Talk:Paralytic illness of Franklin D. Roosevelt

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arianagomez5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

        As a unbiased third party here, I have two observations:
           1) as it appears now, it is painfully clear where in the section the writer and point of view changes.
           2) While both the pro-GBS half and the pro-polio half seem to be favoring their particular diagnosis, the pro-polio paragraphs tacked on is written in a transparently dismissive and hostile way.  The pro-GBS half is written in a very professional manner, however if it is in fact the case that it represents a fringe view (I don't know, and can't figure it out based on the article and talk page in their current forms), then it also needs to be rewritten to reflect such.  The 130 degree turn the section makes into the pro-polio half needs to be rewritten in a professional encyclopedic manner that doesn't make the reader do a double take and check to make sure they didn't accidentally jump to the talk page. -Paul (on iPhone) 12/13/13 around midnight. 96.41.90.226 (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree there’s a lot of professional, encyclopedic text in here from the 2003 study, and somebody spent a lot of time on it. But the 2003 study was discredited in a 2016 review, for ignoring several symptoms of both GBS and polio in order to artificially come up with a pro GBS conclusion.

Debdelilah (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, polio had a more severe course of disease for people who got it in adulthood, with the severe paralytic version leading to death in up to 30 percent of adults who got it. As the CDC website shows, adults were also at risk and suffered paralysis from polio. The survivors list here features several of them. There is no need to show someone lived in a bubble or had a genetic predisposition. Debdelilah (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Last point and sorry for so many posts. The study claims a 99 percent certainty of GBS diagnosis in a person who was never tested for GBS and was never personally examined by the doctor who authored it. It makes a blanket statement that FDR didn’t have symptoms consistent with polio even though his doctors at the time said the opposite. It ignores the existence of post polio syndrome in calculating the odds, even though PPS has been known about for decades and would resolve any doubts about an adult catching polio. And last, it assumes that cases of adult polio were always being diagnosed correctly in 1921. While the CDC knows today about adult transmission, back then the disease was known as infantile paralysis. Relying on numbers of diagnoses in adults at that time would be unreliable. Roosevelt’s own first diagnosis he received in 1921 was age related spinal damage. It was only after the cure made things worse that experts at the time diagnosed polio. Debdelilah (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems we are all agreed the article is currently encyclopedic. I hope we can keep it that way. Unfortunately, your edit is in the wrong section, since it does not relate to "predisposition to polio", and since the reference is now incorrect. At least it’s great you posted to the talk page, that is appreciated. But your edit and discussion suggest that you propose to turn the article upside down, change the basic idea from "FDR probably had GBS" to "FDR probably had polio". If the facts so indicate, fine. But before we take that drastic step, or before someone reverts your bold but possibly wrong edits, could we have a discussion to clarify your thoughts and reasoning? 1) You say the 2003 study was "discredited" and "found to be flawed". What specific ways might the article mention it was discredited? 2) You say the 2003 study "ignored several symptoms"? Which symptoms were ignored that we might mention in the article, and how would the ignored symptoms have affected the probability of polio vs GBS? 3) You say the 2003 study "artificially come to a conclusion". What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting the 2003 study intentionally left out certain facts, as the 2016 study directly states? 4) You say "numbers of diagnoses in adults at that time would be unreliable". Is that original research on your part, or what is the citation? And how unreliable are the data concerning polio in adults? 5) You say that FDR had post polio syndrome. What source can we cite on that? 6) What is your source that 30% of adult paralytic polio patients die? Even if true, how is that relevant to determining the cause of FDR's illness? 7) You discuss that adults can get polio and suffer paralysis. But it is unclear why you bring that up. Did any source say that adults do not get paralytic polio? I believe they just said it was uncommon. 8) You say the 2003 study states that FDR didn't have symptoms consistent with polio. Where does it say that? 9) Finally, are you NPOV and open to the possibility that FDR had GBS? 71.212.174.169 (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27178375/ This is the 2016 study that discredited the 2003 study. Debdelilah (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Basically, my concern is that as mentioned in talk before, the doctor responsible for the 2003 study was heavily responsible for creating this section of the Wikipedia page. Without having a staff or a heavily weighted interest to improving the page with hours of time or hundreds of dollars, I can’t make a point by point criticism of the study myself. I would suggest reaching out to the doctors who did the counter study if possible. But just as a layperson reading through this, some things just seem wrong. For instance, why is a conclusion reached based on Roosevelt having recovered some use of his upper body? If you read accounts of other polio survivors, many of them made partial recoveries. But given the circumstances of the era, it’s less clear that every circumstance of recovery and order of recovery would be described in a scientific study. Also, the study cites data about numbers of adults in Roosevelt’s age group who had a new polio diagnosis in his region of the country in 1921. So it operates on the presumption that those numbers are accurate for the statistical analysis. But then it also calls in question the ability of Roosevelt’s doctors, who were experts, to diagnose polio correctly. If he was calling in question the ability of doctors to diagnose the disease, how can he rely on statistics from the time? GBS was first diagnosed in 1916, when only two cases in the entire world had been documented. It is still known as a rare disease today. Meanwhile, polio was common in 1921, though it was not diagnosed as often in adults. If you read through the case accounts in the broader article about polio survivors, you can see several accounts of older children and adults who first went through a misdiagnosis prior to polio being identified. You can also see a reference in the 1920 American Journal of Nursing stressing that “infantile paralysis” was a misnomer and that the course of disease was in fact more severe in adults. And last, post-polio syndrome, which has its own article on Wikipedia, would also cause symptoms of polio to occur in adulthood even if one first caught the disease in childhood. Debdelilah (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3407822.pdf Debdelilah (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Further issues were, the article makes it seem like the experts who diagnosed polio did so after a cursory examination. But as the 2016 study points out, Roosevelt was under expert treatment for polio from 1921 to 1924. And the article claims a 99.9 percent probability for GBS over polio even though GBS is rare and the majority of people who have it don’t have the length or severity of symptoms that Roosevelt had. So, even if there is a chance that Roosevelt had GBS, calling it a virtual certainty seems excessive, especially in light of the 2016 study. It also introduces a question of bias, because polio is a virtually eradicated disease, while GBS is a modern rare disease with an unknown cause. The 2003 study was widely publicized in TV bios of Roosevelt, bringing attention to GBS. But it may have done so at the cost of rewriting history or, as the 2016 study claims, using data in a manipulative way. Debdelilah (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And while his upper body was weak at one point in the illness, there’s no indication he was paralyzed in the upper body, so the ascending symmetrical paralysis 99 percent in favor of GBS seems overblown. First one leg became paralyzed and then the other. This was not a statistically unlikely circumstance for adults with polio. As you can see, experts today describe it as sometimes affecting one side of the body, sometimes both. https://www.healthline.com/health/poliomyelitis#causes. It’s unclear why all the symptoms in favor of GBS are weighted with 98 or 99 percent weight of likelihood. Roosevelt had symptoms of a disease in 2015 and 2017 that might be similar to a disease people get before getting GBS. But as other sources say, most people who have GBS get this disease with six weeks of when symptoms start, not years before. So why 99 percent weight to this? https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/guillain-barre-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20362793 Debdelilah (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I reached out to Dr. Bruce E. Becker by email; he is one of the three doctors who conducted the 2016 study. I linked to the article and I hope he or one of the others will follow up. My interest was first piqued in this when someone posted about FDR and GBS on Facebook saying things like “most people can’t catch polio past the age of four” and expressing doubt that an adult could even catch the illness. And the CDC website clearly says adults can catch it. It was as though if it said it on TV, that was enough, people don’t look further. I personally wish that like most encyclopedic entries, the 2003 study had appeared as a summary with a link. Instead it went into hundreds of points of detail. A doctor who spent years researching can come up with this level of detail. But a non-doctor who sees opposing studies would be more able to easily add to a summary than to something that goes to this degree of point by point depth. Debdelilah (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/212768 Above is an article about the use of lumbar puncture to diagnose polio in 1910. In 1921, we could assume experts would have known about this as a diagnostic tool. Without proof that it was done or not done, it would be unwise to assume it was not done. Again, not claiming polio is a certain diagnosis. Just questioning the 99.9 percent certainty of GBS. Debdelilah (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Among the assertions in the 2016 study is that Roosevelt’s doctor, Lovett, in fact knew about GBS, and published information about it in his 1916 textbook. So he did not diagnose polio because of ignorance of GBS. Debdelilah (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionThe diagnosis and prognosis of polio based on therecords of physicians and therapists who ex amined FDRduring his illness requires an und erstanding of thecriteria used at that time. In 1922, the year after hisinitial examination of FDR, Lovett published his diag-nostic criteria based on his obse rvation of more than5000 cases. Lovett summarized his diagnostic criteria asfollows: a scattered, irregular, widely spread loss of motorpower on one or both sides; no diminution of sensation in affected parts; and diminution or loss of reflexes in the parts affected[24].The recent Center for Disease Control case definitionfor paralytic poliomyelitis identifies the same features;“Acute onset of a flaccid paralys is of one or more limbswith decreased or absent tendon reflexes in t... More from the 2016 study is quoted above. Roosevelt’s doctor was an expert in polio and had come up with criteria to diagnose it that matches modern day criteria. Debdelilah (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Adults have a greater incidence of severe pain onday1,usuallyinthelumbarregionwithagreaterincidence of prodromal hyperesthesia [47].These3features clearly were present in FDR’s case. Childrenhave a much greater frequency of monoplegia, with arecorded incidence of 85%-91% in more than 500 casesof spinal paralytic polio [64]. This pattern in childrenis likely the basis for the criterion of asymmetry citedin the literature [56,61,65]. Adults older than 30years of, however, have 4-extremity paralysis in mo rethan 50% (74/141) cases, which was the patt ern inFDR’s case. Bladder paralysis “a common feature inadults (> 40%). is most infrequent in children. Another quote from the 2016 study. Roosevelt’s course of illness was typical of an adult with polio. The 2003 study used general polio statistics, not polio statistics in adults. The CDC’s diagnostics and knowledge include modern day identification of the virus in infected adults; there is no reason to believe adult diagnoses of polio were not polio. Debdelilah (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

