of Alexandra were not tested to see if she was a carrier.....  so we don't even know about this link to hemophilia.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: J_Kendrick on July 01, 2005, 09:53:50 PM
Quote
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.



Please understand that thrombocytopenia is not a disease.  It is only a symptom of disease.

Although the word does appear in the title of some diseases.... Thrombocytopenia by itself is nothing more than a fancy ten dollar medical word that means a low platelet count.

Please read:
http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual_ha/sec3/ch49/ch49c.html

You should also be aware that the most common cause of excessive bruisng and bleeding *IS* a low platelet count..... thrombocytopenia... not a clotting factor deficiency.

.. and a number of blood diseases that include a low platelet count as one of their major symptoms are known to be caused by genes that are inherited in an X-linked fashion
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Kimberly on July 02, 2005, 03:41:04 AM
Mr. Kedrick,no where in my post did i use the word disease. I was careful to use the term "disorder"i.e. meaning disturbance of the normal working of the body. ;)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: etonexile on July 02, 2005, 10:24:59 AM
The question is about Alexei...erm...yes...but don't you think that his male blood relations who also were "bleeders" have a certain relevance....?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lostfan on July 02, 2005, 05:36:24 PM
Quote
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 article mentions Alfonso XIII and Ena's second son having hemophilia, which caused his deafness, which is incorrect. It was their eldest son, Alfonso, Prince of the Asturias, who was the hemophiliac, as well as their youngest, Infante Gonzalo. Jaime, the second son, was deaf due to double mastoiditis when he was four.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Grand Duke on October 15, 2005, 08:05:41 PM
I don't know if this was already posted but I found this scientific article from The American Journal of Hematology:

"Russia's imperial blood: Was Rasputin not the healer of legend?"
John M.L. Kendrick
American Journal of Hematology
Volume 77, Issue 1, 2004. Pages 92-102
Copyright © 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc., A Wiley Company

I only have the Abstract:

The only son of Russia's last Tsar, a great-grandson of Queen Victoria, continues to be used as the favorite example of the X-linked inheritance of hemophilia, in spite of the fact that this popular historical diathesis has never been confirmed by any form of modern medical laboratory testing.
Certain to be controversial, a new study of the symptoms that were witnessed by those who were closest to the teenaged Russian heir now raises the possibility that his blood disorder might well have been something other than hemophilia.
The key to discovering Tsarevich Alexei's true diagnosis is found in those now legendary allegations that the infamous Mad Monk, Grigory Rasputin, had possessed a power of healing that was somehow responsible for the young boy's mysterious history of spontaneous recoveries. 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.

Link: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/109593773/ABSTRACT
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Eternal_Princess on October 15, 2005, 10:43:32 PM
I agree almost ephatically with the above article Grand Duke posted.

In planning to write a book on Alexei, I have had to do serious research, and continue to have to reel back any notes I've compiled because of new information and inconcisties in information from supposed reliable sources.

Alexei's illness for one, is something that you have to travel back to Queen Victoria's father for the answer.

The current theory on Hemaophelia in the British royal line is related in recent studies that suggest the older a man is when he impregnates a woman, the more likely the child is to have a deficancy or carry a hereditary disease.

It has something to do with the age of a man's seed, which ages as a man does, unlike a woman's womb which constantly renews itself.

So for years they blamed Victoria's mother, when in fact it was her fifty-four year old father and not her mother, who was only in her mid-thirties!

This is once cause to how they believe Hemaophelia could have developed in that line, however, (and this brings up the quintisential however part, bear with me.)

There are more studies to believe that this is not the case, that hemaophelia is a genetic disease, going back in families through the paternal side, reguardless of age!

So, there are no records of Hemaophelia in the line of George the I or any of his children, it's not carried through the maternal line of the paternal, so what did the children and Grandchildren of Victoria have?

One theory suggests that it was a very mild disorder, that Empress Alexandra had herself had, that merely brought a rush of blood to the face and very red marks when bruised!

Rasputin, so many sources believe and I trust these ones, was a student of Asian medicine from suspcious teachers, and practices most unconventional.

