Talk:Paralytic illness of Franklin D. Roosevelt

Now

Now that this article is split off, it seems like a good candidate for expansion. I think the public awareness piece is especially interesting. Anyone have good sources? Sam 15:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I added photo, and removed request. Dagoldman 07:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Great photo. I made it a little bigger and moved it to the top; if you don't like it, I can change it back. Sam 14:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION: "Regardless of the cause, the result was that Roosevelt was totally and permanently paralyzed from the waist down. He could sit up and, with aid of leg braces, stand upright, but could not walk."

I saw footage of FDR walking on a carrier (meeting Churchill) despite agony. So this is probably incorrect.

Roosevelt could not take more than a step or so on his own. When he walked it was with the aid of one of his sons or an aide. He had to put his weight on his cane, swing the other side of his body forward, then put his weight on the arm of his companion while moving the side with the cane forward. His sons were trained to take the weight without any indication that they were doing anything more than guiding him. He could move on his own to some degree if he had a railing to grip.Saxophobia 09:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this interesting article has now been split off, but thought it needed to be clearer throughout some parts of the text that the whole thesis is based on one recent peer-reviewed study. And as the authors of that study point out, everything about Roosevelt's case clear is consistent with his having had polio. It's just a question of what is statistically most probable, using a lot of plausible assumptions about disease incidence and symptom probability. So I made minor edits to fix this. Agree? Posidonious (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do disagree with your edit. I tried to find something to retain, but could not. 1) You're right the thesis is based on one recent study, but I hardly think that's a failing. This isn't a lab experiment or clinical trial where another researcher is going to replicate the methodology to confirm or refute the conclusions. The study was published in 2003, and fairly widely publicized. Everyone has access to the same facts and literature. In the intervening four years, anyone could have published a rebuttal or alternative analysis. But nobody has done so. So I think it's fair to say that "retrospective analysis favors GBS", period. Saying "one recent retrospective analysis favors GBS" implies there were other analyses favoring polio. But there weren't and aren't any. There was just uncritical acceptance. The question of the cause of FDR's illness had never been raised before. Everyone believed it was polio, but nobody actually did any kind of analysis. 2) I think the word "argue" implies that the cited study "argued" that FDR had GBS, in the sense of trying to persuade or taking a side in a debate. That's not the case. The paper just followed the facts, in the interests of historical truth. The authors weren't looking for something controversial. It just happened that someone pointed out the possibility. If anything, the analysis may have even artificially favored polio regarding the prior probabilities. 3) I don't think there is any need to keep saying "Goldman". It makes it sound like it's just someone's "opinion", which is not the case. If there were another paper, referring to citations by name might be appropriate to distinguish them. And the wikipedia article already makes it clear the cited paper is the source of unreferenced items. 4) I think it's very inaccurate to say "the authors point out everything about Roosevelt's case clear is consistent with his having had polio". It's much better to keep the previous "many of FDR's symptoms were more consistent with GBS", because that's what was actually stated in the cited paper. Also from the cited publication, "Furthermore, ascending, symmetric paralysis, facial paralysis in the absence of the cranial nerve abnormalities, obstipation, numbness and dysesthesia are unusual or absent in paralytic poliomyelitis. In that regard we found only one report of ascending, symmetric paralysis in poliomyelitis." I don't equate "unusual or absent" with "consistent". Your edit downplays the significant differences that were found. Six of eight symptoms always favored GBS, even with reasonable changes to symptom probabilities and prior probabilities to favor polio. So it really is "in contrast", not "similarly", that the neurological symptoms favor GBS. 5) After your edit, there are three separate references to the cited paper, which is not necessary, since there was already a note at the beginning of the references section. Plus, it looks bad. I do agree with your point that it is "statistically more probable, using plausible assumptions", and not proven. But that's already addressed. Neither the wikipedia article or published article flatly state "FDR had GBS" or "FDR didn't have polio". They just say it's more likely (as of today, which is the case for everything) that FDR had GBS. Your edits would de-emphasize the observed significant differences too much. Perhaps you are skeptical of the published paper. And perhaps the conclusions of the cited paper will someday be proven wrong, or at least questionable. But that has to be decided in the published literature, not wikipedia. The wikipedia article has to reflect the current facts, instead of trying to gloss over and downplay the significant differences that were reported in a scholarly analysis. Dagoldman (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