More from the 2016 study, referencing symptoms that had been used to cross compare polio and GBS likelihood: Of 11 clinical features listed in Table 3 [5], only 2(fever and permanent paralysis) are listed as favoringpolio. Many of the remaining 9 features are flawed,such as listing FDR’s progression of paralysis at 10-13days. Lovett’s notes indicate that by August 13th, 3 daysafter symptom onset he had become paraplegic, andKeen reported on August 14th that he “had lost theability to move his legs though not to feel” [26]. Anotherfeature, dysesthesia, is listed as absent in polio, illus-trating a lack of awareness of the literature (Lovett;Draper; Horstman) regarding the typical presence ofhyperesthesia/sensi tiveness in polio as well as theclinical observations by the clinicians who examinedFDR and reported on his hyperesthesia/sensitiveness[24,45,46]. It appears that the authors of the 2003 papermay have interpreted symptoms of cutaneous hyperes-thesia, common in polio, with the dysesthesias associ-ated with GBS.Another error within their 9 listed factors is bladderparalysis, which is described as lasting 1-3 days in polio.Lovett offers the association of abdominal, pelvic floor,and girdle paralysis as features associated with pro-longed urinary retention in polio [24]. The patterns ofrecovery that clearly distinguish polio from GBS ingeneral, and especially in FDR’s case, are the majordifferences in residual proximal muscle weaknessin polio contraste d with distal weakness in GBS[47,48,50,69,70]. Finally, the severity of the FDR’simpairment and wheelchair mobility, which may occurin up to 20% of the polio population, is not reported innon-bulbar GBS [55,59]. Debdelilah (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

1) I think this discussion would have been better placed in a new section, as it would make the talk page cleaner and easier to follow. 2) Unfortunately, you did not answer most or all the questions I asked to clarify your position and improve the article. If you did not think a question made sense, you could have said so. Instead, you basically ignored me, blew past with many new comments and assertions. It seems impossible to carry out a reasonable conversation. It bodes poorly for the future of this article, which you agree is currently encyclopedic. 3) You repeatedly carry out OR and offer personal opinions concerning polio vs GBS question. A few examples of many: “why is a conclusion reached based on Roosevelt having recovered some use of his upper body?” - “And while his upper body was weak at one point in the illness, there’s no indication he was paralyzed in the upper body, so the ascending symmetrical paralysis 99 percent in favor of GBS seems overblown.” - “GBS is rare and the majority of people who have it don’t have the length or severity of symptoms that Roosevelt had. So, even if there is a chance that Roosevelt had GBS, calling it a virtual certainty seems excessive” - “If he was calling in question the ability of doctors to diagnose the disease, how can he rely on statistics from the time?”. 4) You recite the 2016 study in great detail. First, it was an invited commentary with the goal of proving that FDR had polio, not an unbiased analysis. Second, the points in the 2016 study, many of which you copied and pasted, were all refuted in the 2017 POT book, 201-214, the elephant in the room you choose to ignore. In this, and in your firm belief that FDR had polio, it seems you are not NPOV. It’s obvious that you feel strongly on this issue, really believe that FDR had polio, but that hardly qualifies you to be a good editor for this article. We need editors that do not have your apparent strong bias. It is understandable that a new finding can be shocking and hard to accept, but that is no excuse for bias. 4) Concerning the 2003 study, you say “introduces a question of bias” and “using data in a manipulative way”, unfortunately repeating the personal attacks (academic hobby, selectively chose, contrived controversy) of the 2016 study. The 2017 POT book, page 202, called the language “unbecoming and unprofessional”, which I see no reason to disagree with.

Given that you refuse to answer questions, edit in a sloppy manner, carry out OR left and right, and are to all appearances not NPOV, it seems hard to figure out how to accommodate you. If some other editor wishes to report you to be banned, I would not disagree. Or maybe we could resolve this amicably. Would you agree to one of the following two options, and do any other editors have an opinion? 1) I revert last two edits to the article, as it seems the > 99.9% really set you off, strained your personal belief, and > 99% already indicates GBS highly likely, it really doesn’t matter, and leave out 2016 study, which is really secondary and is marred by the personal attacks and apparent bias. 2) I add text, under “Analysis of symptoms favors GBS”, and cite 2016 study, saying “A 2016 study disputed the findings of the 2003 study, but the 2016 study assertions were refuted in a 2017 book.” In the meantime, until we resolve the issue here, could you please not edit and turn upside down sections of any other articles, as you have already done, causing more confusion. 71.212.174.169 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I can’t disagree that some of the language in the 2016 is very strongly worded. And I’m not a doctor myself. As I said, I contacted one of the doctors who conducted the study. Whether you make the edits is Wikipedia’s decision. I do feel strongly about the issue for reasons I can’t put my finger on. But I believe it’s probably the political environment right now. People post studies saying one thing or another and behind it is usually one interest group or another funding the study. In this case, there is more to read than just the abstract, and I would suggest anyone interested could read it on Wiley Library for a few dollars. Myself, I think since Wikipedia is supposed to be like an encyclopedia, the entry is too long. It’s the length of what Encyclopedia Brittanica might have had on World War II. Relative to what it is, that’s probably too much to go into so much detail about one study. Debdelilah (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The edits I made were tiny and easy to undo. I didn’t change much of the article and I don’t know the person who changed it before. Wanting someone to be banned for disagreeing with you casts doubt that this is a non-biased cite or a non-biased article. But I have not edited Wiki for years before this and this is not an edit war. I made no attempt at undoing any changes you reverted in the article. All I’ve been doing is talking about it. And you’re right, my pastes were sloppy. I’m not a doctor. I’m a paraprofessional and I don’t consider myself exceptionally capable. But I have no external bias in this. Debdelilah (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

