I don’t think that that study has been accepted as gospel on the subject. Also notice this little comment at the end of the article.
I agree.
Sorry to continue this hijack, but it would be wrong to let that study be accepted as “evidence” to vindicate that old wive’s tale.
I believe this is the article cited as proof that exposure to cold causes colds. First, note that it deals only with cold symptoms. Whether these people actually developed a viral infection or not, was not examined. Further, the main study result was of the most marginal statistical significance (p = 0.047). Finally, those people who reported the presence of a cold after being exposed to cold were a priori more likely to be cold sufferers in the first place (p = 0.007). Hence, the groups were not even matched for relevant risk factors. Bottom line is that is a very weak study which, IMHO, adds almost no information on the subject. (Moreover, it is at odds with many other studies showing negative results. Hence, even if valid, its results would not negate those other studies - only extend the confidence interval around them).
His Legacy included a really nifty stamp collection.
Which he, alas, has never figured in.
If you don’t mind, please let’s address this in another thread.
Granted, it’s not a U.S. postage stamp, but still…
Or this actual U.S. Postal Service series (which I’d almost forgotten). He’s in the lower-right corner: http://www.knottywood-treasures.com/pictures/2216stamps-.jpg
Supposedly, Harrrison’s inaugural address had a first draft that was twice as long and Daniel Webster pared it down to a somewhat manageable length.
Remember that people were used to politicians speaking for longer periods of time back then.
“Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.”
Best. Campaign slogan. Evah!
Fidel Castro and his cronies certainly took a chapter from the WHH playbook, it would seem.
Since this thread has ricocheted from postage stamps to Indian curses to the cause of the common cold, left unanswered is why did WHH not wear his overcoat? Was he channeling JFK?
Not to say that an overcoat–or lack thereof–played any role in his subsequent death… 
I’d just like to add that I have a friend, an older gentleman, who is the grandson of President Tyler. I’m always amazed to think that his grandfather – his father’s father – became president of the U.S. over 165 years ago.
President Tyler had many children and his youngest was born when the president was into his 70’s. That child, a son, also had children very late in life, including my friend who is now about 80 years old himself.
A priceless item, which I urge you all to go bid on forthwith! Thank you for alerting me to this valuable historical piece, samclem.
Tyler met his second wife when she fell into his arms after a cannon exploded that killed, among others, Tyler’s Secretary of State and Secretary of the Navy.
Man, I can never meet chicks when Cabinet members die in accidental explosions.
Okay, I give up. Besides the Adamses, Harrisons, and Bushes, who were the fourth pair? Were the Johnsons related? (The Roosevelts were fifth cousins.)
Doesn’t sound very scientific to me. Even the writer of the article seems to have doubts.
The Roosevelts were fifth cousins, so they were related. I should have said “relative.”
Lots of presidents were related then. I read about a genealogy study and there have been a few Presidents who were descended from this one Irish guy. Bush and Clinton are like fifteenth cousins. FDR had a common ancestor with five or six other presidents. Madison and Taylor were second cousins.
Maybe. I thought it was Kerry. But anyway. . . While I grant you that that technically makes them related, I don’t think that in common parlance the concept of “relatedness” extends that far.
The Rooseveldts were fifth cousins. Other than their last name, they were barely related. I was making the same point as you. Madison and Taylor were much more closely related than TR and FDR.