Alexei and Haemophilia - Page 6

J Kendrick · #**101** 01-12-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

If you don't think they're correct, then you can challenge them scientifically.

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the haemophilia theory. How do you imagine that one can possibly make a "scientific" challenge against a popular medical theory for which no "scientific" evidence yet exists?

The only way that there will ever be any scientific evidence of a blood disorder -- whichever disorder it may have been -- is if those same investigating scientists ever do manage to find the necessary DNA evidence of that suspected faulty Factor VIII gene at locus Xq28 on the long arm of the X-Chromosome of both Alexei and his mother Alexandra.

COUNTESS · #**102** 01-12-2009, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearghas

No the whole family was being poisoned!

By whom, for what reason and with what evidence?

Camilo2002 · #**103** 01-12-2009, 11:38 PM

Of course it was hemophilia; no way it was a coincidence which affected so many QV descendants.

J Kendrick · #**104** 01-14-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camilo2002

Of course it was hemophilia; no way it was a coincidence which affected so many QV descendants.

More than 150 genetic blood disorders are now known to medical science. Most of those same blood disorders have been discovered only in the past 50 or 60 years or so, at least three decades or more after the Revolution had ended. Some three dozen of those same blood disorders can be passed from mother to son by X-linked inheritance. Hemophilia is certainly the best known of those disorders, but -- in fact -- it is just one of several possibilities.

We will never be able to know for certain exactly which one of the numerous medical possibilities it actually may have been... until the proper and very necessary genetic testing that can reveal solid and precise scientific DNA evidence of that same long-suspected disease has finally been completed.

COUNTESS · #**105** 01-14-2009, 08:18 PM

What great difference does that make?

J Kendrick · #**106** 01-14-2009, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

What great difference does that make?

What difference does it make whether or not the popular claims of history are true?

Surely, you didn't just ask that question....

Elspeth · #**107** 01-15-2009, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the haemophilia theory. How do you imagine that one can possibly make a "scientific" challenge against a popular medical theory for which no "scientific" evidence yet exists?

You're demanding genetic evidence against your version of reality, though, and you've dismissed the consensus opinion on far less stringent grounds.

Quote:

The only way that there will ever be any scientific evidence of a blood disorder -- whichever disorder it may have been -- is if those same investigating scientists ever do manage to find the necessary DNA evidence of that suspected faulty Factor VIII gene at locus Xq28 on the long arm of the X-Chromosome of both Alexei and his mother Alexandra.

No, because that isn't the only way a person can have haemophilia. Equally, without the appropriate genetic evidence, the haemophilia hypothesis can't be ruled out. In the meantime, the existence of haemophilia in the Spanish and Hessian royal families and in one of Queen Victoria's sons, along with a known mechanism whereby Victoria herself could have been a carrier (despite your assertion to the contrary), provides strong circumstantial evidence for the existence of haemophilia in her descendants, particularly the Hessian ones, which is the relevant point here.

You've said Victoria couldn't have been a carrier. That isn't true. You've said that the mutation causing haemophilia originates almost exclusively in males. That isn't true. I'm not sure about all this extremely careful and detailed research you've done, but if you've really drawn the above two conclusions from it, I'm not sure how watertight your other conclusions are likely to be.

J Kendrick · #**108** 01-15-2009, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

You're demanding genetic evidence against your version of reality, though, and you've dismissed the consensus opinion on far less stringent grounds.

No.

I am only saying that the consensus opinion must now be confirmed with solid genetic evidence... just as the investigating scientists have been attempting to do.

As for your contention that the grounds for dismissing the consensus opinion are "far less stringent", I remind you that the alternative hypothesis you now question has been put to the proper test of medical peer-review by recognized experts and professors in the medical science of haematology... and it has passed all of the medical requirements that were expected of it and has been published with their full approval.

fearghas · #**109** 01-15-2009, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

By whom, for what reason and with what evidence?

I was being sarcastic (hence the rolled eyes) someone had mentioned this possibility earlier.

Anna was Franziska · #**110** 01-15-2009, 10:44 AM

There will be no testing for the gene. The scientists have already explained there wasn't enough usable specimen to do both the DNA test and the gene test and the DNA test took priority. There is literally, tragically, not enough left of Alexei to do the test. Techically they could get the gene from Alexandra or one of her relatives, but I doubt they're going to disturb anyone's remains just to prove that there was hemophilia in the family. It's already proven that Alexei died in 1918 and therefore was not Tammet, so there's no need for you Kendrick to keep fighting that the didn't have it just because Tammet didn't and that is why you've challenged it all these years.

ottobre · #**111** 01-15-2009, 01:56 PM

Where is your informations about scientists from (TV, magazine, Internet or what) ?

Anna was Franziska · #**112** 01-15-2009, 03:16 PM

The internet.

J Kendrick · #**113** 01-15-2009, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

It's already proven that Alexei died in 1918 and therefore was not Tammet, so there's no need for you Kendrick to keep fighting that the didn't have it just because Tammet didn't and that is why you've challenged it all these years.

How many times do I have to tell you?

Properly confirming the true medical identity of the blood disease with solid genetic evidence has nothing to do with claimants or the identification of remains. It is only concerned with finally verifying the popular medical claims of history that have still not been proved.

Anna was Franziska · #**114** 01-15-2009, 03:26 PM

Well, since there is no more bone left from Alexei, and they aren't going to do the test, why not just stop complaining about it? I mean, nothing anyone could do will ever convince you anyway. You're already saying 'claimed to identify Alexei' meaning you don't accept the DNA results. Even if they tested them and they came back postive you would never accept them so what's the point? You are going to think what you want anyway, but you will never convince anyone else. So what's this argument about?

J Kendrick · #**115** 01-15-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Well, since there is no more bone left from Alexei, and they aren't going to do the test, why not just stop complaining about it?

Because the claims of history are medically unsound and MUST still be proved.

Anna was Franziska · #**116** 01-15-2009, 03:36 PM

Well, since they CAN'T be, what's the point in harping on about it?

ottobre · #**117** 01-15-2009, 04:03 PM

why CAN'T BE? Just because you see smth in the Internet? I think there is still a chance.

J Kendrick · #**118** 01-15-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Well, since they CAN'T be, what's the point in harping on about it?

You will find my answer in the American Journal of Hematology, Volume 77, Number 1, September 2004, Pages 92-102, first published on August, 12, 2004 on the occasion of Alexei's 100th birthday. It was the front page news headline in Russia's St. Petersburg Times on Friday of that same week in August of 2004 and is now a matter of public record in the US National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland.

ottobre · #**119** 01-15-2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

You will find my answer in the American Journal of Hematology, Volume 77, Number 1, September 2004, Pages 92-102, first published on August, 12, 2004 on the occasion of Alexei's 100th birthday. It was the front page news headline in Russia's St. Petersburg Times on Friday of that same week in August of 2004 and is now a matter of public record in the US National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland.

At least textbooks will never be revised, as negative results in case of haemophilia on ancient material means nothing...

Elspeth · #**120** 01-15-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J Kendrick

Because the claims of history are medically unsound and MUST still be proved.

This from someone who doesn't see the need to prove his own claims.

What's medically unsound about them? You claimed that haemophilia had to have started with Leopold and couldn't have started with Victoria. That's untrue. You haven't explained the pattern of blood disease in the various royal families descended from Victoria - where the only people affected were consistent with the pattern of haemophilia (and not with the pattern of Rh-associated hemolytic anemia). So far your claims have been a lot more unsound than theirs.