Alexei and Hemophilia

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Oh, Mr Kendrick, how very wrong you are.

Alexei had haemophilia; there is plenty of evidence to support this claim.  

The only people who question the diagnosis are people like YOU, who are supporting the claims of an Alexei impostor, who has zero resemblance to Alexei and spent his life trading on Alexei's memory.  And you want people to take you seriously??

I think it is absolutely DISGUSTING that you are trying to prove that Alexei did not have haemophilia to bolster the claims of a man shamelessly using the identity of a horrifically murdered little boy.  Alexei deserves to rest in peace, not have his memory abused by people like you.  It is vile and it is just plain WRONG to take on the identity of someone who has been killed and to use that identity to advance yourself.  

You are not a medical professional.  Your own website is littered with so many factual errors that it is laughable that anyone would take you seriously.

Once again, how do you explain the hereditary bleeding disease in the Royal family? Did no one have haemophilia? Or did Alexei just happen to be REALLY unlucky and just happen to get a bleeding disease different from haemophilia when haemophilia was already in the family? That's got to be...what....a billion to one?

Stop spewing this complete and utter nonsense and have some respect for the dead who are no longer here to defend themselves.

Rachel
xx

[Belochka]

Fourteen years ago, Dr. Mark Kulikowski, a History Professor at Oswego College at the State University of New York, wrote the following words in the conclusion of his 1992 dissertation titled "Rethinking the Origins of the Rasputin Legend":

"The world of scholarship has no room for fantasy."  

Clearly, no one was listening back when Professor Kulikowski first spoke those words in 1992. Fourteen years later, nothing has changed.

JK

Wise words indeed -  it seems that you Mr Kendrick have failed to listen to Professor Kulikowski.  

Oh, Dear Belochka...

You're far too predictable!

Again, you take words out of context to support your opposition, just as I had expected you would. ;-)

JK

If my predictability amuses you then I am comforted to know that I am consistent.  

Let me leave you with this thought:   Truth is not tainted by the interpretation of others.  

[Forum Admin]

Kendrick dismisses Spiridovitch's account since Spirid. was not "a doctor". Well, let's look at what he wrote:

"He jumped and fell onto the side of the bathtub.  It hurt him, but without doubt the pain was not very great because he did not say anything afterward.  However, only a few minutes later, he lost conscience and they carried his nearly inanimate body to his bed.
      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. " and:

" Botkin never left him for a moment, but did not know what he could do to bring him relief. His pain grew so bad that the sick child would not permit the swelling to be touched.  He slept on his side, leg folded, pale, thin and never stopped moaning.
      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.  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."

Now, Spiridovitch was quite literally WITH the IF at Spala and Bielovezh 24/7. We KNOW he spoke directly with the Emperor and Empress. We KNOW he spoke directly to the doctors, so WHERE did this "non-doctor" even HEAR the word "hemophilia"?  Fyedorov may not have said the exact word "hemophilia" but his FIRST HAND statement is : [highlight]the operation would bring on fatal bleeding.[/highlight]  Without question, Spiridovitch recieved first hand information from the doctors as is self evident from the text. So, just because HE was not a doctor does not throw his statements out as unreliable information.  He didn't make this stuff up out of whole cloth did he? Nope, as a policeman by training, he was reporting the facts the recieved first hand.


Is it just "mere coincidence" that only two weeks later, the London Journal "Hospital" and the New York Times BOTH publish the diagnosis of "hemophilia" of the Tsarevich by "his doctors"??

or, did they just make that up too? like Spiridovitch did.... 8-)

[Romanov_fan]

Let's get a lock for this; Alexei obviously had hemophilia, and that's that. It makes no sense otherwise. I think this thread is a farce of true Alexei discussion, although thanks to everyone who has posted the evidence and opinion that Alexei had hemophilia. That's the truth.

[J_Kendrick]

Kendrick dismisses Spiridovitch's account since Spirid. was not "a doctor". Well, let's look at what he wrote:

"He jumped and fell onto the side of the bathtub.  It hurt him, but without doubt the pain was not very great because he did not say anything afterward.  However, only a few minutes later, he lost conscience and they carried his nearly inanimate body to his bed.

I've already dealt with this one at length on this discussion group before, at this same time last year.  The fact that this website has since been restructured, preventing its members from easily accessing its archives to look up my answer, is not my doing.

All I will say is this: Research the causes and symptoms of Subcapsular Splenic Haemorrhage. Find out what it is, what can cause it, why it can be potentially fatal, why it can cause a dangerously high fever lasting eight to ten days, why young children can spontaneously recover from it, why it can leave its survivors with a serious recurring haemolytic disorder... and, most importantly of all, why it is not haemophilia.

