Author Topic: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?  (Read 110349 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

J_Kendrick

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #105 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...)


J_Kendrick

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #106 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...)


J_Kendrick

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #107 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

Pravoslavnaya

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #108 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Pravoslavnaya »

etonexile

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #109 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....

lexi4

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #110 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.

Pravoslavnaya

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #111 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.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Pravoslavnaya »

J_Kendrick

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #112 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.

Lass

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #113 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. :)

lexi4

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #114 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.

etonexile

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #115 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"....

etonexile

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #116 on: May 21, 2005, 10:22:56 AM »
fags=cigarettes...t-hee... ::)

lexi4

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #117 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.

etonexile

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #118 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. ::)

Lass

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #119 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. ;)