One source believes the magic medicine with which he used to treat Alexei, was pure Asprin. Asprin, in it's pure bark form, he would have most likely crushed it himself, can cause bleeding of the stomach lining, causing nose-bleeds and joint discomfort!

So poor Alexei, who might have bleed a tiny bit after his umbelical cord was cut, (which we know is not unusual now,) causing alarm, and a few red marks when he bruised, was at the mercy of Rasputin's coniving mind.

Ana Vorynoba is to be blamed as well, she was very supceptable to fads and Alexandra was a desperate woman, (as you can see by how fast she aged!)

Weather or not it was hemaophelia or a related, less intense blood disorder, Rasputin obviously aggrivated it to make it seem more extreme and to make him look important when he managed to stop it.

Recall the incident at Mogliv when Alexei hurt himself, and the message from Rasputin was: "leave him alone and he'll be fine." ?!

Alexei, who had completely relied on Rasputin's medicine in previous attacks, recovered after a few days and Nicholas began to fume. He knew something had been going on with his poor son, who seemed to be in fairly good health now.

He sent Alexandra home, warned her not to send Rasputin here, kept an eye on his son and did not let Alexei go home for a visit until Rasputin's death!

Apart from the rumoured sledding incident in confinement, (which I don't believe,) Alexei's years after Rasputin and before his imprisonment and recorded death,were fairly good ones.

He played with his pets, swam in lakes, and was a normal, active boy and later teenager.

I think I mentioned this in another thread, but there's a painting, I think it's in Anastasia's album, which is curious in that it shows Alexei, tall and pale, falling back against his father, rather then screaming in Nicholas arms in pain!

So, I believe that the incident of him and his sled is only a myth, and that Alexei was maturing into a healthy young man with a mild blood disorder, and nothing as extreme as people have claimed.

(Sorry for all the writting. :-X)





 
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Georgiy on October 16, 2005, 04:28:27 AM
While the story about the sled is, I think myth, probably from the movie Nicholas and ALexandra, the fact remains that he had one of his most serious bouts of haemophilia whilst in Tobolsk. He was so unwell that he could not be moved, which is why the family was split up with most of the children going to Ekaterinburg after the parents. It was some time after they got to Ekaterinburg that he was well enough to have a bath. He was still so weak in July, his father had to carry him to the cellar as he couldn't walk properly. Whatever blood disorder he had, and I think it was haemophilia because all the signs are there, it was no minor thing that could be tweaked by Rasputin at will.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Eternal_Princess on October 16, 2005, 11:01:22 PM
Possibly, I was almost certain that bout of illness that caused them to be split up was supposedly caused by the myth of the sled ride he took down the stairs. Perhaps it was something else rather then hemaophelia that caused him to be bed ridden?  :-/
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lanie on October 17, 2005, 01:05:22 AM
Just to correct you, E_P, her name was Anna Vyrubova and it's Mogliev. :)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Lizameridox on October 17, 2005, 07:16:53 AM
In little Alexei Nikolaevich we see a boy who bled from deep internal bruises into the joints and muscles from the time he began to walk and crawl, whose prolonged bleeding time and hematomas differed enough from the bumps and bruises of an ordinary boy enough to send him to bed.  Anecdotal evidence records these episodes occurring from the slightest mishaps when they are least expected, varying in intensity from mere mentions that the boy had hurt himself 'again' to profound expressions of worry.  Not every incident threatened the boy's life, but he certainly suffered every time!  We read in his diary that towards the end of his life the Tsarevich had begun to manage a disease with episodes that followed a predictable course.

It surprises me that familiarity with the course of hemophilia cannot be assumed in those that speculate that Alexei Nikolaevich may not have suffered from it.  If any conclusion that he did not have the disease could be reached through comparison of his case to the course of hemophilic episodes, which would surprise any doctor, then that might hold water.  

The Tammet theory is a red herring.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on January 02, 2006, 03:50:16 PM
Bumping up since the subject has returned in another section.

AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RealAnastasia on January 05, 2006, 11:00:16 PM
Recently, one of my great-uncles, a physician, died and I inherited a half of his books. One of them was "Blood Diseases". It's a little old now (It's from the 1980's) but it has the symptoms of both, Hemophilia (there is several kinds of hemophilias) and Throbocytophenia. Most likely, Alexei suffered from Hemophilia. Hemarthrosis is an aftermath of hemophilia, not of Thrombocytophenia, and Alexei had a lot of hemarthrosis manifestations after his bleedings episodes.

In the early XX Century , a person suffering from Thrombocytopenia should have died very soon. No possible surviving. A person with hemophilia could survive a little more, as we could notice in the case of Prince Leopold, Alix's uncle.

If you want, I'll try to translate the thrombocytophenia and Hemophilia symptoms to shown why, in my humble opinion, the Tsarevitch had HEMOPHILIA.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on November 05, 2006, 10:40:13 AM
This discussion is very interesting and some of the data is being repeated on a new thread.

Bumping it up.


AGRBear
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on November 05, 2006, 12:45:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on November 05, 2006, 01:16:07 PM
(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/img/alexeinyt.jpg)
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on November 05, 2006, 01:35:57 PM
(http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/img/alexeinyt.jpg)

Who made the pronouncement referred to in this article? There is no reference to the IF etc.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on November 05, 2006, 04:15:42 PM
The physicians who were treating Alexei at Spala where he was dying from the unstopped bleeding made the "pronouncement".
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on November 05, 2006, 05:33:18 PM
The physicians who were treating Alexei at Spala where he was dying from the unstopped bleeding made the "pronouncement".

Thank you. FA. I wonder why that is not attributed in the story? Was there a story prior to this one?
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Forum Admin on November 05, 2006, 06:11:57 PM
yes, there were almost daily reports on the condition of the Tsarevich during the Spala crisis.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on November 05, 2006, 06:20:31 PM
yes, there were almost daily reports on the condition of the Tsarevich during the Spala crisis.


I am assuming you mean there were "almost daily" reports in the New York Times?

Here is what Massie says about Spala:
"Because the crisis at Spala is so obscure and yet so enormously important to what happened later, every possible explanation should be examined."
Nicholas and Alexandra Chapter 14.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on November 05, 2006, 10:20:22 PM
Did the doctors tell the public that Alexei had "hemophilia" or did they say he had a "blood disorder".

Just because a NY Times reporter used the word "hemophilia" doesn't mean this is what the Romanov doctors had said.

It  might well have been that the reporter knew about the other family members who were diagnoised with "hemophilia" and leaped to this conclusion and wrote it in the article even though the words reported were "blood disorder".

Please,  do not think that I believe that Alexei didn't have a serious blood disorder which was probably hemophilia.  My point is that I have been lead to believe that the Romanov doctors didn't use the word "hemophilia" then or later since Alexei's hemophiliac condition was  said to have been  withheld from the public.


AGRBear

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: AGRBear on November 05, 2006, 10:38:25 PM
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
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: RealAnastasia on November 05, 2006, 11:28:25 PM
I think (but this is only an opinion), that if the paper used the word "hemophilia", and the Imperial family don't deny it, it must have been for they know how the "blood disorder" was. Nicholas II was still an important and powerful ruler when the paper published the news.

And, if you wants to check the differences between hemophilia and thrombocytopenia, I think that we discussed the topic here in this very thread. The Tsarevich had all the symptoms of hemophilia, and we must add to this , that he was sourrounded by hemophiliac relatives, by the side of her mother. Alix brother himself dead from it.

For more details, please , visit: www. hemophilia.org  . It has a great amount of information about this "blood  disorder".

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: Belochka on November 05, 2006, 11:55:11 PM
Was "hemophilia" mentioned in Nicholas II's diary??

AGRBear

No. There is absolutely no reason why Nikolai II should have.

Margarita

Title: Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
Post by: lexi4 on November 06, 2006, 06:07:40 AM
Was "hemophilia" mentioned in Nicholas II's diary??

AGRBear

No. There is absolutely no reason why Nikolai II should have.

Margarita



Huh? Could you elaborate on that a litte more?