My answer to the FA's posting can be found in the archives of this discussion group.  I do not intend to repeat myself.  

JK

[Forum Admin]

Which of course and typical for Kendrick, who plays fast and loose with facts to suit his theory, omits ALL THE OTHER bleeding episodes in Alexei's life, all caused by bumps and bruises....No point in Kendrick repeating his responses, since they are not valid explanations of "why" Alexei did not have haemophilia...

[Belochka]

Which of course and typical for Kendrick, who plays fast and loose with facts to suit his theory, omits ALL THE OTHER bleeding episodes in Alexei's life, all caused by bumps and bruises....No point in Kendrick repeating his responses, since they are not valid explanations of "why" Alexei did not have haemophilia...

No matter how much wool Mr Kendrick prefers to toss over our eyes - a few of us are in the informed position to discard the detritus efficiently.

Mr Kendrick has failed to re-address "purple disease".

The error which I have highlighted above confirms that your article WAS never peer reviewed according to customary rigorous standards which medical researchers must meet.

You are disrespectful to the Romanov Family and lack respect to the eternal memory of Tsesarevich Alexei who died a horrendous death in July 1918[/font].

Mr Kendrick to conclude my contact, please re-appraise yourself with our paper, published in two parts: "An Inheritance No one Desired" that was kindly published by European Royal History J. vol. 8, October and December, 2005. If you do not have copies you may also read it here:


http://www.geocities.com/mushkah/Hemophilia.html


Now I shall bow out of this thread because there is no more to be said.

[J_Kendrick]

... in fact, a quote that comes from the American edition of the Oxford Dictionary.

Long before we ever knew about the influence of X-linked genes and the blood Factors VIII and IX, the Director of Hematology at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago , Dr. Raphael Isaacs, had written these words in "The Blood and Its Diseases" in 1948:

"... Purpura may be a disease in itself or it may be a symptom of another disease."

JK

Mr Kendrick,
 
My multi-volume publication of the Oxford Dictionary generously offers pages of definitions which commence with the year 893, through to the years that include 1225 and 1858 upto the present day, and further divided into disciplines. Over the centuries the definitions cited from the London edition of OED (Vol VIII Poy-Ry) @ p 1630 agree that:  
 

purpura = purple  

 Â 
Clearly you must agree that the Latin definition "purpura" or simply in English the color purple - cannot be a disease. [/font]

Mr Kendrick it seems by your silence that you are unable to rebut this obvious error in your published "Historic Review".

This single example (there are many others) would have been scrutinized and would have been brought to your attention to rectify.

The error which I have highlighted above confirms that your article WAS never peer reviewed according to customary rigorous standards which medical researchers must meet.

Allow me to repeat myself:

Historic appraisals do not ADVANCE medical science . If anything your implausable twists and turns do little to enhance your journalistic reputation.

Deal with this... If you can.

In order to answer Belochka's concern about the question of peer review, I have written the Editorial manager of the American Journal of Hematology to answer your concerns.

This is my letter to the AJH...


Patricia Krause,
Editorial Manager,
American Journal of Hematology

Dear Patricia

I'm having a bit of trouble dealing with certain opponents to my paper "Was
Rasputin Not the Healer of Legend?".  They now contend that a paper which is
published under the category of "Historical Perspective" would not have been
subject to the process of peer review as all other papers appearing in the
journal would be.

Can you please confirm for me whether or not the medical paper that appears
under the heading "Historical Perspective" on pages 92-102 of Volume 77,
Number 1 of the American Journal of Hematology, September 2004, was put to a peer review before its publication?

My most grateful thanks for your very kind assistance.

Best Regards
John Kendrick

And this is the Journal's reply....

Dear Mr Kendrick:
 
The paper was reviewed, including several Associate Editors and the Editor.  

I hope you find this helpful.  Please don't hesitate to contact me with any further concerns or questions.

Best wishes,
Patricia Krause, Editorial Manager
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY

The names on this list are the people who *did* put my paper to peer-review... and they are the ones who approved it for publication.
Please See:
http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-AJH,descCd-editorialBoard.html

If you still have a problem with this, then I suggest that you take it up with the Editor, Associate Editors, and Editorial Board members of the American Journal of Hematology whose names appear on this list.   They all have a great deal more knowledge and understanding about the science of heamatology than anyone who posts to this board.

So, there you have it, Belochka...
In spite of your very loudest protestations....

