Trump looks so sick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is going in for his annual physical on Friday per White House. The thing is, he had his annual physical 5 months ago.

Does anyone want to admit there is something serious wrong here?

This is what the PP is referring to. He’s getting his second “annual” checkup within 6 months of his first one.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-get-routine-yearly-medical-check-second-6-months-rcna236538

I wonder if his insurance only covers one annual checkup per year like the rest of us.

He could afford to pay out-of-pocket, fwiw. But there's no such thing as a "second" annual physical. There's a follow-up, or a new appointment, etc.

or something they are monitoring every 3-6 months.

I have appointments every 6 months. It doesn't mean I'm very unhealthy, it just means I have a condition that requires some monitoring. The president has already admitted to a condition requiring monitoring - he just doesn't know how to speak the truth, he only knows how to lie.

I think he likely has issues that are being monitored. In addition to that, I wonder if “annual” physicals become more frequent after a certain age.

Nope. My healthy 82 year old fit and very active mother goes once a year.

Hmm. That sounds weird because my 11 year dog has biannual checkups.

Because people pay cash for vet visits. My dog got surgery and we had to take him in for endless wound checks and bandage changes. My friend the orthopedist said he’d love to have that many follow up visits with his human patients but of course insurance doesn’t cover that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is going in for his annual physical on Friday per White House. The thing is, he had his annual physical 5 months ago.

Does anyone want to admit there is something serious wrong here?

This is what the PP is referring to. He’s getting his second “annual” checkup within 6 months of his first one.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-get-routine-yearly-medical-check-second-6-months-rcna236538

I wonder if his insurance only covers one annual checkup per year like the rest of us.

He could afford to pay out-of-pocket, fwiw. But there's no such thing as a "second" annual physical. There's a follow-up, or a new appointment, etc.

or something they are monitoring every 3-6 months.

I have appointments every 6 months. It doesn't mean I'm very unhealthy, it just means I have a condition that requires some monitoring. The president has already admitted to a condition requiring monitoring - he just doesn't know how to speak the truth, he only knows how to lie.

I think he likely has issues that are being monitored. In addition to that, I wonder if “annual” physicals become more frequent after a certain age.

Nope. My healthy 82 year old fit and very active mother goes once a year.

Hmm. That sounds weird because my 11 year dog has biannual checkups.

Because people pay cash for vet visits. My dog got surgery and we had to take him in for endless wound checks and bandage changes. My friend the orthopedist said he’d love to have that many follow up visits with his human patients but of course insurance doesn’t cover that.

Well, we are paying $14,500 per year per capita in the US for health Care. Where is it going?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a card-carrying member of the Democratic Party……… but I don’t recall such a long discussion on DCUM about Joe Biden‘s health before his tragic debate.

Maybe if you’d treated him with skepticism then we could have had a primary on time and not ran a weak candidate like Kamala!

I’m very upset with the Dem party but I really don’t think Biden was as bad generally as Trump is (cognitively). Do you remember after the debate Biden did an open ended policy talk with reporters? He was fine. Trump couldn’t do that. I think Biden was really tired and hadn’t slept and was having trouble with the audio (they cut it for us but I heard that the candidates could still hear cross noise on their ears). None of that is good for someone his age. I agree he was too old for the presidency and the debate was a disaster and that he’d lost a lot since what he was during the Obama administration, but he was still nowhere near as rambling and incoherent as Trump is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband is a doctor. No doctor worth his salt would ever call labwork "exceptional", when the patient is on statins and blood thinners. The "14 years younger than cardiac age", based on the reading of a mere ECG, is complete made-up crap. You cannot tell "cardiac age", which isn't even a useful medical comparison, from an ECG. The doctor is professionally out of bounds here.

When you take out the superlatives, you get: the bloodwork and the ECG were normal. This simply means that the patient, despite ongoing chronic diseases common for his age group, is stable. You'll notice they mention imaging and don't talk about the plaques in his arteries, which he's bound to have if he's on blood thinners and statins.

My father is in hospital with cardiac insufficiency and other major problems, and guess what? His ECG is normal too!!!

Big whoop.

It also states that the evaluation was follow up, not an annual checkup.

So the descriptors provided by the White House earlier was…MORE LIES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband is a doctor. No doctor worth his salt would ever call labwork "exceptional", when the patient is on statins and blood thinners. The "14 years younger than cardiac age", based on the reading of a mere ECG, is complete made-up crap. You cannot tell "cardiac age", which isn't even a useful medical comparison, from an ECG. The doctor is professionally out of bounds here.