But at the heart of it, the 99.9 percent is the problem. Even today, with modern diagnostics, people regularly get misdiagnosed. So that drew me to want to read more or look to see if anyone had called the study in question, because how can you be that sure of something when a diagnostic test was never done? And there are various articles that come up saying 1 in 75 adults with poliovirus suffered paralysis vs. 1 in 1000 children and that quadriplegia was seen in adults. But the study is talking about asymmetric presentation as an important sign. And then a cursory read on GBS shows tingling in the hands and feet is the most common presentation- not that Roosevelt couldn’t have had it, but aren’t we talking about a rare presentation of a rare disease? I understand you’re talking about statistical analysis, not diagnosis, but this article is on Wikipedia and the difference is not clear to me as a non-medically educated person. If there are significant gaps in likelihood with statistical analysis vs. diagnosis, the study should possibly say so. If anyone with scientific expertise has any doubts in retrospect that some of the numbers weighed were not reflective of symptoms of polio in adults, then perhaps the article should reflect those doubts. Maybe it should say the polio diagnosis was not certain by medical diagnostic standards, that modern tests for it were never done, and that it was dependent only on observational opinion by a person who, at the time, was considered an expert in the field. For GBS - again not being a doctor - wouldn’t these symptoms be an extraordinarily severe case, a rare case of GBS? And the statistics are based on occurrence with GBS, right? But GBS usually involves tingling of the extremities and not lifelong paralysis- not that it cannot but that it usually doesn’t? Personally I would prefer that the article reflect whatever uncertainty there might be in a way that makes it open to whatever future discoveries may or may not be made. It’s a controversial issue. There are opposing studies. It would not surprise me if both sides are biased - on the one side, drawing attention to GBS, which could lead to funding for researching GBS, much in the way FDR’s polio diagnosis led to a vaccine. But if that’s the case, why not create modern case studies with typical presentations? FDR’s case can’t be definitely diagnosed. He isn’t alive to be tested. Why not use modern, definite diagnoses to bring public attention to GBS? Essentially the study just proves that medical diagnoses in the early 20th century were unreliable. Beyond that, I just see numbers without full explanations. A lot of data, but also places where data might be missing- such as contrasting polio in adults vs polio in general. Debdelilah (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

And I apologize if this is a silly question, but is it possible that FDR had BOTH polio and GBS? I’m reading that nearly any virus can cause GBS, in which the immune system attacks the brain. And the poliovirus also attacks the brain. Could he have had polio and also had an autoimmune response? You can see people writing about possible autoimmune impacts in the Post-Polio Syndrome section of Wikipedia Debdelilah (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Even though you still did not answer some basic questions I asked, and are still doing OR, I appreciate your response seems more reasonable. I’m sure you are trying to do your best based on your honest feelings. But maybe you might reflect more on why you feel strongly about the issue? I don’t think the article diminishes FDR's courage or the many people who suffered from polio. Maybe the article should directly state that, I think it would be helpful, if we can find a source. Maybe I am missing something, but what difference does it make what illness FDR had, other than trying to get history right and for doctors and scientists trying to better understand polio and GBS, so what is the point of having a strong feeling on this issue?

Yes, we have to assess sources, if the the 2003 study was funded or promoted by some interest group (the study did not list a funding source), such as a GBS foundation, as you suggest, or had a bias, then the study should probably be tossed, but for now seems OK. I would not wish anybody banned because of disagreement, I think you misinterpreted. I think disagreement and discussion are great. As I said before, the problem is OR and NPOV, which you seem to be subject to. Just in case, that means “original research” and “neutral point of view”. If you do not understand what I am talking about, I could find and send links, but you can do a search pretty easy. And also respectful discussion, like not ignoring questions / comments.

This article seems controversial. We were all taught and believed that FDR had polio. Now supposedly he did not. How could all those doctors miss the diagnosis for so many decades? But in another way, the article seems no big deal. So FDR maybe had GBS instead of polio, why should we be so surprised? Doctors make misdiagnoses all the time, as you say yourself. And misdiagnoses are often perpetuated. And confirmation bias, from 2017 POT book about all the books and movies saying “FDR had polio”. And maybe all those doctors over the decades were too busy or never thought to look. I think we have to go with the facts in good sources, not our opinions or original research.

Concerning post-polio syndrome, I would have to ask again what source you would cite that FDR had PPS. Again, your comments about 1 and 75 and quadriplegia and tingling are OR and I’m not going to get into that, because I do not know the answers and because off limits for wikipedia to do OR. Concerning statistical analysis vs diagnosis, the 2003 study used statistical analysis to give a numerical probability. Most of us, myself included, have a hard time dealing with statistics and probabilities, like what is the probability of a straight flush, I have no idea, so the > 99% or whatever may seem hard to believe, but that apparently is the probability, or are you disputing that probabilities are useful? If the probability is wrong, some doctor or whatever would need to publish an article trying to correct it, but until that happens, we have to use the best information we have. Face it, black holes, quarks, GBS, polio, computers, the big bang, a million other things, there is no way for us to really understand these things, we have to trust the scientific process to determine the current knowledge. Yes, scientists make mistakes, sometimes even make things up, but we have no evidence that happened for this issue. We cannot conduct our own research on wikipedia to determine the cause of FDR’s paralysis, and arguing about the cause is not conducive to improving the article.

Concerning article length, I don’t think the article is longer than EB article on World War II, you really can’t be serious about that, can you? But I agree shorter is better. I see that the article was much longer back in 2016, and is now much shorter, and under recommended 50,000 byte length. Concerning FDR having both polio and GBS, that is again OR, but I suppose it is possible, why not? Concerning GBS outcome, tingling vs paralysis, the 2017 POT book points out that in 1921 there was no GBS treatment so the outcomes were worse than now. It seems you are right the article does not mention FDR having tingling, just numbness and hyperesthesia, but again best to avoid OR concerning tingling or whatever.