understood. And I'm not going to press the point. But for the record, I think the fact that there has been silence after the publication of the Goldman article is consistent with my own response when I read it, which was interest mixed with no motivation whatsoever to think about it further. (I'm not competent to do a rebuttal.) The study is careful and meticulous, methodologically. But unconvincing to me in terms of my personal knowledge of several cases of polio diagnosed with an analysis of cerebrospinal fluid. They too, if subjected to Goldman's retrospective analysis without the benefit of the spinal tap evidence, would look like GBS. And I have, I think, reasonably good acquaintance with the epistemic status of relative frequency probability statements. So when people doing retrospective analyses like this talk about "the observed significant differences," I guess I have a knee-jerk reaction. (Perhaps an overreaction.) What has been observed is that FDR's reported symptoms during the acute phase of his illness put him in one tail of the distribution of documented cases of poliomyelitis, and more squarely in the center of the distribution of documented cases of GBS. And that's what the authors say. But it seems to me that when one takes an article like this and makes it into an encyclopedia entry about a figure who has been so central to the history of polio epidemics, one needs to bend over backward to avoid an unintended sort of rhetorical effect. I worry that the article in its current form could too easily provoke, in casual readers, the response "But I read in Wikipedia that FDR didn't have polio." No reader of the original article in the original scholarly journal would make that mistake, of course, but the audience for Wikipedia is much broader. Am I being too cautious? Posidonious (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are not being too cautious. (I understand your post was written 2 1/2 years ago, but maybe we can get this discussion going again). The manner in which the single article on Roosevelt and GBS is treated on Wikipedia will lead many to think, I'm afraid, "I read on Wikipedia that FDR didn't have polio." The fact is, it is a single article that has errors that even, I, a total layperson can detect. It should be treated as what it is -- a single speculative article that some of FDR's symptoms were consistent with GBS, not a claim that his diagnosis was in doubt or that he did not have polio. --Crunch (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

See my response below. What errors did you detect? And what kind of speculation are you referring to? I didn't see any speculation. The publication says "Six of eight posterior probabilities strongly favoured Guillain–Barre´ syndrome." and "retrospective analysis favours the diagnosis of GBS". So the publication definitely asserts that the diagnosis of polio is in doubt and he more likely had GBS. On the other hand, the publication never says "FDR did not have polio", "FDR had GBS", or anything close to that. Neither does the wikipedia article. I do agree that "FDR does not have polio" is an unwarranted conclusion. But the statement "FDR had polio" is much more unwarranted at this point. And what's the harm in the reader mistakenly concluding "FDR did not have polio" vs even more mistakenly concluding "FDR had polio"? What are you afraid of? We don't know what FDR suffered from, but it currently seems more likely GBS than polio. It's nothing to get upset about or worry about. It's just the truth, as best we know it. The resulting paralysis is a fact, no matter what the cause. There is no reason to "defend" polio or "defend" GBS. Just look at the evidence. And there are great numbers of doctors, statisticians and epidemiologists competent to do a rebuttal. You choose to ignore that there is no rebuttal, and make unsubstantiated statements about "errors" and "speculation". 174.31.152.161 (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Roosevelt statue

I remember seeing a news report about a statue of Roosevelt that was controversial for featuring him in a wheelchair. I have no other detail other than that, but perhaps a picture of it would help the article. If anybody has any information on it, please let us know. - Throw 03:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be the Roosevelt Memorial in Washington DC. http://www.nps.gov/fdrm/ which was criticized for showing the chair he hid from the public throughout life. He used a wooden kitchen chair without arms & on the memorial it is mostly hidden beneath the large cloak he wore in his later years.Saxophobia 09:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Polio epidemic in northeastern United States