The September 2004 American Journal of Hematology paper titled "Historical Perspective: Russia's Imperial Blood: Was Rasputin Not the Healer of Legend"
*WAS* peer-reviewed and approved for publication by a panel of editors who are *all* leading experts in the medical science of Haematology.

Now, let that be an end to it!

JK

[Forum Admin]

AHH, but again, Mr. Kendrick, the $64,000 Question:

Do those who "reviewed" the piece CONCUR with the conclusions and find them to be ACCURATE?

There is a HUGE difference between "acceptable" for publication and "ACCEPTED as accurate"...NO?

[J_Kendrick]

AHH, but again, Mr. Kendrick, the $64,000 Question:

Do those who "reviewed" the piece CONCUR with the conclusions and find them to be ACCURATE?

There is a HUGE difference between "acceptable" for publication and "ACCEPTED as accurate"...NO?

AHH, but again, Mr. Atchison...

The conclusion approved by the American Journal of Hematology's peer-review is the very same thing that I've been saying here for a long time...

"The only way to be certain of the Tsarevich Alexei's true diagnosis is to find and properly identify his missing remains and to then test samples from both his remains and the discovered remains of the Empress Alexandra for evidence of a suspected genetic disorder."
(AJH, Vol 77, No 1. Sept 2004, pg. 101)

What kind of challenge could there possibly be to the accuracy of that statement?

I'm sure you'll try challenging this other conclusion though, which the peer-review has also approved:

"Symptoms of delirum, high fevers, and heart problems, described in the writings of both Nicholas II and the tutor Pierre Gilliard, can be said to be inconsistent with that historically popular, but still unproven, diagnosis." (AJH, Vol 77, No 1. Sept 2004, pg. 97)

JK

[Belochka]

AHH, but again, Mr. Kendrick, the $64,000 Question:

Do those who "reviewed" the piece CONCUR with the conclusions and find them to be ACCURATE?

There is a HUGE difference between "acceptable" for publication and "ACCEPTED as accurate"...NO?

I fully concur with FA,

I had to return to address this matter as a published professional in the field.

Articles can be submitted to medical journals, and depending which category it would embrace e.g. Letters to the Editor, a genuine laboratory research article or a mere "historic perspective", EACH will require a different standard of peer review.

Medical scientists are subjected and must conform to rigorous standards, where as other items that may be published will receive less attention. Primarily if a "historic perspective" is submitted then so long as the essence discusses something of a hematologic nature, it shall suffice.

Clearly in this case the review was only cursory - because if the contents were scrutiized to the same exacting standard, then that personal "perpective" would never have been accepted. Too many medical errors occur within that specific publication. Equally it would have been outside the review board to srutinize the veracity of cited extracts from Russian memoirs.  

The fact that this jounalistic compilation introduces the pathetic notion of an imposter falls outside sound academic reasoning. To the discredit of the Journal on this occassion, it failed to exercise its authority. It has made an gross error of judgement. Regretfully such incidents do occur, but we as informed profesionals do know what should be set aside as a curiosity of the lowest level.

[J_Kendrick]

The fact that this jounalistic compilation introduces the pathetic notion of an imposter falls outside sound academic reasoning. To the discredit of the Journal on this occassion, it failed to exercise its authority. It has made an gross error of judgement. Regretfully such incidents do occur, but we as informed profesionals do know what should be set aside as a curiosity of the lowest level.[/font][/color]

With respect, Belochka

The paper approved by the American Journal of Hematology's peer-review makes no mention at all of any claimant.  

Are you prepared to confront the Journal's editors directly -- all of them experts in haematology -- with the accusation that you have just made against them?

[Belochka]

The fact that this jounalistic compilation introduces the pathetic notion of an imposter falls outside sound academic reasoning. ...

With respect, Belochka

The paper approved by the American Journal of Hematology's peer-review makes no mention at all of any claimant.  

With respect, I never used the word "claimant" Mr Kendrick.

May I direct you to an excellent  "Historic" account of Hemophilia published in the British Journal of Hematology:

Historic Review: The History of Haemophilia in the Royal Families of Europe. BJH, 1999, 105, 25-32

This well researched account was written by Dr Richard F. Stevens, a pediatric Hematologist at Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, England.

[Forum Admin]

Mr. Kendrick.

First, FA is Mr. MOSHEIN. Bob Atchison posts ONLY as Bob Atchison here.

Second, nothing can be MORE specious and self-serving than to quote your OWN words and ascribe them to be the belief of OTHERS. PLEASE do contact those who reviewed your work and ask them SPECIFICALLY if they believe in the accuracy and veracity and correctness of your assertions in your paper.  I welcome their response. OR, do provide me with the email addresses of those involved and I will gladly ask them myself and publish their response here, in the AYE or NAY.