Like you, I do not want to have an edit war. I went ahead and removed the last two edits as I previously suggested, I hope we can leave it there for now. This frees us from having to deal with the strong words from the 2016 study like “contrived controversy” and “selectively chose”, frees us from having to say one source “refutes” another, and changes 99.9 to 99 which is less likely to strain belief. You are right that modern tests were not done, but I think that is already in the article. However, if we can find a source to say something to the effect that we will never know for sure, because no definitive test was done, then I think that would improve the article. Any comments from anybody else? 71.212.174.169 (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not taking an emotional interest in this anymore, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness in having made the changes. If you are interested in the reaction of the lay public in your articles, I have to say that for me personally- not with any intention of having authoritative say- I would have still had the same strong reaction to 99 percent. Not that you should change your work because of that by any means, because as you said, being shocked by a new finding is not grounds to change it. I read your study in part because it mentioned history, and I would like to clarify something with you. When you put statistics into a Boolean model, are you relying on a clear yes/no? Is there any calculation for imprecise language? For instance, if Roosevelt wrote in a letter that he ached all over, but that he had no rigidity in his neck, and no special pain in his spine, would that be taken to mean he had no pain or stiffness in his neck? Just saying, you’ll hear elderly persons sometimes say their joints get stiff or athletes say they’re stiff after a workout, but rigidity to general English speakers means something beyond ordinary stiffness. And Roosevelt seemed very focused on describing paralytic symptoms in other parts of the letter. This is where I felt like the role of diagnosis would come in, because if he were your patient today, you could ask him to rate his pain on a scale of 1 to 10. If he ached all over I would guess neck pain was not 0. The letter is one that came up on archives.com when I Googled “FDR neck pain”. With language, again, having read about FDR, he seems like someone who downplayed his symptoms, running for a 4th term as President even after a heart crisis, and being eloquent enough to say “I have a terrible pain in my head,” right before his death. In his letter he described himself as being “thoroughly achy” while experiencing his onset of illness and his wife described it in more painful sounding language. So, I’m asking if you ever encountered anything that wasn’t a precise yes or no in the course of the study that had to do with personal language and if so, how you could translate the doubt into a statistic. No need to answer that here if you don’t want, I’m just hoping you’ll consider it. In terms of bias towards polio, I wouldn’t even consider polio 99% likely to have caused all of the problems even if FDR had actually tested positive for the poliovirus, simply because it could cause such a range of symptoms in different people and having it would not preclude also having something else. I am generally more likely to trust people who express uncertainty. While your Boolean study may be impeccable and researched to the maximum degree, I am nervous at reading a statistical analysis of a list of symptoms as a layperson because as a layperson I have no idea if the symptoms were chosen ahead of other symptoms because they produced more definitive numbers. It seems to me any doctor conducting any historical revisitation of diagnosis would have a hard time publishing a study that did not definitively show what it set out to show. In 2003, you might have had it peer reviewed by persons on all sides, perhaps by polio experts who worked during the epidemics in developing countries in the 1980s or by linguistic specialists to help you translate words into specific probabilities. If you did all this, you are amazing and I congratulate you. Peace and goodwill, and be safe in this time of coronavirus. Debdelilah (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice words. However, most of your message violates another wikipedia policy, by definitely suggesting I am some particular person. This violates WP:OUTING policy. I do not confirm or deny that I am whoever you think I am – that is what wikipedia requires me to say. And I am not going to comment on your questions, on the same principle. Wikipedia says WP:OUTING harrassment (their term) is sufficient grounds for an immediate block and removing the posts, a major thing. I am not going to press the issue, because I do not sense any malice on your part, it seems like you are genuinely interested, and I am willing to accept you were not aware of the harrassing nature. But could we please just move on and stop this discussion? I also wish you peace and goodwill, and to be safe in this time of coronavirus. 71.212.174.169 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2020 (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)

I have added a section about the wheelchair statue controversy and included an image of it in the Legacy section. --Pithon314 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2021 (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)

I have reviewed the 1918 illness as described in several books, including Geoffrey Ward's A First Class Temperament, and Conrad Black's Champion of Freedom. Most are pretty vague about FDR's 1918 illness, either calling it "a strain of influenza" or "double pneumonia." Based on the lack of definitive documentation, I am removing the paragraph in question.THD3 (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the references and removing the paragraph. 174.31.140.173 (talk) 16:27, 24 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)

That's not even remotely how scientific papers work. Typically either a scientist comes up with a study idea and shops it around for funds, or an organization comissions a study of their choosing. Most scientists can't just decide to do a study to refute someone else's work. -- Alyas Grey : talk 07:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And the focus on GBS does seem really excessive to me. This is the only example I know of that's suggested it would be anything other than polio, but then polio is treated like it may as well be flat-earth theory. I'd argue that considering the respective recovery rates for both diseases, polio certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility. -- Alyas Grey : talk 07:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts: 1) Scientific papers refute other's work all the time. There are countless examples. 2) Where is polio treated like 'flat-earth theory'? That straw man argument totally fails. 71.212.53.121 (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster that it's wildly undue weight to devote more time in this article to the GBS possibility than polio. I've been reading a lot of Roosevelt history the past few weeks while improving the Eleanor R. article, and the books I have all describe it definitively as polio. So does the FDR presidential library. [1] A single dissenting study should not get the emphasis it does. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A 2016 study reaffirms the polio diagnosis for FDR. But some of the assertions in this Wikipedia article - like lack of neck pain - don't seem to be consistent with other accounts of Roosevelt's symptoms and/or accounts of typical symptoms of polio. For example, this article says Roosevelt had neck pain after the infection, and also that it was sudden, unlike the study, which cites his lack of neck pain and longer progression of illness as evidence of GBS. https://www.learningliftoff.com/overcoming-obstacles-how-fdrs-paralysis-made-him-a-better-president/ CDC information and a Google search for symptoms of polio in adults produces evidence that paralysis on both sides of the body, as well as a more severe course of disease, was far more common in adults with polio than in children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debdelilah (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with Crunch and Khazar2--way too much weight is given to one outlying opinion. YoPienso (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Revising based on consensus of sources

Nine years out, it's pretty clear that the GBS diagnosis has failed to take hold among researchers or historians.

A few sources that continue to unambiguously list the diagnosis as polio (there are many more):

• Jean Edward Smith's FDR (2007, winner of 2008 Francis Parkman Prize for history)
• Helen Rowley's Franklin and Eleanor (2010)
• Polio: An American Story (2005)
• Polio and Its Aftermath (2005)
• The Franklin D. Roosevelt presidential library

Jonathan Alter includes in a footntote with a dismissive note from another doctor:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=ASmlaOHQNawC&pg=PA355&dq=Roosevelt+%22Guillain-Barre+Syndrome&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BQTKUKXQDrK-2AWLxICADQ&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Roosevelt%20%22Guillain-Barre%20Syndrome&f=false

Lomazow and Fettman, writing specifically about FDR's medical history, mention it in a footnote where they also dismiss the reasoning. They refer unambiguously to FDR's disease as polio:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=xDQQWk1UknkC&pg=PA27&dq=Roosevelt+%22Guillain-Barre+Syndrome%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DwTKUKDMI8mD2gXwrIBA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Roosevelt%20%22Guillain-Barre%20Syndrome%22&f=false

I'm going to work this afternoon to revise this article and put this minority theory into proportion. Until a majority of reliable sources adopt it as the primary explanation, there's no reason for this article to give it such weight. Other opinions welcome, though, if you feel I'm overlooking major sources on FDR in the above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some adjustments to try to give this theory its due weight. Glad to discuss further if anyone wants to see more adjustments. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

/////////////

I'm sure you are sincere in your efforts to improve the article. You're obviously a dedicated wikipedian, and have edited many articles, including your work on Eleanor Roosevelt. But your changes here are simply not supported by the facts. It's good to "be bold" if the changes are correct. Otherwise, as in this case, it's just disruptive and destructive to the process.

First, you made a note on this article's talk page about your intent, and then willy-nilly, only two hours later, basically zero time for discussion, make very large changes to turn this article (and the section in the FDR article) upside down, to reverse the main conclusions. You call it "some adjustments" :) Really? Your edits are like a bull in a china shop. It forces me to make this long-winded response, because you made all these huge changes at one fell swoop. It would have been much better if you had asked and discussed first, especially because you admit yourself you are new to this topic. That might have let you avoid all the huge mistakes you made.

You decided to totally delete all the information in this article's paragraph starting "However, Roosevelt's age", but you gave no justification.

