Author Topic: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?  (Read 110046 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

J_Kendrick

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #75 on: April 28, 2005, 05:21:56 PM »
Quote
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.


Whether there might be a claimant behind any single given medical hypothesis or not, it still makes absolutely no difference to the final results of that same medical research whatsoever.  It does *NOT*, in any way, shape, or form, ever serve to diminsh those same new medical conclusions to even the slightest degree.

This particular thread of discussion is devoted to the subject of haemophilia. It is not about claimants.  So... Let's please stay on track.

The published paper in the American Journal of Hematology has concluded with a very different diagnosis for Alexei's dyscrasias, but it makes no mention at all of any specific claimant.  That same medical paper has been fully assessed by a recognised peer review panel of experts in the fields of both haematology and oncology, and it has been judged by those very same experts to be both medically sound and fully suitable for publication.

Deal with it.

JK

Pravoslavnaya

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #76 on: April 28, 2005, 10:17:42 PM »
Quote

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.


One can find the medical summary having to do with the Spala episode as a photocopy of the original, oddly enough in a book about another false Alexei, who happened to glom onto the thrombocytopenia theory.  It is mostly in Russian except for the Latin terms 'hematoma retroperitonale' and 'musculus ileopsas'.  There is no mention of the spleen at all, though it notes the boy's high fever.  The book claims that this report, signed by the boy's specialists, is the only medical record of the Tsarevich known to have survived.

If you can read Russian you would see that there is no mention of anything having to do with an aplastic crisis or any of the other medical terms that fit Tammet a lot better than they did Alexei.  The Latin terms mean 'hematoma of the hip joint' and 'hip muscle'.  Again I stress that newspapers leaked the doctors' conclusions in 1912, just after the Spala episode.  The word 'hemophilia' was used to describe the Tsarevich's sufferings during his lifetime.

Disregarding all the other episodes the boy suffered because they did not fit your diathesis would have been irresponsible for a medical practitioner treating Alexei Nikolaevich.  If you had considered and dealt with the rest of the boy's medical history even at an anecdotal level, would you have drawn the same conclusions as your article did?  The real peer review is going to come from any rebuttals from those who actually deal with diseases of the blood.   The real proof will come when Heino Tammet's DNA is tested against that of the Empress-Martyr.  Then we shall see if you stand by those theories when Alexei Nikolaevich and Ernst Veerman are proven by medical science to be two separate individuals.

lexi4

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #77 on: May 02, 2005, 11:28:25 PM »
Quote
 The Tsarevich-Martyr (for the Orthodox Church proclaims him so) lived fourteen years with the disease no one in his family mentioned only because it was to be kept a state secret.
Niether Nicholas or Alexandra expected anyone to ever read their private letters and diary entries. Massie points this out in his book Nicholas and Alexandra. It would seem that if they did in fact believe the Tsarevich had hemophilia, they would have mentioned it. They certainly wrote other intimate feelings and were very open in their communications with each other.



 Moreover, newspaper articles appearing in the New York Times in November 1912 leaked the confidential information that the child had hemophilia and the Russian Imperial Court were all too quick to write articles to deny it.  Methinks the Court protested too much, because they were desperate not to have it known the Tsarevich was that ill.
Maybe they denied it because it wasn't true.
 

  I realize you support a man for whom it was not, whose sufferings were bad enough ... but were obviously not those of the genuine article.   You must have your reasons.  I respect you have them.  Yet not only I but many others here are not won over by what, after all, are hypotheses you cannot yet prove without having examined the remains lying somewhere in Siberia.

This has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is did the Tsarevich have hemophilia.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by lexi4 »

Lass

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #78 on: May 03, 2005, 02:48:20 PM »
Pravoslavnaya, why not debate only on the issue in hand, i.e., whether or not the tsarervich had haemophilia? It would appear that you are so concerned to preserve the idea of Alexei's death at the Ipatiev House that you cannot accept anything that might allow a possibility that he escaped. Of course, if Alexei had haemophilia, survival in the cellar that night is about as impossible as impossible can be; so naturally, you are inclined to argue that he did have haemophilia.

Just my thoughts as I read through the thread. :P  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Lass »

Offline Georgiy

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2024
  • Slava v vyshnikh Bogu
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #79 on: May 03, 2005, 03:55:59 PM »
If the question is 'did the tsesarevich have haemophilia?', then the answer is 'yes', and the only people who seem to rigourously wish to deny this are those who support claiments who have the wee problem of being non-haemophiliacs.