When you take out the superlatives, you get: the bloodwork and the ECG were normal. This simply means that the patient, despite ongoing chronic diseases common for his age group, is stable. You'll notice they mention imaging and don't talk about the plaques in his arteries, which he's bound to have if he's on blood thinners and statins.

My father is in hospital with cardiac insufficiency and other major problems, and guess what? His ECG is normal too!!!

Big whoop.

Even MAGA knows this “doctor’s report” is a lie. This isn’t how doctors communicate. But given his history of projection, we know his heart is actually quite unhealthy.

Definitely, it was mentioned once too often.

The heart age part was laughable.

(When you selectively share results like that, the goose is cooked. )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aren't "exceptional" test results out of normal range? So out of range..but stable?
I am sure Don thinks it means good.

Exactly.

Stable usually means still bad, but they haven’t gotten worse since April.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband is a doctor. No doctor worth his salt would ever call labwork "exceptional", when the patient is on statins and blood thinners. The "14 years younger than cardiac age", based on the reading of a mere ECG, is complete made-up crap. You cannot tell "cardiac age", which isn't even a useful medical comparison, from an ECG. The doctor is professionally out of bounds here.

When you take out the superlatives, you get: the bloodwork and the ECG were normal. This simply means that the patient, despite ongoing chronic diseases common for his age group, is stable. You'll notice they mention imaging and don't talk about the plaques in his arteries, which he's bound to have if he's on blood thinners and statins.

My father is in hospital with cardiac insufficiency and other major problems, and guess what? His ECG is normal too!!!

Big whoop.

This would mean a lot more if your husband, the doctor, wrote it. If you want to give a medical opinion, go to medical school.

[Anonymous]

Well he just got the jab MAGA morons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband is a doctor. No doctor worth his salt would ever call labwork "exceptional", when the patient is on statins and blood thinners. The "14 years younger than cardiac age", based on the reading of a mere ECG, is complete made-up crap. You cannot tell "cardiac age", which isn't even a useful medical comparison, from an ECG. The doctor is professionally out of bounds here.

When you take out the superlatives, you get: the bloodwork and the ECG were normal. This simply means that the patient, despite ongoing chronic diseases common for his age group, is stable. You'll notice they mention imaging and don't talk about the plaques in his arteries, which he's bound to have if he's on blood thinners and statins.

My father is in hospital with cardiac insufficiency and other major problems, and guess what? His ECG is normal too!!!

Big whoop.

This would mean a lot more if your husband, the doctor, wrote it. If you want to give a medical opinion, go to medical school.

You lose all credibility when this is the point you choose to focus on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is going in for his annual physical on Friday per White House. The thing is, he had his annual physical 5 months ago.

Does anyone want to admit there is something serious wrong here?

This is what the PP is referring to. He’s getting his second “annual” checkup within 6 months of his first one.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-get-routine-yearly-medical-check-second-6-months-rcna236538

I wonder if his insurance only covers one annual checkup per year like the rest of us.

He could afford to pay out-of-pocket, fwiw. But there's no such thing as a "second" annual physical. There's a follow-up, or a new appointment, etc.

or something they are monitoring every 3-6 months.

I have appointments every 6 months. It doesn't mean I'm very unhealthy, it just means I have a condition that requires some monitoring. The president has already admitted to a condition requiring monitoring - he just doesn't know how to speak the truth, he only knows how to lie.

I think he likely has issues that are being monitored. In addition to that, I wonder if “annual” physicals become more frequent after a certain age.

Nope. My healthy 82 year old fit and very active mother goes once a year.

Hmm. That sounds weird because my 11 year dog has biannual checkups.

Because people pay cash for vet visits. My dog got surgery and we had to take him in for endless wound checks and bandage changes. My friend the orthopedist said he’d love to have that many follow up visits with his human patients but of course insurance doesn’t cover that.

Well, we are paying $14,500 per year per capita in the US for health Care. Where is it going?

Hospitals and insurance companies need an (intelligent, ethical) DOGE-type group to get in there and find out what the F$!& is going on and where the money is all going. Big team of too forensic accountants tearing into the records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband is a doctor. No doctor worth his salt would ever call labwork "exceptional", when the patient is on statins and blood thinners. The "14 years younger than cardiac age", based on the reading of a mere ECG, is complete made-up crap. You cannot tell "cardiac age", which isn't even a useful medical comparison, from an ECG. The doctor is professionally out of bounds here.

When you take out the superlatives, you get: the bloodwork and the ECG were normal. This simply means that the patient, despite ongoing chronic diseases common for his age group, is stable. You'll notice they mention imaging and don't talk about the plaques in his arteries, which he's bound to have if he's on blood thinners and statins.

