Alexei and Haemophilia

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

and is now still completely unchallenged even by the research scientists who claim to have identified the bone fragments uncovered in July 2007.

What do you mean 'claim to have identified?' Are you attacking the sceintists' integrity AGAIN?!

Originally Posted by AnastasiaEvidence

Since Tammet didn't have hemophilia, Kendrick wants to make it seem as if Alexei didn't have hemophilia. So he can have a reason to claim that Tammet was Alexei. Nobody would believe that.There really isn't any point in arguing about the hemophilia gene in the remains.

That's exactly right. That's the only reason he's pushing it, and you can see his comment 'claim to have identified' which means he's still hanging onto support for his claimant and doubting the results. I still can't understand how it's important to the Tammet cause if the faulty gene is not tested for, since ALEXEI DIED IN 1918 and couldn't have been Tammet, therefore why does it matter if he had it or not?

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Of course. And you probably know for sure which book Franzisca read before 1925 that contained this information?
As for meeting Irene, I strongly doubt that the princess divulged this kind of information to any stranger she met, be they imposters or not.

Chat, I certainly hope you're not dragging the old, tired, and DISPROVEN AA cause over here to this thread. AA was not AN, she was proven not to be AN by DNA tests, and further DNA tests prove four girls died in Ekaterinburg meaning, like JK, your claimant story is at an end. If you do want to continue to fantasize, this is not the proper thread for that, its title is "Alexei and Hemophilia."

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

Over or not...

There is no Haemophilia without solid scientific proof.

Well, there's certainly something. There's a disease with all the characteristics of haemophilia, which takes an incredible amount of creativity to explain on the basis of anything other than haemophilia.

On the one hand you have one disease which covers all the available evidence. On the other hand you have this disease here, that disease there, the other disease somewhere else, and at least three misdiagnoses.

The latter is more likely than the former because...?

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

Ah, yes. The same old argument...

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"... Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.

That goes hand in hand with another favourite of the pro-hemophilia crowd... "If you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras"... which works just fine if you insist on following that line of reasoning... so long as you're not standing in the middle of the Serengenti.

Have you ever heard of Crabtree's Bludgeon? It states in opposition to Occam: "No set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated."

There is no evidence that supports the notion that simplicity equals truth.

JK

In science and mathematics, it turns out that when you have to start adding bells and whistles and twists and turns to your explanations, it's very often a good indication that you're on the wrong track. This is one of the first things you learn when you start doing research - don't get so fond of your preferred theory or hypothesis that you'll go to idiotic lengths to support it when a simpler, more elegant explanation is sitting right there.

Simplicity doesn't always equal truth, but in science it's usually a good sign.

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

In case you don't already know, the argument against haemophilia in the Russian Imperial family has been passed and given approval by a full and proper medical peer-review and published in a leading haemotology journal.

Citation, please.

[J Kendrick]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Simplicity doesn't always equal truth, but in science it's usually a good sign.

Yes, well... Occam's razor has also been used to argue the case in favour of creation over that of evolution.

Citation, please.

See: The American Journal of Hematology, September 2004
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

[Leslie2006]

Originally Posted by The O.C. Fanatic

Does anyone think that Alexei was never really a hemophiliac? I have never read no proof of the diagnosis or any medical reacords. The only formal statemate that I have read so far was by a physician of the Imperial court where the doctors described the boy's symptoms as a "significant anemia".

When I read about his episodes or whatever. He always ends up having fever. People suffering from the disease do bruise easily and bleed a lot when they are cut but they do not suffer fevers as a result. During Alexei's most serious episode he sufferd from internal hemorrhage, bleeding in the joints, abdominal swelling,... All these symptoms he had are the symptoms a person with THROMBOCYTOPENIA have.

I think Rasputin knew that Alexei didn't have hemophilia but didn't say anything for whatever reason.

I don't know. Maybe Alexei never really had hemophilia maybe he just had thrombocytopenia all along.

That's what I think anyway.

Then you need to do some more research. Looking at Alexei's family history through his mother, Alexandra, it is highly unlikely that the blood disease he had was NOT hemophilia; Queen Victoria was a carrier; her son Leopold died young due to the disease and in turn, his daughter was a carrier. QV's daughters Alice and Beatrice were carriers, since Alice's daughters Alix (Alexei's mother) and Irene each had sons who suffered from episodes where the blood would not clot if the child fell or bumped an elbow or knee against something hard; following the fall, the bruised area would swell up with blood putting pressure on the muscle and bone, clearly causing extreme pain. In fact, two out of three of Irene's sons were bleeders, and her youngest one died in the year Alexei was born. Beatrice's only daughter, Ena passed hemophilia onto her eldest and youngest sons, while both Beatrice's sons suffered from the disease.