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #80 on: May 03, 2005, 04:04:08 PM »
Quote
If the question is 'did the tsesarevich have haemophilia?', then the answer is 'yes', and the only people who seem to rigourously wish to deny this are those who support claiments who have the wee problem of being non-haemophiliacs.


Indeed. And, having read through all the posts, apart from the fact that everyone at the time believed him to have haemophilia; that haemophilia was in the family; & that he had all the symptoms of haemophilia, some of the posters on this & other threads are experts in their field of research in haematology etc. & they believe he had haemophilia. Why are their statements are still being disputed.  ???

Maria_Romanov_fan

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #81 on: May 03, 2005, 04:09:18 PM »
Quote

One can find the medical summary having to do with the Spala episode as a photocopy of the original, oddly enough in a book about another false Alexei, who happened to glom onto the thrombocytopenia theory.  It is mostly in Russian except for the Latin terms 'hematoma retroperitonale' and 'musculus ileopsas'.  There is no mention of the spleen at all, though it notes the boy's high fever.  


Good points everyone, but I have a question.

How could a hemophelic get hurt inside the body by vibrations from the ride he took? Also, how would his spleen affect his bleeding? Are these symptoms of hemophilia?

Lass

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #82 on: May 03, 2005, 04:11:18 PM »
Quote
If the question is 'did the tsesarevich have haemophilia?', then the answer is 'yes', and the only people who seem to rigourously wish to deny this are those who support claiments who have the wee problem of being non-haemophiliacs.


I was trying to say in my last post that it is people who rigourously wish to defend the tsarevich's haemophilia without leaving any doubt at all in the matter, or any possibility of the facts being otherwise, that refuse to accept that Alexei survived. Come what may, they want to stick by the view that he died. That is natural. However, in a debate, it isn't really reasonable. I'm calling for a bit more open-mindedness; I'm not stating my opinion.

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #83 on: May 03, 2005, 04:22:55 PM »
Quote

How could a hemophelic get hurt inside the body by vibrations from the ride he took? Also, how would his spleen affect his bleeding? Are these symptoms of hemophilia?


You often come out bruised after riding! The slightest jolt can cause a haemophiliac to bleed sometimes, just as sometimes you can get a bruise with a slight knock & other times a big knock leaves you unmarked. A bruise is kind of small internal bleeding. In a haemophiliac this bleeding would be greater. The spleen manufactures lymphocytes (blood cells) & breaks down red blood corpuscles.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bluetoria »

etonexile

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #84 on: May 03, 2005, 06:38:57 PM »
Haemophilia aside...and I certainly believe the poor chap suffered from this malady as did many of the descendants of Queen Victoria( please try to find and read "Queen Victoria's Gene"...by D.M./W.T.W. Potts...marvelous work)...I don't imagine the biggest,strongest 14 year old in the world could have survived that cellar of horror....Those were vicious,hardened soldiers on the giving end of those guns....

Pravoslavnaya

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #85 on: May 03, 2005, 09:17:52 PM »
Quote
Pravoslavnaya, why not debate only on the issue in hand, i.e., whether or not the tsarervich had haemophilia?


I am stressing the idea that only a person with a vested interest in contesting the most likely explanation of the Heir Tsarevich's sufferings would be so violently opposed to the diagnosis of hemophilia.  There would otherwise be no logical reason to question it or no basis on which to make an hypothesis as to whatever he might have had otherwise.  A back reference from some non-hemophiliac's diseases towards a diagnosis homologous to hemophilia deliberately serves a claimant's purposes, and that is precisely what has been done here.  This presentation was made by Mr. Kendrick with anything but an objective motive.

Quote
It would appear that you are so concerned to preserve the idea of Alexei's death at the Ipatiev House that you cannot accept anything that might allow a possibility that he escaped.


Look at it this way... even if Alexei's bleeding were the result of a disease other than hemophilia, he certainly would have bled to death as a result of his injuries....

Quote
Of course, if Alexei had haemophilia, survival in the cellar that night is about as impossible as impossible can be; so naturally, you are inclined to argue that he did have haemophilia.


Surviving the horrible events in the Yekaterinburg cellar would have been impossible, especially with a group of executioners bound and determined to persevere and to make sure the eleven victims were all dead.  Whether the Tsarevich were a hemophiliac or not is a moot point from that perspective.

Quote
Just my thoughts as I read through the thread. :P  


Only a non-hemophiliac claimant would have any reason to protest the record of history so vehemently, to so vigorously expend an effort to refute it, and to dismiss all the evidence that points to this day towards hemophilia in the Tsarevich.