You went on to delete another entire paragraph in this article starting "Roosevelt's principal physicians", again with no justification or explanation.

Moving right along, with no pause, you deleted the entire paragraph, starting "Exact disease incidences and symptom probabilities". Again, no explanation. Just poof, gone!

Undeterred, you deleted the paragraph starting "A key finding in GBS". Again, no explanation. At this point, this is just destructive behavior, though you are apparently sincere.

As evidence for your big changes, you gave significant weight to Dr. Marino Dalakas' off-hand comment that the 2003 JMB study was a "significant stretch". There is no evidence Dalakas even read the JMB article. If he did, he had the opportunity to publish a letter to the journal editor, with a minimum of effort on his part. He chose not to. Later, Dr. Dalakas could have written and published his own analysis. Again, he chose not to. Perhaps he changed his mind. We'll never know. The point is 1) Dalakas presented no information to support the premise that FDR had polio, 2) science is advanced through publication in peer-reviewed articles, not by off-hand comments or popular press books, 2) your citing the Dalakas comment as if it had any importance is totally not warranted.

As further evidence for the drastic edits, you cite a brief footnote in the Lomazow / Fettmann book. But this is totally not evidence for your changes. First, the book is on a different topic, the death of FDR. Second, there is NO evidence a spinal tap was done!!! The authors present no new information to support the premise that FDR had polio. Nor do they preset evidence to refute the proposed diagnosis of GBS. You were persuaded by a random footnote in a popular press book co-authored by a tabloid journalist. According to wikipedia, "The (New York) Post is known for its sensationalist headlines and the unpredictable political views of its editorial board". From the author's web site: "Eric Fettmann is associate editorial-page editor of The New York Post". You call this a reliable source? So this citation of the Lomazow book as an argument is totally unwarranted. How can you possibly say Lomazow and Fettman "dismiss the reasoning"? This sounds totally absurd. Which of the three assertions in that little footnote dismiss the reasoning of the 2003 JMB article?

It's easy for Dr. Lomazow to put in a little footnote with factual errors and dubious statements in a popular press book. But for some reason, he has chosen to NOT write a peer-review article attempting to rebut the 2003 JMB article. Why not?

You argue that many, perhaps the majority of historians continue to state that FDR had polio. That's perhaps the one factual point we might agree on. But repeatedly saying something does not make it true. The key point is that none of those dismissive historians took the trouble to address the points of the 2003 JMB article. Until they do so, and objectively say what is wrong with the reasoning in the JMB article, or WHY they think FDR had polio, it doesn't add to the discussion, and is not a relevant reference. A general history with hundreds of pages that mentions FDR's illness in a few sentences is not anywhere near the same level of source material as an article or book that specifically treats the topic. But your citations of Dalakas and Lomazow shows you totally miss this distinction.

You took the radical step of renaming the FDR "Paralytic Illness" section to "Polio". Before your changes, the articles were even-handed and objective. Neither article said FDR had GBS. They said he had a paralytic illness, and objectively presented the evidence that was more likely GBS.You've decided to go out on a limb by baldly stating that FDR had polio. But the evidence does not support that, the literature doesn't support that, and based on the huge mistakes in your edits you're hardly qualified to turn the articles upside down.

Besides the other sloppiness and logical mistakes, "a conclusion was criticized by other researchers" is not even grammatically correct. You're in way too much of a hurry.

I hope you can see that it's hard for people (including yourself) to accept that something repeated countless times over some eight decades may not be true. Your comments and edits totally ignore that reality. Famous heart-touching movies saying that FDR had polio have been watched by millions. The association of FDR with the fight against polio further stamped into the public mind the idea that the cause was polio. But the scientific evidence is otherwise.

Your comments and edits show no evidence that you read the 2003 JMB article, or that you read the previous discussions. Your skepticism is not new. This has been thrashed out before, both here and in the main FDR article. Many of my comments here are just taken from what was said before. You're just the first one who let loose so freely and made such large-scale edits with no discussion. And the main evidence you offer is the silly Lomazow and Dalakas references, which are not appropriate, are even laughable.

So unless you can rebut my discussion showing why the Lomazow and Dalakas citations lack credibility, or unless there is something otherwise wrong with the logic I've presented, could you please revert your large-scale, incorrect edits? At that point, if you are still interested in the FDR illness topic, could you please read the 2003 JMB article (or maybe read it more carefully), and propose something more rational and helpful than the radical changes you've made? 71.212.99.137 (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I'd advise you to take a deep breath; there's no need to rush in breathing fire. I'm glad to work with you on this to create an article that reflects FDR scholarship as a whole. Thanks for the catch on my grammatical error, which I apologize for and have now fixed.

I respect your ferocious loyalty to this particular JMB article, but a Wikipedia article needs to give sources their due weight. In reviewing sources on FDR, I found absolutely none that took this article seriously, and many that stated the opposite. For example, two years after the paper's publication, medical historian David Oshinsky and Oxford University Press were still comfortable stating flatly that Roosevelt had polio in the 2006 Pulitzer Prize-winning Polio: An American Story. [2]

You invited me to read the JMB article more closely to debate its logic directly, but this isn't how Wikipedia works; we rely on experts in the field to evaluate evidence for us. I personally have no strong opinions about FDR's illness and found the GBS hypothesis quite interesting. What I do disagree with is misrepresenting scholarly consensus. Before I began editing this article, it contained eight paragraphs supporting the GBS theory, and one paragraph supporting the polio theory, which is wildly unbalanced.

The important point is that for now, we appear to agree that this is an extreme minority view in FDR scholarship. This means that it needs to be given a proportionately small space of this article. If you have feel I'm misrepresenting scholarly consensus, I'll be glad to look over any additional sources you provide. Otherwise, the best thing you can do to further your belief is to try to publish some material of your own on this topic in reliable sources; when a majority of Roosevelt researchers agree with you, the article will change accordingly.

Thanks for your interest in this article, and I'm looking forward to collaborating further. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to add on more afterthought, but I realized I should address this point more directly. You state that the fact that FDR researchers have ignored the JMB piece is evidence that it should be prominently included in our article: "The key point is that none of those dismissive historians took the trouble to address the points of the 2003 JMB article. Until they do so, and objectively say what is wrong with the reasoning in the JMB article, or WHY they think FDR had polio, it doesn't add to the discussion, and is not a relevant reference." But again, I have to stress that this is actually the opposite of how Wikipedia works. If an article is completely ignored and dismissed, as seems to be the case here, we give it less prominence, not more. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You say "take a deep breath. No need to rush in breathing fire". But you're the one who rushed in and failed to take a deep breath before making very large changes to turn this article (and the section in the FDR article) upside down, to reverse the main conclusions.

It's not a matter of "ferocious loyalty to JMB article". I would have loyalty to any good source. It's simply that 1) the JMB article is the only source that is peer-reviewed and 2) none of the other sources critique the main issues in the JMB article or provide new information to support the diagnosis of poliomyelitis in FDR’s case. If anything, "ferocious loyalty" would lie in the other direction, where the general public (and historians) are reluctant to change a long-held and cherished belief, instilled in us all over many decades, repeated countless times without question, each decade making the confirmation bias stronger.

I agree that wikipedia needs to give sources "due weight". But the main evidence you offered was the Lomazow and Dalakas references, which are not appropriate. Now you are trying to present new sources. But you haven't reverted any of your prior large-scale edits, or given me the courtesy of responding to what I said about Lomazow and Dalakas.

You direct to "due weight to minority opinions". The examples given by wikipedia are "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones". Do you really equate these to the scientific / medical question of the cause of FDR's paralytic illness?