Furthermore, Rasputin was a filthy man, who did what he could to gain access to the Imperial family; granted he had some sort of ability that made Alexei better after one of his attacks, but he also had Alix convinced that he was a man of God by way of healing her only son who was afflicted with a deadly illness because of her. Alix knew that Alexei had hemophilia long before Rasputin came into the picture; the family's physician diagnosed him with it at when he was about 8 years old. It had to be hemophilia that Alexei had, unless you think it had suddenly morphed into thrombocytopenia by the time it got to him? Not likely.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

Yes, well... Occam's razor has also been used to argue the case in favour of creation over that of evolution.

In that case it would be a misuse. Adding some supernatural creator to a process which can manage perfectly well without such an addition isn't exactly an impressive use of Occam's razor. The fact remains that in science research, the simpler answer is often the correct one. Embellishing explanations with parades of coincidences is usually the sign of a person who cares more about being right than about finding the truth.

See: The American Journal of Hematology, September 2004
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

Ah, a paper of yours. Do you have much of a track record in science research? This "controversial new study" you mention - what did it involve? I mean, the paper is listed as "Historical Perspective" rather than original research, so I was wondering whether the controversial new study was your own historical research or an actual scientist doing actual science.

[kell]

i gotta wonder then why do many romanovs blame alix as the woman who brought in the royal deisase into the family kinda funny aint it

[AnastasiaEvidence]

Kendrick refuse to believe that those are the remains of the imperial family....they are trying to continue their old survival theories again. That really needs to be put to an rest. Since those are actually Alexei's remains, completely proves that Alexei never survived and wasn't Tammet. You don't have evidence to prove the DNA tests wrong. The scientists know more. Since Tammet never had hemophilia also proves he was never Alexei. He's another imposter and fraud just like Anna Anderson was.

[kell]

ya i know was just stateing a fact i read his posts and i can honestly say and i m gonna get in trouble from warren for this wish kendrick ghost writed honestly it be a good movie harry potter and the magic dna

[J Kendrick]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

The paper is listed as "Historical Perspective"

The paper was listed as such simply because the journal had never published a historical case study before and the subject did not fit with any of its regular medical categories.

I was wondering whether the controversial new study was your own historical research or an actual scientist doing actual science.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

No matter who did the research, it still stands on record as a medically accepted alternative interpretation of the historical facts in evidence that has passed the litmus test of a full and proper medical peer-review by a recognized panel of expert haematologists and professors before being approved for publication in an accredited medical journal that specializes in haematology.

The only thing that can now disprove that same alternative interpretation of the evidence is if the investigating scientists who are now claiming to have identified Alexei actually do manage to find the necessary scientific proof of that long-suspected faulty Factor VIII gene.

Apparently, that's now not going to happen... in which case... the medically accepted and peer-reviewed argument against the claim of haemophilia in the Russian Imperial family will continue to stand as a properly recognized and medically sound alternative interpretation of the facts.

[Ex-Princess Lisa]

Alexei did not have haemophilia

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

The paper was listed as such simply because the journal had never published a historical case study before and the subject did not fit with any of its regular medical categories.

Really? That's a bit remiss of it.

Are they accepting historical interpretations of blood diseases as a general policy these days, or how did you manage to get them to go out on a limb for you?

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

No matter who did the research, it still stands on record as a medically accepted alternative interpretation of the historical facts in evidence that has passed the litmus test of a full and proper medical peer-review by a recognized panel of expert haematologists and professors before being approved for publication in an accredited medical journal that specializes in haematology.

An alternative interpretation of a historical case is a different matter from original new scientific research, which is what I thought you were claiming in post 80. Since, as you said, this sort of historical interpretation is something rather new for this journal, it isn't surprising that it didn't generate much in the way of response.

BTW, I don't know about the policy of this particular journal, but most journals don't let the authors know who did the peer review. Are you really certain they didn't just send it out to a couple of medical historians?

The only thing that can now disprove that same alternative interpretation of the evidence is if the investigating scientists who are now claiming to have identified Alexei actually do manage to find the necessary scientific proof of that long-suspected faulty Factor VIII gene.

Then by the same token, the only thing that can disprove the standard interpretation is if someone who claims to have identified Alexei can show that there's no genetic evidence of haemophilia while still standing by the identification of the remains as Alexei, and that claim has priority over your claim.