New Brunswick is not in the northeastern United States. It is next door in Canada. If polio was in epidemic in southeastern Canada, that would be a much more relevant thing to say in the article.220.253.150.84 12:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

FDR & Spanish Flu

I have restored the section regarding FDR being stricken with Spanish Influenza in 1918 and added a request for citation. I have read several biographies which mention FDR being stricken with "a strain of unfluenza" while touring the front in Europe and being brought home on a stretcher. (It was during this time that Eleanor, unpacking FDR's luggage, discovered a pack of letters from Lucy Mercer.) But I haven't read any sources which state it was Spanish Flu - thus the citation request.THD3 (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

After the material was removed for a second time by an anonymous editor, I have again restored the material and tweaked the verbiage. I have also send a note to the editor who added the material requesting a citation from a reliable source. If no such citation is added by July 23, 2010, I will remove the paragraph in question.THD3 (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am the remover. Thanks for the note to the talk page. I think you are missing the point, and bending over backwards way too much. Perhaps the edit was not vandalism. It's certainly very sloppy and uninformed. I called it vandalism because it had so many obvious problems. 1) The editor said FDR "succumbed". That means "died"! FDR did not die of the flu in 1918. You kindly changed that to "suffered from". But in doing so you are ignoring a giant red flag waving in your face. 2) The extensive article on Spanish Flu says nothing about "many Spanish Flu sufferers experienced profound immunological, neurological, and physiological sequelae". And the editor gave no citation. So, beyond just citing that FDR had Spanish flu, the editor would first need to first revise the Spanish Flu article concerning the "profound sequelae", and keep it stable a while. The FDR illness article is not the appropriate forum to determine if Spanish flu had profound sequelae (which is plausible, but show me the evidence). 3) I am not aware of any evidence that FDR actually suffered any sequelae from Spanish flu. So again, beyond just citing that FDR had Spanish flu, the editor would need to provide a citation that FDR actually suffered sequelae. If he didn't suffer sequelae, the connection is just speculation, as well as original research. 4) The editor proposes that these "profound sequelae" "arose years later". That's not so plausible, and again with no citation or mention in the Spanish flu article, so again original research (speculation). Maybe you're trying to be nice, but I wouldn't encourage sloppy editing, uncited assertions, and original research. 174.31.152.161 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Polio False Diagnosis Now Fact?

I'm surprised to see that in this article, and List of poliomyelitis survivors and Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness and probably several others in Wikipedia, it is now almost stated as fact that Roosevelt's polio diagnosis was false. While this may be true, the basis for this revisionist diagnosis is one study and the emphasis given to it seems excessive. --Crunch (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any basis to say the emphasis is excessive. 1) Do you really think your being surprised is a basis for saying emphasis is excessive? People are usually surprised when something they believed for years, but never critically examined, turns out to be probably false. I'm sure you would agree there are countless examples of people being surprised at new information. They eventually get over it. Or the old generation dies off, and the new generation is able to accept new information. 2) In this case, if you think a little, you will not be surprised there is only one study, and will see that is no basis to say emphasis is excessive. Laboratory research can be replicated in other labs to verify a publication. That's not the case here. If you tried to publish a paper saying "Using the same methods, we have confirmed the results of this study on FDR's illness", nobody would publish it, because it's not a confirmation or new information to just carry out the same statistical analysis. In contrast, you could publish a study saying "We have refuted the results of this study on FDR's illness". But none of the many who have expressed surprise or skepticism have done so. Why not? Perhaps because once they actually read the paper, they realized that Roosevelt's polio diagnosis probably was false. It's easy to express unsubstantiated opinions. But that's not how science works. If someone thinks a finding or theory is false, it's their responsibility to publish a refutation. And not try to publish original research on wikipedia. Alternatively, you could publish a paper saying "Using different methods, we have confirmed the results of this study on FDR's illness". But what would the other methods be? So, until someone publishes a refutation or finds new evidence, it makes perfect sense there is only one publication on the nature of FDR's paralytic illness. It's not a problem there is just one publication, as long as that one is valid. 174.31.152.161 (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)