Again, I'm giving you the courtesy of responding to your new citation, although the new citation is just another weak argument when your previous weak arguments have been refuted and you haven't shown the courtesy to respond. You're right that Oshinsky "states flatly that FDR had polio". But Oshinsky did not critique the main issues in the JMB article or provide new information to support the diagnosis of poliomyelitis in FDR’s case. Instead, he relied on remarks from a media interview that were taken out of context and raised other unconvincing arguments. In his final analysis Oshinsky relied upon the diagnosis made by FDR’s physicians in 1921 rather than a consideration of FDR’s symptoms and the current knowledge of neurological diseases that cause flaccid paralysis.

I never asked you to "debate the logic in the JMB article directly". I just said read the article, or read it carefully. You're trying to put words in my mouth, or you just don't read carefully.

The reason there were eight paragraphs supporting the GBS theory and one supporting the polio theory is because that's about the ratio of the available evidence. I don't think presenting factual statements qualifies as "wildly unbalanced". wikipedia is an encyclopedia that deals with facts as best we know them, from reliable sources. The substantiated facts concerning FDR's illness were previously outlined in the wikipedia article. The diagnosis of FDR’s neurological disease depends upon documented clinical abnormalities. His age, prolonged symmetric ascending paralysis, transient numbness, protracted dysaesthesiae (pain on slight touch), facial paralysis, bladder and bowel dysfunction, and absence of meningismus are typical of GBS and are inconsistent with paralytic poliomyelitis. FDR’s prolonged fever was atypical for both diseases. Finally, permanent paralysis, though commoner in paralytic poliomyelitis, is frequent in GBS. You chose to delete these facts, with no explanation. Your reasoning leads to something like the following: David Oshinsky is a "famous authority". He says FDR had polio. So that's it. We don't need to evaluate how David Oshinsky arrived at his "conclusion". Even if one (or all) of Oshinsky's arguments is wrong, it doesn't matter. It's just his "expert conclusion" that counts.

I never said "extreme minority view". You're trying to put words in my mouth.

You say you are going to "look over other sources I provide". Based on your citation of Lomazow and Dalakas, and your refusal to give me the courtesy of responding to the points I raise, I think you're hardly qualified to be some arbiter or judge of sources.

It's none of your business to suggest that I publish something. Why don't you just stick to the current impasse, that you have created? I'm not asking you to publish anything. I'm just asking you to revert the large-scale, radical edits that turn this article and section of the FDR article upside down, and take a more thoughtful, reasonable approach to this article.

You would need to clarify what do you mean by "Roosevelt researchers" and "research" upon which to base scholarly consensus. I think you have a big misunderstanding of what "research" is. Does simply repeating something that thousands have said before qualify as "research"? Or what about the Dalakas and Lomazow citations you offered as your evidence, with their factual errors and off-hand comments to a press inquiry? Do you consider those "research"?

You don't need to thank me for my interest in the article. I've been interested a long time. Instead, you need to take responsibility for the destructive, though apparently not intended as such, actions you have taken. Your edits are like a bull in a china shop.

I never said anything like "the fact that FDR researchers have ignored the JMB piece is evidence that it should be prominently included in our article". I have no idea where you got that from.

You repeatedly say "that's not how wikipedia works". But here's what wikipedia says about sources: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." The key phrases are "each source must be carefully weighed", "directly support the information", "appropriate to the claims made", and "checking facts". I would suggest you are ignoring these factors in evaluating the reliability of the sources in this case. You count a historian who just repeats what countless others have said before as equal weight to a peer-reviewed article that specifically addresses the clinical findings in FDR's illness and has not been scientifically. They are NOT equal, not by a long shot. And I totally disagree that because some historian does not mention the JMB article that means the JMB article should have less weight. What if the historian was not aware of the JMB article? Or just wanted to avoid controversy and meet a publication date? We have no idea. But back to Lomazow and Dalakas, whom you cited as the basis for your large-scale edits, were "facts checked" in those sources? Is saying something is "a stretch" checking facts? And what about that spinal tap? Is that "checking facts"?

Again concerning "how wikipedia works", its policy makes my argument you were over-bold and need to revert your edits and go back to square one: "In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles.". Your large-scale edits on this admittedly controversial article fail to meet the suggested standard of trying to reach consensus first. And you stubbornly refuse to revert your edits and take a more reasonable course.

You did correct the grammatical mistake. But otherwise you left the two articles turned on their head. I've given you the courtesy to address each point you made. You didn't answer (or even address) most of the many points I raised. Again you force me to make this long reply, because you won't take back your large-scale, radical, no-time-for-discussion edits and go back to square one. To repeat, because you have ignored what I said: Unless you can rebut my discussion showing why the Lomazow and Dalakas citations lack credibility, or unless there is something otherwise wrong with the logic I've presented, could you please revert your large-scale edits, and propose something more rational and helpful to the article? 71.212.99.137 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if you're only interested in peer-reviewed sources on FDR's polio on medical journals, they're easy to find. Devoting two minutes and working only from the NIH: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc., etc. Combined with the massive historical consensus, it's clear which opinion should be given the greater weight by the article. I understand that you feel your article's logic is superior to that of any other author, but it's not your call to make. We have to go with the outside experts.

If you don't find this persuasive, perhaps it would be better to ask for a third opinion at this point. I am still willing to discuss this, though, if you can find a way to distill your thoughts down to normal comment length. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In keeping with your request to build consensus, I've requested input at the FDR talk page, WikiProject Presidents, and WikiProject US. Hopefully some other editors can help point a way forward. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll add my 2 cents, per your request: The total reason for this article's existence is that the diagnosis is not absolute. As it points out (though in passing), it was highly unusual for an otherwise healthy 39-year-old man to contract polio out of nowhere, without any evidence of exposure. Polio, then as now, is a *socioeconomic* disease; that is, the virus is found in fecal material, and is typically spread via sewage, contaminated water, etc., in crowded, unsanitary areas. A wealthy man like FDR did not frequent environments conducive to contracting polio, and there is no evidence that he was ever exposed to the virus -- no other cases were reported on Campobello Island that summer. Historians are not doctors, and they have perpetuated the polio diagnosis as a virtual absolute because they don't know any better (I doubt that many of them have even heard of Guillain-Barré), and because they resist, even more than most people, any suggestion that something that they have always "known" to be true may not be true. History, as Voltaire (I think) said, is merely a myth agreed upon; historians have agreed on the polio diagnosis and are not interested in being distracted by new information. They are also under continual pressure from March of Dimes and other charity groups who regard FDR as their "poster boy." So I don't think you can conclude that the polio diagnosis is correct merely because historians continue to insist that it is. That doesn't prove that it is incorrect, of course; the point is that we simply don't know, and since the testing to distinguish the two diseases did not exist at the time, it is unlikely that we ever will, for certain. I totally get that WP is source driven -- but sources documenting the Guillain-Barré evidence are there, and should be acknowledged, since we can't depend on historians to do it.

I would also point out a (probably unintentional) misleading statement -- the article quotes Lomazow and Fettmann as saying that "Lovett was likely familiar with GBS, and would have been able to differntiate between GBS and polio based on the results of Roosevelt's spinal tap." That might have been true, although a tap was not an absolute differentiator at that time -- but there is no record that a spinal tap was done. That crucial detail should be amended to that sentence. You also say, above, that "[Lomazow & Fettmann] refer unambiguously to FDR's disease as polio." I'll have to reread that passage (my copy of the book is at home) -- but I happen to know Steve Lomazow personally, and I know for a fact that he does not exclude the possibility that Guillain-Barré caused FDR's paralysis. Kudos to you, by the way, for keeping this discussion civil. DoctorJoeE ^{talk to me!} 17:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. Joe--I only have access to that book through snippet view, and a more careful look at it would be great.

