Author Topic: Alexei and Hemophilia  (Read 190892 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ortino

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Ortino
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #240 on: April 24, 2006, 07:29:47 PM »
Quote
Nice try, Belochka, but rest assured that this article was fully subject to peer- review, just as any other paper that is submitted to the journal must be.  The Journal's editor who had put this same paper to review is a professor of Hematology/Oncology at Emory University in Atlanta.

  Out of curiosity, who is this professor at Emory?

Quote
Do you therefore believe that none of the members of the Royal family who were purported to have had haemophilia actually had haemophilia, then?  Is this rare blood disease you speak of an inherited condition? Because if not, how do you explain the occurence of bleeding diseases consistently throughout the royal family? They can't all have had random bleeding diseases with no inherited connection, surely?

  I too am interested in hearing your explanation for this Mr. Kendrick.

Offline J_Kendrick

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #241 on: April 24, 2006, 09:36:04 PM »
Quote
Quote
Nice try, Belochka, but rest assured that this article was fully subject to peer- review, just as any other paper that is submitted to the journal must be.  The Journal's editor who had put this same paper to review is a professor of Hematology/Oncology at Emory University in Atlanta.

  Out of curiosity, who is this professor at Emory?

Quote
Do you therefore believe that none of the members of the Royal family who were purported to have had haemophilia actually had haemophilia, then?  Is this rare blood disease you speak of an inherited condition? Because if not, how do you explain the occurence of bleeding diseases consistently throughout the royal family? They can't all have had random bleeding diseases with no inherited connection, surely?

  I too am interested in hearing your explanation for this Mr. Kendrick.

The answers you seek are a matter of public record, far too lengthy to repeat here.  You should be able to find those answers in any good medical library, in the American Journal of Hematology, Volume 77, Number 1, September 2004.

JK

Offline RealAnastasia

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #242 on: April 24, 2006, 10:40:18 PM »
My cousin Aldo Rodríguez was physician. Since he sadly died not too far away, I inherited all his medicine books. I have one of hematology. Did you want I search in it what it saids about hemophilia symptoms and thrombocitopenya's one? It will be hard to me to translate it (the books are all in Spanish), but I can try to do it.

As for hemophilia, I think there are some good sites in Internet depicting this awful sicknes (awful even today, when there is VIII Factor and other blood coatings) and its different manifestations.

RealAnastasia.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #243 on: April 25, 2006, 01:03:37 AM »
Quote

The review panel did find the medical theories and conclusions contained in the paper to be medically sound.  If the panel's decision had been any different, then the paper would not have been accepted for publication.

JK


Well I am amazed, perhaps you can clarify one point for me today?

@ p 95 of your "Historic Perspective" you claim that "...pupura: "a disease characterized by purple or livid spots inder the skin, due to internal bleeding from small blood vessels."

Curiously I was never knew that "purpura" is a disease.  :o

Can you clarify this a bit further for us?

Thank you


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Ra-Ra-Rasputin

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 814
  • Another Anastasia claimant; the ears match exactly
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #244 on: April 25, 2006, 07:36:08 AM »
Quote
Quote
Quote
Nice try, Belochka, but rest assured that this article was fully subject to peer- review, just as any other paper that is submitted to the journal must be.  The Journal's editor who had put this same paper to review is a professor of Hematology/Oncology at Emory University in Atlanta.

  Out of curiosity, who is this professor at Emory?

Quote
Do you therefore believe that none of the members of the Royal family who were purported to have had haemophilia actually had haemophilia, then?  Is this rare blood disease you speak of an inherited condition? Because if not, how do you explain the occurence of bleeding diseases consistently throughout the royal family? They can't all have had random bleeding diseases with no inherited connection, surely?

  I too am interested in hearing your explanation for this Mr. Kendrick.

The answers you seek are a matter of public record, far too lengthy to repeat here.  You should be able to find those answers in any good medical library, in the American Journal of Hematology, Volume 77, Number 1, September 2004.

JK

I'm not asking for how the American Journal of Hematology explains it, I'm asking how YOU explain it.  

What is YOUR belief concerning the occurences of haemophilia in the royal family? Do YOU believe NONE of them suffered from haemophilia? What is YOUR explanation for the bleeding diseases? How did YOU come to this conclusion? What scientific evidence do you have to prove YOUR claims?

Don't skirt around the question by pointing to a resource you know full well hardly any of us would have access to. Answer the questions we have put to you, or be man enough to admit that there is no satisfactory explanation.  Your claims are built on circumstantial evidence, that when fitted into the 'big picture', does not add up at all. An uninherited bleeding disease almost identical to the symptoms of haemophilia but NOT haemophilia suffered by a boy whose grandmother and aunts were known carriers of haemophilia? That's got to be some coincidence, right? Some BIG, completely UNBELIEVABLE and UNCONVINCING coincidence.  Get your head out of the clouds, please!

