Author Topic: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?  (Read 105857 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #15 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?  :-/
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bluetoria »

Offline Lass

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #16 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Lass »

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #17 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.  :(

Offline Lass

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2005, 04:08:56 PM »
Maybe none of them had haemophilia. After all, Alexei had the same illness as his relatives. ;)

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #19 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? ::)  :)

Offline Lass

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #20 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.

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #21 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bluetoria »

Offline Lass

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #22 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?

Offline ptitchka

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Oblazhayu Tsesaryevicha Aleksiya!
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #23 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.)

Offline Lass

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #24 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. :)

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #25 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.  :)


Offline Lass

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2005, 11:15:43 AM »
True, and if you like, I'll leave it at that. ;)

Offline felix

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #27 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.

Offline Lass

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #28 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.

Offline J_Kendrick

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #29 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)