Author Topic: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?  (Read 110048 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pravoslavnaya

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #60 on: April 22, 2005, 07:13:54 AM »
Quote
No one disputes that umbilical bleeding in new-borns should be taken seriously, but it is always a matter of degree.

If the bleeding that Nicholas had described was only a matter of worrisome spotting that, in the Tsars' own words.. " continued on and off until evening"... then certainly it should be watched carefully. ¬  But spotting "on and off until evening" is not now considered to be a major concern unless it is seen to continue for more than three days. ¬ That most definitely was *not* the situation in Alexei's case, which did not continue beyond the earliest hours of the following morning.

If the bleeding had been continuously steady... which everyone here seems to imagine but definitely does not fit with Nicholas II's description.... then it would have become serious within a matter of just a few minutes. ¬ If that had been the case, then the new-born Alexei would have been lucky just to have made it to the end of that same week... never mind imagining any chance that he might have had of reaching the date of the murders almost 14 years later

But it was *only* spotting... and it *did stop* by the next morning... and Alexei most certainly *did* make it at least as far as 26 days short of his fourteenth birthday... So obviously the bleeding navel was nowhere near as serious as Catherine Radziwill had first implied in her 1931 interpretation of Nicholas II's diary.. and certainly not as serious as far too many people here are blindly willing to accept without ever daring to question the evidence.

http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,4080,00.html
http://www.drpaul.com/newborn/umbilical.html
"This isn't cause for concern and should disappear in two or three days."

Russians traditionally wrap their new-borns with only the faces showing, wrapping them up so tightly in their blankets that it's a wonder the poor little tykes can even find room to breathe. ¬ Their methods might well be a tradition, but this very same Orthodox practice is entirely the wrong thing to do for proper post-natal umbilical care. ¬ 

Today's new parents are always advised to keep the healing navel completely free of diapers and other clothing so that the navel is always exposed to the air and properly allowed to dry. ¬ They're also told by their doctors to avoid getting the umbilical stump wet during bathing, because the longer it stays wet... the longer it's going to take for the navel to heal properly and the stump to fall away.

The Tsar's doctors had also made a serious mistake in their treatment, according to our modern day methods of paediatric care. ¬  Nicholas wrote: "..at seven o'clock they applied a bandage." ¬ Today's paediatricians will say, no matter what, no bandages! ¬ The blood can be dabbed away with a cotton swab or a Q-tip, but the navel must always be left exposed to the air and allowed to dry. ¬ Applying a bandage is far more inclined to aggravate the problem than to solve it, and it only serves to impede the proper progression of healing.

Resolving this issue will depend entirely on answering the question of when, precisely, Alexei's umbilical stump had finally fallen away. ¬ Usually this will happen within the first few days and up to as long as two weeks after birth. ¬ But that's not always the case. ¬ Umbilical stumps have often been known to stay attached for periods sometimes as long as six weeks .. and on very rare occasions, even as long as two months.

We have no idea when this one key event had actually occurred with Alexei. ¬ The family diaries make no mention of it at all. ¬ The truth of the matter is that if Alexei's umbilical stump had finally fallen away on that very same day as his recorded umbilical bleeding, then... as far as an accurate diagnosis is concerned.... Nicholas II's first worried diary entry for September 8th 1904 means absolutely nothing.

http://www.briarcliffpediatrics.com/minfofaq_newborncare.html
"When the cord drops off there will frequently be a little bleeding, which is normal. ¬ Clean the blood away with some alcohol and a Q-tip until it is healed"
http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/baby/newborns/127.html
"When the stump falls off, you may detect a little blood on the diaper, which is normal."
http://www.abbott.ca/eng/nutrition/bcb-02.html
Umbilical care
"Within about one to three weeks after birth, your new-born's umbilical stump will turn black, dry out and finally fall off. In the meantime, clean the base of the stump two or three times a day with water on a sterile cotton ball or gauze. In order to keep the stump dry, fasten diapers below the navel. The baby's shirt should also be rolled above the stump, to allow free circulation of air. When the cord falls, there may be slight bleeding in the navel area. This isn't cause for concern and should disappear in two or three days. But if you notice any foul smell, reddening or oozing around the umbilical stump, be sure to report it to your doctor, as well as any bleeding that lasts for more than three days."

No matter how you may choose to argue... It all comes down to this:

Everyone here is so determined to perpetuate the legend that no one ever bothers to do the math. ¬ Doesn't anyone here ever look at a calendar?

Serious bleeding of the navel in new-borns afflicted with haemophilia can be expected to occur almost immediately within the first few days of life. ¬ The same is true with the circumcision of new-borns (which was not a factor in Alexei's case). ¬ These two facts of haematology and paediatrics have been known since the earliest years of the last century, and even before.