Rachel
xx
'History teaches that history teaches us nothing' ~ Hegel

Offline J_Kendrick

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #245 on: April 26, 2006, 02:59:38 AM »
Quote
Quote

The review panel did find the medical theories and conclusions contained in the paper to be medically sound.  If the panel's decision had been any different, then the paper would not have been accepted for publication.

JK


Well I am amazed, perhaps you can clarify one point for me today?

@ p 95 of your "Historic Perspective" you claim that "...pupura: "a disease characterized by purple or livid spots inder the skin, due to internal bleeding from small blood vessels."

Curiously I was never knew that "purpura" is a disease.  :o

Can you clarify this a bit further for us?

Thank you

Dear Belochka

The words that you quote are not, as you put it, my "claim".

If you read that paragraph again in its entirety, you will observe that the words you now question... "a disease characterised by purple or livid spots under the skin, due to internal bleeding from small blood vessels" ...are contained within quotation marks.  Follow the attached source note (9) and you will find that those same words that are contained within those quotation marks are, 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:

"Some patients bleed easily because their blood does not clot readily or because the clot is not strong and firm.  In hemophilia, the blood will sometimes remain fluid for hours after removal from the body... Purpura is also a condition in which there is abnormal bleeding, but this is due to the fact that the clot, which forms in the proper time, is not strong enough to hold back the flow of blood. Purpura may be a disease in itself or it may be a symptom of another disease."

Before you ask, yes, the bleeding of Purpura can be found as a symptom of an X-linked blood disease... but not the same X-linked blood disease that you want it to be.

Quote
I'm not asking for how the American Journal of Hematology explains it, I'm asking how YOU explain it.  

Dear Rachel

I apologise if the point of my last post was not sufficiently clear.  

I have already outlined the explanation that you seek... in the medical paper that I wrote... in the American Journal of Hematology.

We've already been down this very same road on this same discussion board at this same time last year.  I'm not at all eager to repeat that experience.  My observations on these questions are already a matter of public record, both here and elsewhere.

JK

Offline Ra-Ra-Rasputin

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 814
  • Another Anastasia claimant; the ears match exactly
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #246 on: April 26, 2006, 03:19:05 AM »
You know, I never realised non medical professionals could write medical articles...

Rachel
xx
'History teaches that history teaches us nothing' ~ Hegel

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #247 on: April 26, 2006, 04:44:17 AM »
Quote
You know, I never realised non medical professionals could write medical articles...

Rachel
xx

Rachel some believe they can, and that is what is so amusing!  ;D


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #248 on: April 26, 2006, 05:58:47 AM »
Quote
... in fact, a quote that comes from the American edition of the Oxford Dictionary.

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

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

JK

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

 

purpura = purple  

  
Clearly you must agree that the Latin definition "purpura" or simply in English the color purple - cannot be a disease. [/font]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #249 on: April 26, 2006, 09:10:11 AM »
RaRa:

Anyone can write anything they want to. Does putting it down on paper make it TRUE? One journal published a piece. Does THAT make it true? Does publishing the piece mean that the journal ACCEPTS the theory as accurate? Genuine peer-review says more than the "theory is medically sound", GENUINE peer-review TESTS the theory for accuracy against known medical science.  Just because the theory is OUT THERE doesn't mean its True. THESE are the nagging questions Mr. Kendrick tap-dances around.

Mr. Kendrick, a journalist and not a scientist has HAD his answer about his theory from the best experts on the subject, he just doesn't like answer he got. Here IS the answer from the scientific community, from Mr. Kendrick's own words:

[highlight]"Dr. Pavel Ivanov appeared to mistake me for a fellow scientist the first time that we spoke on the telephone.  He hasn't answered my letters now since September 1995.  The late Dr. William Maples at the University of Florida stopped talking the year before that.  England's Dr. Peter Gill sent photocopies of his 1994 NATURE GENETICS article without ever saying a word."[/highlight]

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Offline J_Kendrick

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #250 on: April 26, 2006, 04:44:45 PM »
You've just perfectly demonstrated all of the reasons why I am not at all eager to repeat the previous experience of our earlier discussions on the subject of this thread... both here on the AP Board and before that on the news group alt.talk. royalty.

You all delight in taking my previous writings totally out of context to support your own position.  The latest quote you have chosen, written over ten years ago, was *NOT* written in reference to the medical questions that are being discussed in this thread.  It was only written in reference to a set of  mtDNA results that are *still* being withheld by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the British Forensic Science Service.  The three men who are named therein... Dr. Gill.. a forensic scientist.. Dr. Ivanov.. a molecular biologist.. and the late Dr. Maples.. a forensic pathologist.. are *NOT* haematologists.  Their silence is related only to their refusal to publish that certain set of mtDNA results that has been withheld for the past 13 years.  Their silence is *NOT* directed at the blood disease question being discussed here in this thread.

As to the question of medical and non-medical professionals writing on this subject ...

