Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)