From 1923, ¬ J. Buren Sidbury, A.M., M.D
http://www.neonatology.org/classics/sidbury.html
"....the great majority of cases of haemorrhagic disease of the new-born occur
within the first three days of life"

But.... ¬ 

The Tsar's own diary places Alexei's very first evidence of bleeding on the 8th of September on the old style Julian calendar. ¬ That's 40 clear days... just two days short of a full *six weeks* after Alexei's birth on July 30th (old style). ¬ This one event that is recorded in Nicholas II's diary is most defintely *not* evidence of hemophilia... just for the very simple reason that umbilical bleeding in new-borns afflicted with a Factor VIII or IX deficiency is certainly going to happen a great deal sooner than the almost one and a half full months after birth that is evident in Alexei's case.

Late term bleeding of the umbilicus in this same order of six or seven seeks can certainly be seen as an indicator of a possible problem with Factor XIII. ¬  That possibility must be ruled out, however, because an inherited Factor XIII deficiency is not X-linked and appears equally in both sexes.

Catherine Radziwill's now famous 1931 interpretation of Nicholas II's diary entries about the bleeding navel in September of 1904 certainly does make for a good story... and you can believe it if you like.... But it is bad medical theory and it proves nothing!

JK


Speaking of bad medical theories -- you have been so eager to promote yours that you disregard that to the Emperor and Empress the September 1904 bleeding episode WAS a serious matter due to the family history.  Were you aware that at Christmas, 1904, the family's first such holiday with Alexei was not especially happy because he had bled into a limb?  And many such episodes were to come before infancy and the age of 8 as noted in the parents' diaries.  

A Factor VIII or Factor IX deficiency is passed down through the X chromosome but never expresses itself in females until they prove to be carriers.  It is a recessive gene that means actual bleeding only in boys.  Girls can suffer from Von Willebrand's disease -- which is a milder form of a bleeding deficiency.  Girls can suffer from thrombocytopenia -- which after all is most often only a symptom of some other disorder.  Infantile thrombocytopenia is the disease that would have carried off Alexei Nikolaevich right away had he had it.  Boys with hemophilia could live as long as the Tsarevich-Martyr did -- if they were lucky.

Have those DNA tests done, sir.  That will be more decisive than hearkening back to the Empress' DNA -- the scientists probably felt no need to look for the hemophilia gene they knew was there and that would be more useful in linking son to mother someday.  Of course, since Mr. Tammet wasn't Alexei, everything will be put to rest and he can rest in peace at last.

J_Kendrick

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #61 on: April 27, 2005, 09:45:49 PM »
Quote

Speaking of bad medical theories -- you have been so eager to promote yours that you disregard that to the Emperor and Empress the September 1904 bleeding episode WAS a serious matter due to the family history.  Were you aware that at Christmas, 1904, the family's first such holiday with Alexei was not especially happy because he had bled into a limb?  And many such episodes were to come before infancy and the age of 8 as noted in the parents' diaries.  

A Factor VIII or Factor IX deficiency is passed down through the X chromosome but never expresses itself in females until they prove to be carriers.  It is a recessive gene that means actual bleeding only in boys.  Girls can suffer from Von Willebrand's disease -- which is a milder form of a bleeding deficiency.  Girls can suffer from thrombocytopenia -- which after all is most often only a symptom of some other disorder.  Infantile thrombocytopenia is the disease that would have carried off Alexei Nikolaevich right away had he had it.  Boys with hemophilia could live as long as the Tsarevich-Martyr did -- if they were lucky.


No matter what the subject, it's never a wise idea to presume that you might know more than your opponent.  

As I have said before, and will probably say again, don't just keep claiming that history is on your side.  The haemophilia claim is nothing more than a historically popular story that's based almost entirely in palace gossip, liberally embellished in the very same way that always happens with any story of legend.  After year upon year of retelling, the haemophilia legend has *never* been proved by any form of medical laboratory testing.  Just because an oft-told story has now become historically popular, certainly does *not* make it true.

More than 15 million journal articles and research papers are kept in the archive of the National Library of Medicine.  Of those 15 million, just one single research paper has ever dealt directly with the symptoms in the Tsarevich Alexei's medical history... and it does not support your position.  If you're so certain of your version of the story... then write a research paper that deals with all of Alexei's symptoms, particularly those at Spala in October of 1912, explain all of the medical reasons for your diagnosis in full detail, and submit your paper to peer review.  When your research paper has finally been accepted for publication in an appropriate medical journal, then we'll talk.

