Author Topic: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?  (Read 99273 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #360 on: June 28, 2005, 02:03:58 PM »
Quote
Don't forget one thing. To do that would have required nuclear DNA sequencing, which at that time was FAR more difficult, expensive and time consuming than the mtDNA sequencing which was done. Today it would be a much different story as the sequencing is done by machine, but back then, everything was done by hand.


Which is why they didin't test..it was a money issue. imho
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline J_Kendrick

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #361 on: June 28, 2005, 07:40:20 PM »
Quote

I would think that testing for this particular defect would be not only double confirmation but of the utmost historical value.

Too bad.


Testing for the suspected defective gene most certainly would double the confirmation of the identification of the bones of Body No. 7 as Alexandra... presuming, of course, that the suspected defective gene is actually there.

But...

What if it isn't there?  What if a test of the bones of Body No. 7 for the suspected faulty gene had actually proved to be negative?  Knowing the controversy that a negative result would inevitably provoke, would any brave scientist who had actually discovered through laboratory testing that the bones of Body No. 7 showed no evidence at all of the suspected haemophilia gene ever even dare to publish the results?

What would happen next if a negative test result really had been published?  Would everyone here suddenly turn against the original Peter Gill/Pavel Ivanov 1993 DNA identification of the Ekaterinburg remains?  Would there be a sudden onslaught of calls for the removal of those bones now buried at the Fortress of Peter and Paul?

... even if the bones of Body No. 7 really are the mortal remains of Alexandra?

In preparation for his latest book on Alexandra's cousin Kaiser Wilhelm II, University of Sussex Professor John C.G. Röhl had managed to obtain permission to exhume the remains of the last Kaiser's sister Charlotte to test her bones for evidence of Porphyria.  Prof. Röhl now reports that the results of those tests on Charlotte's remains were shown to be positive.

Professor Röhl is also claimed to have asked for a similar test for evidence of Porphyria to be done on the samples from Wilhelm II's cousin Alexandra that are still in the possession of one of Dr. Peter Gill's original Romanov DNA team.  Prof. Röhl has been quoted as claiming that the tests performed at his request on known samples from the bones of Body No. 7 of the Ekaterinburg remains were shown (in unpublished results) to be negative for evidence of Porphyria.

So...

If samples from the bones of Alexandra are still known to be available for testing... and if those very same samples and samples from the remains of Alexandra's cousin Charlotte have both been tested successfully to search for evidence... or the lack of evidence.. of the suspected "Royal Purple" disease of Porphyria...

... and if all of this could be done at the simple request of a University Professor who was only gathering evidence to finish his book...  

Then why is it that... whenever the suggestion is made that those very same samples from the bones of Alexandra should be tested for evidence of the suspected hemophilia gene... all we ever hear from anyone is all of the reasons why it can't be done?  

Any claims of cost coming from the investigating authorities are only an excuse.  The samples are known to be available for testing.  The equipment and the necessary lab supplies are also known to be available for testing.   The only true cost to those same investigating authorities who have all the necessary supplies at their immediate disposal is to pay for the scientist's time to actually do the tests.  The potential political costs, however, are enormous... if the tests don't go their way.

If tests can be done for the suspected evidence of Porphyria... tests which certainly have been done... then tests can most certainly be done for the suspected evidence of haemophilia as well....

That is... if the tests haven't been done already...

... and the results are being withheld....

... only because they don't like the answer.

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #362 on: June 28, 2005, 07:44:54 PM »
I gather that you, yourself, have not requested that such tests be performed.

Shall I assume that you know that they have been done, and that YOU are the one who doesn't like the answers?

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #363 on: June 28, 2005, 07:57:05 PM »
NOR has Mr. Kendrick, rather saliently IMO, answered my question, seconded by others, that he identify his medical training qualifying him to be a hemotological diagnostician.  Interesting that Mr. K. ignores what he does not like to discuss.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #364 on: June 28, 2005, 08:10:43 PM »
Why do you keep asking if JKendricks is medically qualified?  He need not have one to have an opinion.   Because of his posts, it is  obvious he has  a keen interest in this subject and can ask questions most of us wouldn't know to ask.   If we need to be qualified in the field of medicine to post on this thread  then most of us shouldn't be posting.  Far as I know,  this isn't necessary for him or me, you [Adminl Forum] or others.  So, I'm not sure why this is such a sticky point.  So, why are you asking, again, for his qualifications on this subject?

Tasha_R.,  I , and I'm sure others,  are greatly interested in your own blood disorder and the information you are giving us is outstanding and we thank you.

Also, I'm still in the dark about the medical records of Alexei by Dr. Derevenko's.  Do they exist?  If they do, where are they held?  If they do not exist, then there is no actual medical record of Alexei which states in black and white that he had hemophilia, only, heresay.  If there is only heresay, how can anyone, and I don't care how quailifed they are, determine in todays terms that Alexei had hemophilia and not another blood disorder which can have the same symptoms discovered after 1917?  Can they?  If they can, then how can they?