The number of non-medical professionals who write here on this board in support of heamophilia... without any proven medical *laboratory* evidence to support their claim.. massively outweighs the number of those on the other side of the fence who have dared to suggest that there are several other medically valid possibilities that could explain Alexei's disease.

The first to have claimed in 1927 that Nicholas's four short diary entries about umbilical bleeding in 1904 was evidence of haemophilia... Catherine Radziwill... was *not* a medical doctor.  Pierre Gilliard, writing in 1921 about an event that happened in 1912, was a French teacher.  He was *not* a medical doctor.   Gen. Spiridovich, writing in 1928... ten years after the murders.. was *not* a medical doctor.  He was a professional soldier.   Robert Massie, rewriting their words forty years later in 1967 as if they were his own, is *not* a medical doctor.

The Imperial surgeon Dr. Sergei Federov had *never* actually written that Alexei's disease was heamophilia.  Dr. Evgeny Botkin, who had died at Nicholas II's side, had *never* actually written that Alexei's disease was heamophilia.  The Imperial paediatrician, Dr C.A. Raukhfus, had *never* actually written that Alexei's disease was heamophilia.  Dr. Vladimir Derevenko, whose own son Kolia was Alexei's best friend, had *never* actually written that Alexei's disease was heamophilia.  Alexei's own parents, who certainly should have known the diagnosis, are known *never* to have said even once that their son's disease was haemophilia.

There is *no* actual first hand evidence.  There is *no* physical laboratory evidence.  It is merely nothing more than an unchallenged piece of classic Royal gossip, repeated over and over again by second and third hand sources whose claims have never been questioned..... until now.

Just because a story has never been challenged... does not make it true.   Just because a story has been repeated thousands of times in hundreds of books... does not make it true.   The stories of other historical characters like King Arthur and Robin Hood have also been repeated thousands of times in hundreds of books.   It doesn't make those stories true, either.

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.  And yet, despite its largely sensational, unsubstantiated, and rumor-filled origins, the legend lives on in contemporary scholarship.  A major reason for this has been the failure of scholars to question the legend's roots.  Virtually all serious research on Rasputin since 1917 has considered the legend true, and has sought to fit the facts to it.  This has led, at best, to very minor adjustments and to the idea that there is nothing new to say, which unfortunately means that writing on Rasputin has been left largely to popular authors who simply retell the old story.   Still unaswered are some fundamental questions not only about Rasputin, but about our understanding of the end of the monarchy in Russia.  Given the recent call to rethink major questions of Russian history, perhaps we can no longer afford to accept Rasputin as he appears to be."

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

JK

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #251 on: April 26, 2006, 09:27:28 PM »
Quote
Quote
... in fact, a quote that comes from the American edition of the Oxford Dictionary.

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

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

JK

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

 

purpura = purple  

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


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.

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
.



Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #252 on: April 26, 2006, 09:41:25 PM »
Quote
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.  ::)


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline RealAnastasia

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1890
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #253 on: April 27, 2006, 12:16:32 AM »
I'm not a doctor either, but I found an interesting link (among others) about haemophilia where you have a good explanation of its symptoms (who are the same than Alexei had):

www.hemophilia.org  

I think its an accurate site, for it included other bleeding disorders depiction in it, and makes an excellent account about different kind of hemophilias. This is: hemophilia A(classical one) , Christmas Disease , Von Willebrand and, inside Hemophilia A, the ones who are less or more severe.

I explain it very bad, for my English is not so high to discusse scientific issues...It's better to go to the site and see.

RealAnastasia.

P.S: I have some good infos about hemphilia, since I live a block away of "Fundaleu" an Hematology Insitute that, at the same time is a hospital for patient suffering blood diseases(most of them are hemophiliacs). I have brochures too, but they are in Spanish, so they should not help.

Offline J_Kendrick

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: Alexei and Hemophilia
« Reply #254 on: April 27, 2006, 02:15:36 AM »
Quote
Quote
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. ;-)

... conveniently ignoring, of course, the sentences that followed immediately after the quote you have singled out...

"And yet, despite its largely sensational, unsubstantiated, and rumor-filled origins, the legend lives on in contemporary scholarship.  A major reason for this has been the failure of scholars to question the legend's roots.  Virtually all serious research on Rasputin since 1917 has considered the legend true, and has sought to fit the facts to it."

Just try twisting this one to suit your arguement, if you can.

...also from History Professor Kulikowski's 1992 dissertation...

"Like many legends, Rasputin's contains elements that border on the fantastic -- his mystical powers, unlimited political influence, and near invincibility at the hands of his assassins. While perhaps acceptable when ascribed to historical figures of antiquity, these elements should strike a jarring note for modern audiences. Yet it is clear they do not.  Undoubtedly, the constant repetition of the legend has led audiences simply to accept it as true.  Yet simple repetition does not make for historical truth."

Just for a change...

Why don't you actually try finding some good solid medical *laboratory* evidence that will support your opposition... instead of just taking the easy way out, as you always do, by simply attacking those few who would dare to propose an alternative interpretation of the evidence?
 
JK