History is always written by the winners, who will always exaggerate their telling of the tale in order to make themselves look even grander than they are.  Those on the losing side almost never live long enough to tell their side of the story.   The truth is invariably found to be somewhere in between the two.

Ever since the Revolution, Nicholas II's modern image has been masterfully tailored by the same group of authors... almost all of whom have had some sort of personal interest in the telling.  Everyone who's here watching the parade should know that Nicholas II's historically popular image... the Emperor's new suit of clothes, if you will... meticulously woven from weak threads of palace gossip and unconfirmed witness accounts, in actual fact, has very little substance.  If you look very carefully, you can see right through that new suit of clothes that now dresses up the story to the truth that lies beneath.

"And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever to appear holding up a train, although, in reality, there was no train to hold."  
Hans Christian Anderson, 1837.

Quote
Have those DNA tests done, sir.  That will be more decisive than hearkening back to the Empress' DNA -- the scientists probably felt no need to look for the hemophilia gene they knew was there and that would be more useful in linking son to mother someday.  Of course, since Mr. Tammet wasn't Alexei, everything will be put to rest and he can rest in peace at last.


Putting aside the fact that your DNA comment does not belong on this thread... and forgetting for a moment the most important fact everyone here should know that Mitochondrial DNA is totally *incapable* of identifying specific individuals..  that mtDNA is only capable of showing a possible commonality in matrilineal lines...  You should already know my response.

Russia's Dr. Pavel L. Ivanov has the DNA samples from the Tammet-Romanov case in his back pocket.  Go ask him.  His English is excellent, so there's no reason to claim that you can't talk to him. You'll find Dr. Ivanov in Moscow, where his most recent involvement in the Romanov case has been to advise on the DNA testing of a skull found in a 17th Century graveyard near Kostromo.  The skull is believed to belong to the peasant Ivan Susanin, the very first man to become part of the Romanov legends in March of 1615.

Just wait.  Mitochondrial DNA *can* be extracted from the shafts of cut hair.  When the new owners of Baroness Lehzen's scrapbook finally complete their tests on those five locks of Queen Victoria's hair that the book is known to contain...well... if their results from those tests actually fail to show a match with Peter Gill's published results for Prince Philip and the putative remains of Alexandra .. then everyone here will soon be singing a very different tune.

Call me if Dr. Ivanov gives you an answer.

JK

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #62 on: April 27, 2005, 11:34:32 PM »
Quote

 His English is excellent, so there's no reason to claim that you can't talk to him. You'll find Dr. Ivanov in Moscow, where his most recent involvement in the Romanov case has been to advise on the DNA testing of a skull found in a 17th Century graveyard near Kostromo.  
JK


There is no such place as Kostromo Mr Kendrick.


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Pravoslavnaya

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #63 on: April 27, 2005, 11:36:41 PM »
Quote

No matter what the subject, it's never a wise idea to presume that you might know more than your opponent.  

As I have said before, and will probably say again, don't just keep claiming that history is on your side.  The haemophilia claim is nothing more than a historically popular story that's based almost entirely in palace gossip, liberally embellished in the very same way that always happens with any story of legend.  After year upon year of retelling, the haemophilia legend has *never* been proved by any form of medical laboratory testing.


You have not PROVEN your thrombocytopenia/aplastic anemia hypothesis.  You have merely ASSERTED it.  You have also ignored all the other instances of Alexei Nikolaevich's sufferings, manipulated symptomology that is homologous to that of hemophilia in order to deceive the unwary, and clothed it in careful medical jargon.  You have merely challenged the simplest and best explanation of the lad's disease in order to suit your purposes.  It was not an altruistic enterprise in the least:  imagine the respect  you might have gained among actual practitioners of the medical profession if it had been so!   Imagine how plausible your assertions might have been if they had indeed been made out of respect for the Tsesarevich Alexei!!!


Quote
 Just because an oft-told story has now become historically popular, certainly does *not* make it true. More than 15 million journal articles and research papers are kept in the archive of the National Library of Medicine.  Of those 15 million, just one single research paper has ever dealt directly with the symptoms in the Tsarevich Alexei's medical history... and it does not support your position.


Just because you have written that particular paper on behalf of Heino Tammet and had it published does not make it true, and does not mean your position supersedes all the historical fact you brush aside.   Alexei Nikolaevich was said to have hemophilia in the 1912 newspaper articles appearing long before he died, and long before Catherine Radziwill's book came out.  The boy's own doctors suffered a leak of that confidential information.