My father is in hospital with cardiac insufficiency and other major problems, and guess what? His ECG is normal too!!!

Big whoop.

Even MAGA knows this “doctor’s report” is a lie. This isn’t how doctors communicate. But given his history of projection, we know his heart is actually quite unhealthy.

Definitely, it was mentioned once too often.

The heart age part was laughable.

(When you selectively share results like that, the goose is cooked. )

According to world renown Cardiologists, the heart age thing is pure quackery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is going in for his annual physical on Friday per White House. The thing is, he had his annual physical 5 months ago.

Does anyone want to admit there is something serious wrong here?

This is what the PP is referring to. He’s getting his second “annual” checkup within 6 months of his first one.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-get-routine-yearly-medical-check-second-6-months-rcna236538

I wonder if his insurance only covers one annual checkup per year like the rest of us.

He could afford to pay out-of-pocket, fwiw. But there's no such thing as a "second" annual physical. There's a follow-up, or a new appointment, etc.

or something they are monitoring every 3-6 months.

I have appointments every 6 months. It doesn't mean I'm very unhealthy, it just means I have a condition that requires some monitoring. The president has already admitted to a condition requiring monitoring - he just doesn't know how to speak the truth, he only knows how to lie.

I think he likely has issues that are being monitored. In addition to that, I wonder if “annual” physicals become more frequent after a certain age.

Nope. My healthy 82 year old fit and very active mother goes once a year.

Hmm. That sounds weird because my 11 year dog has biannual checkups.

Because people pay cash for vet visits. My dog got surgery and we had to take him in for endless wound checks and bandage changes. My friend the orthopedist said he’d love to have that many follow up visits with his human patients but of course insurance doesn’t cover that.

Well, we are paying $14,500 per year per capita in the US for health Care. Where is it going?

Hospitals and insurance companies need an (intelligent, ethical) DOGE-type group to get in there and find out what the F$!& is going on and where the money is all going. Big team of too forensic accountants tearing into the records.

As does Wall Street and their recklessness only to be bailed out…..

[Anonymous]

He went in to get his Fauci Ouchie.

Did he even say Thank You?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband is a doctor. No doctor worth his salt would ever call labwork "exceptional", when the patient is on statins and blood thinners. The "14 years younger than cardiac age", based on the reading of a mere ECG, is complete made-up crap. You cannot tell "cardiac age", which isn't even a useful medical comparison, from an ECG. The doctor is professionally out of bounds here.

When you take out the superlatives, you get: the bloodwork and the ECG were normal. This simply means that the patient, despite ongoing chronic diseases common for his age group, is stable. You'll notice they mention imaging and don't talk about the plaques in his arteries, which he's bound to have if he's on blood thinners and statins.

My father is in hospital with cardiac insufficiency and other major problems, and guess what? His ECG is normal too!!!

Big whoop.

Even MAGA knows this “doctor’s report” is a lie. This isn’t how doctors communicate. But given his history of projection, we know his heart is actually quite unhealthy.

Definitely, it was mentioned once too often.

The heart age part was laughable.

(When you selectively share results like that, the goose is cooked. )

According to world renown Cardiologists, the heart age thing is pure quackery

According to anyone with a medical or nursing degree, the heart age thing is pure quackery.

The physicians looking after Trump sell their soul to write these crap reports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband is a doctor. No doctor worth his salt would ever call labwork "exceptional", when the patient is on statins and blood thinners. The "14 years younger than cardiac age", based on the reading of a mere ECG, is complete made-up crap. You cannot tell "cardiac age", which isn't even a useful medical comparison, from an ECG. The doctor is professionally out of bounds here.

When you take out the superlatives, you get: the bloodwork and the ECG were normal. This simply means that the patient, despite ongoing chronic diseases common for his age group, is stable. You'll notice they mention imaging and don't talk about the plaques in his arteries, which he's bound to have if he's on blood thinners and statins.

My father is in hospital with cardiac insufficiency and other major problems, and guess what? His ECG is normal too!!!

Big whoop.

Even MAGA knows this “doctor’s report” is a lie. This isn’t how doctors communicate. But given his history of projection, we know his heart is actually quite unhealthy.

Definitely, it was mentioned once too often.

The heart age part was laughable.

(When you selectively share results like that, the goose is cooked. )

According to world renown Cardiologists, the heart age thing is pure quackery

if a human had consumed a clove or two of raw garlic daily for 40 years, I could buy into the cardiac age variance but not many folks are that dedicated to cardiac health.