Was Mary Todd Lincoln's Erratic Behavior Due to a Vitamin Deficiency?

gem

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
In Ladies Tea, we're rather used to discovering that things have been reported over and over based on incorrect historical impressions, especially when it comes to women. We learned from Professor Emily Clark that there was never a single contract for placage, though numerous historians have reported this as a given fact. They simply took an earlier historian at his word and repeated the falsehood. A similar thing has happened with Mary Lincoln, where historically oriented folks like your Dr. Sotos continue to simply repeat the lies that a drunk, William Herndon, wrote about Mary Lincoln.

You've started numerous threads in which you've pushed people to take a different look at John Brown, who hacked people to death with broad swords. It seems odd that when it comes to a female, you're unwilling to deviate in the slightest from the lies published 150 years ago by a degenerate alcoholic lawyer.

I have not formulated any 'hard' opinions about Mary. Once I finish the book I'll be able to say, at least in my opinion, if the vitamin deficiency theory has any credence.
 

gem

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
For the remainder of this thread I'll provide comments, as I see fit , rating the 'evidence' provided by the author.

I'll rate my opinion of the evidence as either negative (argues against vitamin b12 deficiency) , neutral (vitamin b12 deficiency plausible, but other explanations equally plausible ), positive ( supports b12 deficiency, with alternate explanations less likely), or flawed (evidence should be thrown out because its too flawed to be meaningful).
 
Last edited:

gem

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Sotos begins by talking about what got him thinking about the diagnosis of pernicious anemia (a disease that results in vitamin b12 deficiency)

He said it basically happened by accident. He came across a letter that described Mary complaining of a sore mouth while nursing. Thus caught his attention because he is not aware (neither am I) of any direct link between nursing and sore mouth. That got him thinking about what could cause sore mouth and vitamin deficiency is a possibility.

Mary's complaint of sore mouth is interesting but as evidence on its own I rate it as neutral.
While vitamin b12 deficiency can cause sore mouth so can lots of other things like infection, blisters, teeth grinding, etc.

If we can tie it to other things we might be able to build a case but on its own its neutral.

I'll continue forward examining the 'evidence' . . .
 

JPK Huson 1863

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Location
Central Pennsylvania
I have not formulated any 'hard' opinions about Mary. Once I finish the book I'll be able to say, at least in my opinion, if the vitamin deficiency theory has any credence.


You seem awfully determined there be some earth shattering, definitive and untouchable and permanent conclusion on Mary Lincoln reached solely on your own er, research and this author's conclusion alone.

OK. I am married to an analytical scientist. Have two adult children, one masters, one doctoral level, both scientists. This does not make me by osmosis a scientist but it does make me vastly familiar with a certain methodology they use- and are extremely picky over- in their work. Nothing you are stating or hope to prove is being approached with anything one can regard as a stage towards a focused project. Please, if this is a genuine goal, it is time to put your cards on the table and stop hinting around at some impressive Mary Lincoln expose.
 

18thVirginia

Major
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Like Annie, I'm not a trial lawyer, but have been married to one for a few decades and have learned something about "evidence." I also spent some years sitting through trials and supervising the collection of one kind of evidence. Some believe that the courtroom is the crucible of truth, but that happens only when two learned counsel argue it out and bring forth witnesses to give various points of view. You've cited Mary's trial as evincing some sort of "evidence," but it was nothing of the sort, as both lawyers were from the same side.

It seems that you've already reached an end of the trial conclusion starting at the beginning, and are willing to listen to only one side of the 'evidence.' There's nothing new in that, it's what's been done to Mary Lincoln for the past 150 years.
 
Last edited:
Top