Talk:Paralytic illness of Franklin D. Roosevelt

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 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. 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)

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)

I know that this question that IAM asking you may sound dumb but I don't have the slightest clue about polio but Iam asking because now after reading and watching old news clips and reading info about WW1 & WW2 so this is news to me of how much pain & suffering he endured plus from the looks of things he seemed like he was a good hearted and respectful person.To bad that he ended getting I'll from polio is it contagious how can a person get polio?. Esther 209 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

If it’s one source that says FDR has this other illness - is it true?

If this was some other article, and only one source was used many many times for one point - wouldn't it be considered unsupported? The reliance on this one source that FDR didn't have polio is kind of ridiculous. Just because a scholar doesn't make it right. If 10 sources say it, that's great! But if you can only find one source, don't make an article using it. ~2026-14509-40 (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Specifically this Goldman guy who's in every mention of GBS. ~2026-14509-40 (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

he prolly had trouble shittin

he was paralyzed that's ma reasonin ~2026-25004-16 (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2026 (UTC)