[J_Kendrick]

Oh, Hello again, Rob.  Sorry for the mix up.  Please say Hi! to Bob for me :-)

Again you've deliberately twisted what I've said in order to avoid my question, just as you always do.  I had merely responded to your previous posting by answering that the following statement was the conclusion of my paper that had been passed by peer-review:

"The only way to be certain of the Tsarevich Alexei's true diagnosis is to find and properly identify his missing remains and to then test samples from both his remains and the discovered remains of the Empress Alexandra for evidence of a suspected genetic disorder."

And then I asked you: What kind of challenge could there possibly be to the accuracy of that conclusion? ... a question that you obviously have no intention of answering.   I did *not* suggest for even a single moment, as you now claim, that those words might be the thoughts or beliefs of others.  Nor would I ever do such a thing.

Seven years ago, paediatric haematologist Dr. Richard Stevens had come awkwardly close to saying much the same thing about testing for genetic markers in his paper in the British Medical Journal, but in a much more convoluted fashion.  In his "Historical Review" (BMJ, 1999, 105, 25-32), Dr. Stevens had written these words:

"Our understanding of the genetics of haemophilia has increased dramatically over the past few years and the Intron 22 inversion can be used in tracking pedigrees in up to half of families exhibiting severe Haemophilia A. Polymorphisms in Introns 13 and 22 of the Factor VIII gene can be identified using blood spots stored on filter paper.  However, nuclear DNA is much more unstable than mtDNA and liable to degradation.  In the case of mitochondrial DNA, successful analysis has been performed on tissue samples on mammoths and Neanderthal Man going back over 30,000 years.  For nuclear DNA, the present limit appears to be 100 years using PCR technology.  We can only speculate as to the exact genetic marker associated with the Tsarevich's haemophilia and his carrier mother and sisters (whoever might have been affected).

(.... Yes, Belochka, I have read it!.... :-) )

If only Dr. Stevens had taken that same thought one step further.  If only Dr. Stevens had also pointed out that the Empress Alexandra's DNA... and the DNA of three of her four daughters... have been available to attempt those tests for the suspected genetic marker ever since their bones were first uncovered in 1991.

All someone has to do is test those bones for the suspected genetic marker and then we'll know which genetic marker it is.  Then we'll know whether it was Haemophilia A or B.  Then we will know if it was even haemophilia at all.  If there is no genetic marker for haemophilia, then it wasn't haemophilia.  Then it had to be something else.....  

But... If the testers actually do fail to find that genetic marker in Alexandra's DNA , then you can bet your bottom dollar that they'll either say that the test was inconclusive... or they simply won't bother to release the test results at all.

Disappointingly, Dr. Steven's 1999 BMJ "Historical Review" is just another rehash of all the same things that we've all been told in history class.  In spite of his having been a paediatric haematologist, Dr. Stevens had made no attempt at all to itemise all of Alexei's symptoms in detail and demonstrate why he believed that the historically popular diagnosis is correct.  He had simply done the very same thing that everyone else has done... taking the popular diagnosis for granted, without ever once daring to do an in-depth analysis of the evidence to confirm that diagnosis.  

All that Dr Stevens had done in that 1999 BMJ article was to take the same safe road and repeat all of the same old stories.  He did not give any source notes to show where he had obtained the historical details that he used to write the article.  He gave just a handful of references.. all the familiar names... for his rehash of the recent DNA investigation... and just four Items for "Recommended reading", one of which is actually a British TV mini-series.  

Given his experience as a paediatric haematologist, I would very much like to have met with Dr. Stevens to compare notes and discuss both of our published papers at length.  Sadly, however, that won't ever be possible.

The author of that same BMJ article that Belochka now wants us to read had suddenly vanished without a trace three summers ago, leaving his jacket and briefcase behind in his office and his Audi in the car park.  The last time that Dr. Stevens was seen alive was on a hospital security camera at 7:10 in the morning of July 21, 2003.  His wife made numerous appearances in the British media throughout the following weeks, pleading for help to find him.  Six months later, Dr. Stevens's body was found by hikers in a disused slate mine, more than 75 miles away from his home in Manchester.  Two days before Christmas 2004, seventeen months after he first disappeared, a handful of letters that Dr. Stevens had written to his mistress were discovered in an abandoned mountain hut in Britain's Lake District in Cumbria.

Oh.. and Rob... about your speaking to the editors of the American Journal of Hematology (whose names I've already listed here). Will you still post their words on this board -- *unedited* -- if their comments to you about my paper turn out to be positive?

Somehow, I very much doubt that you will.

JK