All I said was that the author of said article makes a good, well-argued case for his point, to the effect that it COULD BE.
Remember, we have no medical records from the doctors of the Tsarevich, WHATSOEVER. In abscense of those medical records, from an empirical standpoint, it would be impossible to prove that he had hemophilia, or any other disease.
Also, Helen made a comment about surviving for 14 years without proper medical treatment. What? Were the Tsar and his wife peasants? Could they not afford or provide medical treatment for their children?
Also, from an evidential standpoint- The fact that other children and grandchildren of Queen Victoria had hemophilia does not in itself prove that Alexei had hemophilia. That is circumstantial evidence.
If I had three cousins who had hemophilia, and I, in fact, had leukemia, would the fact that my three cousins were sufferers of hemophilia then make me a sufferer of hemophilia? No. Not unless I, myself, was victimized by the disease.
If challenged in court, it could not be proven, absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, using normal methods of evidence, that Alexei had hemophilia [instead of another blood disorder]. I'm not saying he didn't have it. I'm also not saying that Heino Tammet was Alexei. I'm saying that, evidentially the question of the nature of Alexei's illness isn't a closed case.