Do you in particular have any valid and specific challenge to the diagnosis of hemophilia other than to claim that those defending Alexei Nikolaevich against non-hemophiliac impostors do not have an open mind?

lexi4

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #86 on: May 03, 2005, 10:15:25 PM »
Pravoslavnaya,
Why are you attacking Mr. Kendrick? We all know who he is. I have read what he has written.
Why can't this debate just stick to the issue. Did  the Tsarevich suffer from hemophilia? Why is is it so difficult to consider that doctors today have a little more knowledge about blood diseases than during the late 1800's early 1900s.
I know that Mr. Kendrick supports a claimant. I have read his article posted on the internet and published the American Journal of Hematology and try to keep an open mind.  
Why is it that anyone who doesn't agree with the majority opinion or conventional theories on this discussion board ends up being attacked? I have seen this happen on other threads here and what usually happens is the debate rages and gets ugly between a couple of people. The rest of us, who are here to learn an explore end up shut out.
So, can we please stick to the topix which is Did the Tsarevich suffer from hemophilia?
Or will I now be attacked.

Lass

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #87 on: May 04, 2005, 03:19:46 AM »
Quote
Only a non-hemophiliac claimant would have any reason to protest the record of history so vehemently, to so vigorously expend an effort to refute it, and to dismiss all the evidence that points to this day towards hemophilia in the Tsarevich.

You're not listening. ::) ;) Forget claimants, please!!

Quote
claim that those defending Alexei Nikolaevich against non-hemophiliac impostors do not have an open mind?

Putting words into my mouth there. I said:

Quote
I'm calling for a bit more open-mindedness


Note, more open-minded. And, really, don't you think that you could be more open-minded? Why just write it all off as impossible?

Quote
I was trying to say in my last post that it is people who rigourously wish to defend the tsarevich's haemophilia without leaving any doubt at all in the matter, or any possibility of the facts being otherwise, that refuse to accept that Alexei survived. Come what may, they want to stick by the view that he died. That is natural. However, in a debate, it isn't really reasonable. I'm calling for a bit more open-mindedness; I'm not stating my opinion.


Can we return to topic now, please? :)

Lass

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #88 on: May 04, 2005, 03:20:42 AM »
Quote
 The rest of us, who are here to learn an explore end up shut out.
So, can we please stick to the topix which is Did the Tsarevich suffer from hemophilia?

Spot on, Lexi. :D

Pravoslavnaya

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #89 on: May 04, 2005, 07:30:21 AM »
Quote
Pravoslavnaya,
Why are you attacking Mr. Kendrick? We all know who he is. I have read what he has written.


I have nothing against Mr. Kendrick personally, but I feel his motives in presenting the hypotheses he did were not in the least objective.  Had he arrived at his conclusions without an agenda to promote the claims of a rank impostor, I would not object to them in the least as an explanation for the boy's sufferings.  But his methodology and premise are flawed in the first place, and that is what I am DEBATING here.

Quote
Why can't this debate just stick to the issue. Did  the Tsarevich suffer from hemophilia? Why is is it so difficult to consider that doctors today have a little more knowledge about blood diseases than during the late 1800's early 1900s.


In defending the position that the Tsarevich DID have hemophilia, is it old-fashioned and unenlightened, or does it show a healthy dose of skepticism about the latest theories that one cannot possibly prove without a definite concrete confirmation?  This is why I called for Tammet's DNA to be tested.   If this Estonian immigrant were Alexei that would prove he did not have hemophilia.

Quote
I know that Mr. Kendrick supports a claimant. I have read his article posted on the internet and published the American Journal of Hematology and try to keep an open mind.


The fact that he supports a claimant disqualifies him from being objective.  But then again, the subject of the Russian Imperial Family is hard to remain objective about.
   
Quote
Why is it that anyone who doesn't agree with the majority opinion or conventional theories on this discussion board ends up being attacked? I have seen this happen on other threads here and what usually happens is the debate rages and gets ugly between a couple of people. The rest of us, who are here to learn an explore end up shut out.


I apologize if I have given the impression of personal hostility towards anyone who does not think hemophilia is the most logical explanation for the sufferings of Alexei Nikolaevich, as this is not my intent.

Quote
So, can we please stick to the topix which is Did the Tsarevich suffer from hemophilia?


I insist that those of us who oppose the claims made by Mr. Kendrick have stuck to the topic:  we feel that he supports a fraudulent cause because Alexei Nikolaevich DID suffer from the disease.

Quote
Or will I now be attacked.


I assure you that that is not my intent.  But I do challenge you to defend the viewpoint that in fact Alexei did not suffer from the disease, completely independently from any reference to material that supports claimants... rather than attacking those of us that defend hemophilia as a diagnosis.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Pravoslavnaya »