I have to admit that my view of this is colored at the moment by what I'd more or less suspected from the beginning: the reason this minority viewpoint gets such prominence in Wikipedia is because one of the article's authors rewrote every FDR-related article to promote his findings and delete those of others. (He even says so on a talk page; I have no idea why no one watching that article took any action). The entire reason this particular article exists is because this researcher, without telling the talk page about his conflict of interest, proposed a split to create it. [11] It then became a vehicle to report his findings on the subject, while excluding the findings of all other research on the subject.

I get very frustrated when people use Wikipedia this way, and admit that I tend to over-correct in the other direction in response. For now, I'm reverting this account's work, but a more nuanced solution is certainly called for in this article. The Goldman article is still a legitimate one, of course, and needs to be given its due weight in the more detailed discussion. The question is how much weight that should be. You probably agree that the original 6-8 paragraphs discussing it alone was a little much, when we have so many medical sources and historians out there to draw on. Once you've had a chance to look at some other sources, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts on how we can properly balance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hitting the reset button

We've gotten off to the wrong foot in this discussion, and for that I apologize. I think the easiest way to go forward is for us each to do us a bit of research and attempt to assess what sources accept the polio hypothesis and what the GBS hypothesis. Does that make sense to you?

So far, here's how it seems to break down to me, but I'll be interested to hear your summary, too.

Sources stating FDR had polio:

• FDR's doctors
• The FDR Presidential Library
• Pulitzer-Prize winners Joseph P. Lash, Doris Kearns Goodwin, and David Oshinsky
• Frances Parkman Prize winner Jean Smith
• every other book-length study of FDR I can find, whether from a popular or academic press
• At least five peer-reviewed articles in medical journals [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]

Sources we have stating FDR was more likely to have had GBS:

• the 2003 Goldman article
• possibly this, which I can't find an abstract of to confirm its thesis: Jarin, J. (2011). If Roosevelt only knew. Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association, 2011, Vol.52(3), Pp.76-8, 52(3), 76-78.

Again, if I'm missing any sources, please note them below; I don't mean to pretend that this is a comprehensive research review (which is borderline impossible on a subject like this). I'm just having trouble seeing why we should revert to a version primarily based on a single article dissenting from the consensus. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You talk about "hitting the reset button". But you haven't reverted any of your edits (other than reverting the grammatical error I pointed out). Does anyone else think it's OK for a wikipedian to make large-scale edits that turn a controversial article or section upside down, reversing the message conveyed, with no prior consensus? Does anyone think it's not OK? The policy I quoted above on "over-bold" seemed pretty clear to me. But maybe I'm missing something. I'd like to hear from others, and not waste more time trying to discuss with an editor who doesn't respond to the issues I raise.

Your words say "interested to hear your summary". I've previously given you the courtesy of responding, logically and civilly, to every point you raised. And every paragraph I wrote made a point that I would expect to get a response on. But you continue not to respond. The issues not responded to are all there above for anyone to see. Instead of responding, you continue to cite new sources that are simply not relevant to the specific question of the cause of FDR's paralytic illness, as I previously pointed out, and as you again failed to respond to. Can anyone else appreciate the difficulty (perhaps impossibility) in having a discussion where the other party doesn't respond to the points I raise, and my reluctance to prepare another "summary"? 71.212.125.238 (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that we now know for a fact that this article was created specifically to promote one journal article by one researcher, by an account claiming to be that researcher himself, I think my actions were entirely appropriate. And I have to say, knowing that this article was originally written by a conflict-of-interest account makes your own obsession with same journal article, alone out of the thousands upon thousands of pages written on FDR, look rather suspect. I'd invite you instead to read our guidelines on conflict-of-interest and single-purpose accounts and consider whether they apply in your case.

The Goldman article will still be included in some fashion in the article, as it should be. But whatever your motives, your days of pretending that it's the only trustworthy source on FDR's health in the world are over. I'm trying to get some other uninvolved editors here, and hopefully we can build an article that reflects the research as a whole, instead of being the DA Goldman Official Vanity Page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

It appears this article was created and heavily edited by an account identifying itself as the author of one of the sources, DA Goldman (User:Dagoldman), an account primarily used to promote Goldman's research across Wikipedia. Almost all FDR articles appear to be tainted by this account. I will be undoing these edits in the coming days. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You say "I'm reverting this account's work", and that you will apparently seek out and possibly undo any past edit that Dagoldman might have done related to FDR, apparently at your total discretion. It seems you again set yourself up as an authority on "how wikipedia works", able to make these kind of judgements single-handed. It seems very drastic and peremptory to me. Based on my understanding of what I read in wikipedia policy, it seems to me I have the right to edit this article. I thought it didn't matter who I am. I thought all that mattered was my behavior in presenting information, as best I understand the facts. Does intimate knowledge of a subject disqualify a wikipedian from editing? Does publication in peer-review literature on a topic disqualify an editor? That would certainly seem a very paradoxical, self-defeating position. Does anyone else think all my past edits on the topic should be subject to reversal, simply on the basis that I made the edits? Does anyone else think the article is "tainted" because I edited it? And if so, what might be a specific past edit I did that misstated or misrepresented the facts? I don't recollect any such action or intention.

I protest this threat to revert my past edits. I consider this to be harrassment. The harrassment policy states "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight.". My edits have been tracked, no question. I don't see how this tracking could be considered collegial or administrative. And it certainly does cause me distress to think that a wikipedian is going to delete past edits simply because I made them. Finally, I think many or most impartial wikipedians could see the potential of a perceived slight here. Again from the harrassment policy: "Threatening another person is considered harassment. This includes threats to harm another person, to disrupt their work on Wikipedia, or to otherwise harm them." I certainly consider being singled out to have my past edits possibly deleted, on the basis that I made them, and based on the decision of a single wikipedian, to "disrupt my work". Can I get an opinion on this from anyone else? If this is harassment, can I please get relief?

I don't want conflict. I'm just trying to defend my right to edit, and trying to defend the integrity of the factual information concerning FDR's paralytic illness. The diagnosis of FDR’s neurological disease depends upon documented clinical abnormalities (most of which the editor chose to delete), not upon counting the number of historians or others who simply repeat that "FDR had polio". I find it very tiresome and time-wasting to make reasoned discussion, and get no response to the great majority of what I say. I think this impasse will need to be adjudicated in some fashion, to determine if there is harassment toward me, to determine if we can revert the article to the previous state, and hopefully to prevent this kind of precipitate and very disruptive editing from recurring. 71.212.125.238 (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to post a notice at the Administrator's noticeboard; in fact, I'd encourage you to do so if you feel at all threatened or harassed. However, it seems to me clear that a vast majority your edits here have been for the specific purpose of promoting the views of your research in Wikipedia, including both your edits to all FDR-related articles and your attempt to promote your STD Wizard. I'm therefore comfortable reverting these edits as a block, while adding a note to relevant talk pages noting the situation and inviting other users to double-check my edits. If an uninvolved editor wishes to revert me, I'll be glad to let them, as I said on those pages. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I posted again at the conflict of interest noticeboard regarding your case and requesting outside review. You're welcome to post there yourself if you'd like to respond to anything I've said. (I previously posted a notice about this thread at User:Dagoldman, which I apologize for missing you with; I didn't realize you were also editing from a variable IP range.) I'd still encourage you to post at WP:AN/I, however, if you're concerned about harassment; that's something an administrator will look at right away. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Undue tag

I'm tagging the section as undue as it gives almost no discussion of the cases supporting polio, devoting a measly three sentences.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

a year later happening upon GBS vs polio

Yesterday i came online after hearing the GBS hypothesis on a crappy history channel show, and wanted to know just how legit it was. Well, I am still not entirely sure, but based on the article after initial reading I had no idea. The section jumps around from different author to different author, painfully and obviously delineated where the point of view changes. Additionally the different authors wrote in such a hostile way towards the others' pet diagnosis. To be honest, it was like a schizophrenic or multiple-personality disorder was writing an essay. And the repeating! Within a span of about 25 lines, the fact that FDR had a fever of 102 degrees was repeated three times! And in only one of those times was any kind of context of "Why do we care that FDR had a fever, and what does that mean to the topic at hand" addressed at all. Various sections were clearly inserted as rebuttals to other sections, which gives the impression of disfunction. I had to check and make sure i hadnt stumbled upon the talk page.