Has anyone else that was supposed to have hemophilia ever had the strange melange of symptoms you claim Alexei eventually developed, or does any other disease mutate into another one completely unlike it as you assert aplastic anemia degenerates into leukemia?  Are you sure Factor VIII and Factor IX are not sex-linked and produce hemophilia only in boys?  Can you honestly say females in the royal families of Europe did not suffer from aplastic anemia, and that infantile thrombocytopenia would not have killed off an infant Tsarevich?

Quote
If you're so certain of your version of the story... then write a research paper that deals with all of Alexei's symptoms, particularly those at Spala in October of 1912, explain all of the medical reasons for your diagnosis in full detail, and submit your paper to peer review.  When your research paper has finally been accepted for publication in an appropriate medical journal, then we'll talk.


The trouble is that you deal ONLY with the Spala episode, disregarding all the other times the Tsarevich-Martyr suffered.  And suffer he did, from August 1904 through July 1918.  Explain all Alexei's other hematomas, fevers, nosebleeds, digestive troubles and various other annoyances brought on by his chronic condition.  History could and does.  He and his parents knew its challenges well.  These were the days without Factor VIII and IX treatments.  Hemophilia was a lot worse then, and the Tsarevich suffered every moment of every episode -- not just that one that you have drawn such conclusions about that brought him so near death.  He bled into his hip joint and muscle -- an area difficult to heal because blood eats into bone and tissue and there is nothing to tether it.   The doctors' own medical report even says so, and does not mention the spleen.   Poor Alexei Nikolaevich!!!  He lost a lot of blood, and had to resorb it.  You just don't want to admit that the simplest explanation is the best, even if it refutes every claimant that has ever dared appropriate his identity.  Ernst-Heino Tammet-Veerman was as unique an individual as the Tsarevich he stole from.

Quote
History is always written by the winners, who will always exaggerate their telling of the tale in order to make themselves look even grander than they are.  Those on the losing side almost never live long enough to tell their side of the story.   The truth is invariably found to be somewhere in between the two.


One day the truth about Ernst Veerman and the reasons he overidentified with Alexei Nikolaevich will come out.  History was in fact written on behalf of Alexei -- who was a real winner because he never lost his integrity or his courage.  And because of that truth there are people like Tammet who lionize people as brave as Alexei.

Quote
Putting aside the fact that your DNA comment does not belong on this thread... and forgetting for a moment the most important fact everyone here should know that Mitochondrial DNA is totally *incapable* of identifying specific individuals..  that mtDNA is only capable of showing a possible commonality in matrilineal lines...  You should already know my response.

Russia's Dr. Pavel L. Ivanov has the DNA samples from the Tammet-Romanov case in his back pocket.  Go ask him.  His English is excellent, so there's no reason to claim that you can't talk to him. You'll find Dr. Ivanov in Moscow, where his most recent involvement in the Romanov case has been to advise on the DNA testing of a skull found in a 17th Century graveyard near Kostromo.  The skull is believed to belong to the peasant Ivan Susanin, the very first man to become part of the Romanov legends in March of 1615.

Just wait.  Mitochondrial DNA *can* be extracted from the shafts of cut hair.  When the new owners of Baroness Lehzen's scrapbook finally complete their tests on those five locks of Queen Victoria's hair that the book is known to contain...well... if their results from those tests actually fail to show a match with Peter Gill's published results for Prince Philip and the putative remains of Alexandra .. then everyone here will soon be singing a very different tune.

Call me if Dr. Ivanov gives you an answer.

JK


DNA testing of the Veerman-Tammet sample against that of the Empress-Martyr Alexandra is the only way this matter will be finally put to rest and you know it.  Obfuscating this by suggesting other tests against other individuals than the one you make such claims on behalf of is not going to give any answers that will vindicate the real Alexei.  

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Pravoslavnaya »

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #64 on: April 27, 2005, 11:39:24 PM »
Quote
 The haemophilia claim is nothing more than a historically popular story that's based almost entirely in palace gossip, liberally embellished in the very same way that always happens with any story of legend.  
JK


How can you be so certain of this? Kindly please provide concrete documented evidence of this claim.


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: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #65 on: April 27, 2005, 11:57:56 PM »
Quote

Ernst-Heino Tammet-Veerman was as unique an individual as the Tsarevich he stole from.

History was in fact written on behalf of Alexei -- who was a real winner because he never lost his integrity or his courage.  And because of that truth there are people like Tammet who lionize people as brave as Alexei.


I applaud your wisdom Pravoslavnaya!

To create a false identity in order to deceive a few is stupid, but to further those claims by another is even more pathetic.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

J_Kendrick

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #66 on: April 28, 2005, 02:46:10 AM »
Quote

There is no such place as Kostromo Mr Kendrick.