Apparently, that's now not going to happen... in which case... the medically accepted and peer-reviewed argument against the claim of haemophilia in the Russian Imperial family will continue to stand as a properly recognized and medically sound alternative interpretation of the facts.

The claim of haemophilia will also stand as the recognised interpretation that's also supported by the medical evidence. Scientifically, the earlier interpretations are the ones that matter unless the challenges have been confirmed. Your challenge has not been confirmed.

[J Kendrick]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

How did you manage to get them to go out on a limb for you?

By researching and writing a medically sound paper that they had decided to be of considerable interest and value to the professional haematologists who subscribe to their journal.

Scientifically, the earlier interpretations are the ones that matter unless the challenges have been confirmed.

Being the first interpretations does not make them the right interpretations.

Your challenge has not been confirmed.

Neither has the popular interpretation of history.

Until the very necessary scientific proof of that long-suspected faulty Factor VIII gene has finally been produced by those who now claim to have found Alexei...

... we will remain at a stalemate.

JK

[Leslie2006]

Originally Posted by kell

i gotta wonder then why do many romanovs blame alix as the woman who brought in the royal deisase into the family kinda funny aint it

Because she did. Unless there was another direct blood connection between a Romanov and another hemophilia carrier than I'm unaware of?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

Until the very necessary scientific proof of that long-suspected faulty Factor VIII gene has finally been produced by those who now claim to have found Alexei...



JK

1. Does your comment 'claim to have found' indicate you do not believe the scientists and the Russian officials have found and identifed Alexei, and are accusing them of lying?

2. Even IF they tested for the faulty gene and got a positive result, would you believe it, or would you still claim it was falsified?

[COUNTESS]

This is all nonsense. Victoria had a son who was a hemophiliac, as well as several grandsons and great grandsons who all had the disease, from England to Spain to Germany to Russia. If it is just an academic argument, well you can add altrnatives, but realistically, he had hemophilia, his doctors noted that and it was rampant in the family.

[J Kendrick]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Even IF they tested for the faulty gene and got a positive result, would you believe it, or would you still claim it was falsified?

What would you say if they had tested for the suspected faulty gene and found a negative result?

What if they were to discover that there was nothing at all wrong with Alexei's Factor VIII gene?

There is no doubt that Alexei had certainly suffered from some kind of blood dyscrasia. On that point, we do not disagree. You believe, from what you have read, that it was a clotting factor deficiency. I know, from a very lengthy and detailed study of the evidence, that it was a platelet disorder.

I have no doubt about what the test results will reveal.

[tanya]

I have no idea what diease alexei suffered from but i am a FEmale Hemophiliac and i can certainly attest to the fact that Females can be hemophiliacs. as i am one. and yes I have severe, heavy periods.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

By researching and writing a medically sound paper that they had decided to be of considerable interest and value to the professional haematologists who subscribe to their journal.

That isn't how journals tend to work. However wonderful a submitted paper is, if it doesn't fall within the remit of the journal it won't go through the system, unless there's been some personal intervention somewhere.

Being the first interpretations does not make them the right interpretations.

If you don't think they're correct, then you can challenge them scientifically. However, you didn't challenge them at the scientific level that you're demanding they provide in order to challenge you. The physicians and scientific historians have looked at various pieces of evidence and reached a particular conclusion. You've done likewise and reached a different conclusion. You then claim that your conclusion somehow supersedes theirs and that in order to challenge your conclusion, scientists need to do this, that, and the other genetic analysis, and until they do it, your conclusion is the right one.

Science doesn't work that way. If a bunch of genetic analyses are required to falsify one hypothesis, then they're required to falsify another. You haven't falsified the original conclusion of haemophilia by presenting an alternative hypothesis based on historical evidence. If you wish to do that, then you're the one who needs to arrange to have the genetic tests done. Until you can falsify the haemophilia hypothesis scientifically, you're just a lone challenger of the consensus on non-scientific grounds.

Until the very necessary scientific proof of that long-suspected faulty Factor VIII gene has finally been produced by those who now claim to have found Alexei...

... we will remain at a stalemate.

JK

You can remain at a stalemate if you like. As long as you're holding other people to a higher standard than you're holding yourself to, this is much more like Canute trying to turn back the tide than a genuine stalemate.

[Menarue]

Or the famous Mrs Mopp who was wonderful with a broom when a puddle was to be removed but when the Atlantic high tide decided to invade her house.......

[fearghas]

Originally Posted by Ex-Princess Lisa

Alexei did not have haemophilia

No the whole family was being poisoned!