AGRBear
 
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #365 on: June 28, 2005, 08:23:01 PM »
Quote
Why do you keep asking if JKendricks is medically qualified?  He need not have one to have an opinion.   Because of his posts, it is  obvious he has  a keen interest in this subject and can ask questions most of us wouldn't know to ask.   If we need to be qualified in the field of medicine to post on this thread  then most of us shouldn't be posting.  Far as I know,  this isn't necessary for him or me, you [Adminl Forum] or others.  So, I'm not sure why this is such a sticky point.  So, why are you asking, again, for his qualifications on this subject?

AGRBear

Well his posts sometimes are awfully "tart" - so if he has some advanced medical experience, his claims might appear a bit less dubious...



Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #366 on: June 28, 2005, 08:28:55 PM »
Well said Bear.
Thank you.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #367 on: June 28, 2005, 08:30:34 PM »
If he has advanced medical education, this would strenghen his opinions, but if he does not, this doesn't subtract from the information he is providing us.  

If, however, you have facts and sources which contradict his information, then, please,  post them.  I for one would like to read posts from all sides in this subject.

Remember, this is a debate.

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Lizameridox

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #368 on: June 28, 2005, 10:53:43 PM »
It seems pointless to debate:  either the Tsarevich had a form of hemophilia (which from all the empirical and anecdotal evidence is most likely) or he had a disease that closely resembled hemophilia.  To make a valid argument that he may not have had hemophilia if one lacks sound DNA evidence that he did not, one needs to consider not only the most spectacular incidents of his suffering but the aggregate of those episodes that happened far more often. Remember, Alexei was not a normal child when it came to boyhood bumps and bruises.  The average boy might have thought nothing of taking a tumble and having his skin scab over, but the Tsarevich would have been confined to bed for a week or two after taking that same sort of tumble.   A kid might stub his toe and not even think about it an hour later, but Alexei would not be able to put his shoe on for a few days if he'd stubbed his.   A boy might actually get a bruise or a sprained ankle, and a young boy might cry for several minutes.  Alexei would take the same fall, but his bruises would swell into hematomas the size of a grapefruit, he would feel shooting pains as they pressed on his nerves, and instead of crying for several minutes he would cry for hours.  Try as one might, one cannot dismiss what the majority of Alexei's episodes point to -- a coagulation disorder.

Either he did have hemophilia (which a far more complete set of medical records than the one we do have would likely confirm) or he did not.  A debate per se is far more a question of persuasion having to do with taking a position.   A few here may not like the obstacle of having to deal with the historical record in the first place.  A few here may wish that the funds had been made available to do anything more than the most necessary mtDNA sequencing.   But we can only look at what we have:  mostly anecdotal evidence, and a highly understandable diagnosis in the light of that evidence.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Lizameridox »

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #369 on: June 29, 2005, 08:38:10 AM »
Bear,
JK's medical training is of GREAT importance given his pronouncements of "diagnosis" he makes, and the disparaging of diagnoses made by highly trained specialists. Whether JK is a genuinely trained specialist who has the education to make such diagnoses and declarations of "medical fact" or a dilletante making unfounded allegations is the point.  JK's credbility must be assessed as part of any debate.

I for one believe this information highly relevant so that readers can give the proper weight when analyzing the evidence presented.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by admin »

Offline etonexile

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1231
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #370 on: June 29, 2005, 09:17:13 AM »
I fear I must come down on the side of the FA...If JK wishes to take on the generally established medical community,world-wide,he'd better have some sterling credentials himself,or some world-class medical experts in his camp,willing to back him up directly or through their published works,in accepted medical publications.

Offline Lass

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #371 on: June 29, 2005, 09:48:53 AM »
Quote
I fear I must come down on the side of the FA...If JK wishes to take on the generally established medical community,world-wide,he'd better have some sterling credentials himself,or some world-class medical experts in his camp,willing to back him up directly or through their published works,in accepted medical publications.

Nah. He's done his research and produced a paper that has yet to be answered. Whatever his qualifications, the result is the same. Please, give the man some credit.

Finelly

  • Guest
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #372 on: June 29, 2005, 09:52:11 AM »
No, it DOES matter.  People at the National Enquirer do research and write articles.  That doesn't make them worthy of our attention.

I could research and write an article stating that we don't know if Elvis is really dead.  Doesn't make it reasonable.

Offline Lass

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #373 on: June 29, 2005, 10:27:14 AM »
A paper does not need to be written by a highly-flying academic to be credible. Provided that sufficient research has gone into it, the status of its author should be of little consequence. The information might have been found by a professor of a university, or a teenager studying history; it's the same information.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: So WHY would it not have been hemophilia?
« Reply #374 on: June 29, 2005, 10:41:09 AM »
While the "information" may be the same, it is the INTERPRETATION of that information that is the fundemental issue here. Who's interpretation about medical diagnosis of YOUR OWN physical symptoms would you rather have, your personal physician who is well trained, or your next door neighbor who googled a search?