What's this?  You can't even deal with a simple typo?  ;D

Kostroma...

http://dev.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/04/15/003.html

J_Kendrick

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #67 on: April 28, 2005, 02:59:49 AM »
Quote

How can you be so certain of this? Kindly please provide concrete documented evidence of this claim.


How can you be so certain of the haemophilia claim?   Just because everyone else before you has told you that it was.. and you don't ever dare question it?  

That's certainly not a vaild reason.  Kindly please provide concrete scientific medical laboratory proof of this claim.


J_Kendrick

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #68 on: April 28, 2005, 03:14:20 AM »
Quote

You have not PROVEN your thrombocytopenia/aplastic anemia hypothesis.  You have merely ASSERTED it.
 


You have *not* proven your favourite haemophilia claim either.  You have merely ASSERTED it.  There is *no* medical laboratory proof.  No solid scientific proof whatsoever.  It's only a story, and nothing more.

Simply telling a story over and over again so many times that everyone eventually gets brainwashed by it... does *not* make it true.


Pravoslavnaya

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #69 on: April 28, 2005, 07:14:16 AM »
Mr. Kendrick, your hypothesis will not be proven or disproven until Heino Tammet's DNA is compared to that of the Empress-Martyr Alexandra.  The great majority of those that care about Alexei Nikolaevich respect the weight of historical evidence and accept a simple explanation for the boy's sufferings.  Your hypothesis is superimposed upon an eight-year-old who went through an agonizing near-death episode of his illness, and you cannot expect it to stand up against the actual medical records made by Feodorov, Ostrogorsky and Derevenko (as opposed to the official announcement by Count Fredericks that you hang it on) without the DNA proof it needs to back it up just because it has appeared in print.  Many spurious and sensational things have appeared in print and upset many people, only to be proven erroneous in time.  You had to work hard to get what after all are the same old speculations in a convincing package.  It will take either DNA testing or the consideration and reasoning of medical professionals to render them intelligent but ultimately unreasonable from a true medical standpoint.

olga

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #70 on: April 28, 2005, 09:00:05 AM »
You really are silly, Kendrick. We know of your connections with Tammet. Do not hide under the guise of trying to find out the 'facts' and being resistant to 'brainwashing'.

J_Kendrick

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #71 on: April 28, 2005, 01:19:59 PM »
Quote
Your hypothesis is superimposed upon an eight-year-old who went through an agonizing near-death episode of his illness, and you cannot expect it to stand up against the actual medical records made by Feodorov, Ostrogorsky and Derevenko


Which actual medical records made by Fedorov. Ostrogorsky, Derevenko... and Botkin.. are you referring to?  No one has ever found Alexei's actual medical records!!  If those very same medical records actually had been found then we probably wouldn't be here arguing this point  

No known first hand statement ever written by the hands of those very same doctors that you name has ever been found to actually use the word "hemophilia".  You're only putting words in their mouths, just like every other Romanov fanatic that has gone before you.

J_Kendrick

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #72 on: April 28, 2005, 01:37:19 PM »
Quote
You really are silly, Kendrick. We know of your connections with Tammet. Do not hide under the guise of trying to find out the 'facts' and being resistant to 'brainwashing'.


Is calling me "silly" honestly the best you can do?..  Come on, now.  You'll really have to do much better than that

In his capacity as an advisor to the editors of the British Medical Journal, Oxford's Regius Professor of Medicine Dr. Sir David Weatherall has recently stated: "The author is quite right to question the retrospective diagnosis of haemophilia."

So.. Are you willing to tell me that the head of the  medical department at Oxford University... who just so happens to be an expert in haematology..  is also "really silly" for having made such a statement?

JK

Offline Lanie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #73 on: April 28, 2005, 03:05:11 PM »
Right to question, perhaps--that makes sense.  I have no problem with questioning these things!  But really, do you think that means "OH MY GOD THIS GUY MUST BE RIGHT AND THIS HEINO TAMMET MUST HAVE BEEN ALEXEI!!!!"?  You're just supporting a claimant.

etonexile

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #74 on: April 28, 2005, 05:05:42 PM »
Quote

Is calling me "silly" honestly the best you can do?..  Come on, now.  You'll really have to do much better than that

In his capacity as an advisor to the editors of the British Medical Journal, Oxford's Regius Professor of Medicine Dr. Sir David Weatherall has recently stated: "The author is quite right to question the retrospective diagnosis of haemophilia."

So.. Are you willing to tell me that the head of the  medical department at Oxford University... who just so happens to be an expert in haematology..  is also "really silly" for having made such a statement?

JK


It would be interesting to read the entire statement from Dr. Weatherall...rather than just one line of quotation,taken out of context....