Just now I did a ROUGH revision attempting to consolidate the two points of view into a more coherent narrative. Please note, I did not include any original assertions or new content (other than my own rewording of others assertions). I did not have time to check and make sure the references previous editors included actualy say what they are supposed to say, and simply took them at their word. Additionally, there are gobs of unsourced assertions that for a controversial topic like this really need to be sourced if they are going to be included. I hope khazar is still monitoring this page because he seems to know how to do this better than I do.

After reading through the talk page and article up to this point, i think I would categorize the GBS hypothesis as this: A minority viewpoint, but not a fringe viewpoint. This probably makes its mention warranted, but tempered to make clear the current consensus. My edit just now tries to do that, without falling into talk-page style colloqial language showing open hostility to the minority view. The open discussion of pros and cons however might border on original research though... thoughts anyone? If this section were to be fixed, I think this article would be reasonably helpful to future readers interested in FDR. -Paul (on desktop) 12/14/13 around 7:30 PM 96.41.90.226 (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh and i agree with the undue tag mentioned above. Considering the very next section involves the topic discussed, and in fact already included repeats of the information, it seems very much like a talk-page manner rebuttal of its following section, and in argumentative colloqial language no less. I simply merged what little wasnt already mentioned in the article into the larger section below it. -Paul (on desktop) 12/14/13 around 7:30 pm even though the timestamp is off by many hours 96.41.90.226 (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancy between Wikipedia articles re: pictures of FDR in a wheelchair

There is a picture caption in this article which states "One of only three known photographs of Roosevelt in a wheelchair". However, in the Wikipedia article "Franklin D. Roosevelt" there is a sentence which states "Only two photographs taken of FDR while he was in his wheelchair are known to exist;" Bunkyray5 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to this — I've seen four photos. Given the ongoing search for still images as well as film clips, I've revised the language here and at the main FDR article to remove definitive numbers and reflect that they are rare. — WFinch (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Article structure

In the History section of the article, I've restored the Timeline subsection that was removed by a previous editor after this article was edited as part of the Wiki Education Foundation course assignment. As I noted in the edit summary when I restored it, some of the sourced content conflicts with recent changes. Rather than delete the information, I think a better solution would be to incorporate the bullet points in the Timeline into the new subsections within the History section. — WFinch (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Franklin D. Roosevelt's paralytic illness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030919130613/http://www.rooseveltrehab.org/ to http://www.rooseveltrehab.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Vincent van Gogh's health which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources

There are over a dozen citations to Prisoners of Time: The Misdiagnosis of FDR's 1921 Illness, published by EDPH Press, a division of Expert Health Data Programming, Inc., which is owned by co-author Daniel A. Goldman.[17] This would seem to be self-published. See WP:SPS Manannan67 (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The brief (four sentences) policy you cited states: “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.” The 2003 Goldman publication is reliable and independent. Therefore, the 2017 source may be considered reliable.

Any reasonable person would have read the policy and noticed the 2003 source. That you missed or ignored the obvious suggests either bias or sloppiness. Your comment about “disingenous” (a pejorative) suggests bias. The article says “2014 book” in a paragraph that you edited, so obviously this is just the writing style. Yet you throw around “disingenous” label. You are suspicious where there is no cause or merit for suspicion. Whether due to bias or sloppiness, you seem a very poor judge of sources. And it would have been more reasonable to wait for a response on the talk page before making so many edits.

Before your many edits, the 2017 source had about 20 citations. You knew that before doing the edits. That should have given you pause. Instead, you rushed forward to remove many important facts. In addition, in lieu of cited facts, your edits move the article more to a “Jones said it was polio, Smith said it was GBS” basis. That is certainly a bad trend. It’s as fallacious as saying “FDR’s doctors said he had polio, so he did”.

You make a lot of contributions to wikipedia. But based on the extensive drive-by edits, you do not seem to be a good editor, at least not for this article.

Look, for many decades, 100% of people believed that FDR had polio. But his symptoms, previously not examined in light of current knowledge, say the opposite. So it is not surprising that many people find that hard to accept, and hence have a bias. It would be surprising if you did not have a bias, were not skeptical. The confirmation bias is very powerful. But we have a duty to stick to the facts.

Given what happened, I think it would be best if you stayed away from this article, as your credibility is low. If you decide otherwise, please read the talk page first, stay NPOV, and exert more care. Thanks. 71.212.115.192 (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Any comments? For the reasons stated above, I intend to revert the 4/26 and 4/27 edits, after allowing a few more days for any discussion. In the meantime, may I ask that nobody edit the article? It would be nice if someone else joined the discussion. Thanks 71.212.115.192 (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted, because plenty of time has passed with no response, and not good to leave article in messed-up state. I also reverted the May 7 edit concerning "un-cited claim by one doctor". That is a misunderstanding, the result of the disruptive drive-by edits on April 26 and April 27 that removed the reliable source. 71.212.115.192 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(1) Although Dr. A.S. Goldman is apparently noted in his field and the author of a number of distinguished articles, POT is not one of them. There is no indication that the co-author/publisher is an established expert on the subject matter nor that his work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications (other than some news blurbs from 2003 when the book was being flogged around).

(2) Any reasonable person would have noticed the overwhelming pattern of edits and recognized a clear bias. The phrase "A 2017 book" not only obscures the fact that this is the very same book cited well over a dozen times, but suggests that there may be a second anonymous tome that supports the theory. This is not "disengenous" but misleading in light of the incessant attempt to promote the GBS theory.

(3) "In addition, in lieu of cited facts, your edits move the article more to a “Jones said it was polio, Smith said it was GBS” basis. That is certainly a bad trend." On the contrary, NEWSFLASH! wikipedia does not take sides. The Goldmans say GBS, EVERYBODY else says polio. Seventeen years later, and there is still not any professionally recognized endorsement by any others in the field, -perhaps because it has been effectively refuted. So yes, "X says A; Y says B". (Although at this point, GBS may be approaching fringe.) You also removed a sourced statement disputing the GBS theory.

(4) Frankly, I suggest that you, yourself, have a close connection to the work cited. It appears that I am not the only editor to take exception to your POV pushing. Manannan67 (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial IMG 2228.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Boy Scout jamboree

It's interesting that Roosevelt was at a large gathering where food would have been served and lots of kids were present prior to the onset of his illness. The polio virus is spread by the fecal-oral route and kids in those days, when polio was fairly common, often carried the virus with no symptoms. Could Roosevelt have ingested it in food prepared by someone who was a carrier and didn't wash their hands after using the toilet? The time between the jamboree and the onset of symptoms is just about right for polio. Interesting. 47.138.89.140 (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)