Clinton released health information

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Nobody cares.

Then why were you slobbering all over the other Clinton-health threads? Are you just upset that she's okay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a real doctor


https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/05-physician-letter/HRC_physician_letter.pdf

CNN's Sanjay Gupta said there is not any new information from this release. They need to release her FULL medical records given her failing health.

Ding, ding, ding.

So CT scans and blood tests are not enough. Nothing will be ever enough

It's not just Sanjay Gupta. The CNN reporter that has been covering her also said not a lot of new information released today. I guess the blood tests may be more recent than previously released. But the records about her concussion, blood clot, hypo, frequent fainting (Bill Clinton said it then walked back) are not revealed.

I had a blood clot. There are no other records that exist after that. Once it's done, it's done

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eh. Nobody cares.

Because it does not say Parkinson?

Winner!

How do we know it's not fake?

"Something's going on."

My eyes have been playing tricks on me then, because she sure as hell doesn't look and act healthy! But whatever, I'm still not going to vote for her. And honestly, most people know she lies and covers up the truth to protect herself.

1992: Papa Bush collapsed in Japan as President. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/09/world/bush-in-japan-bush-collapses-at-state-dinner-with-the-japanese.html?pagewanted=all

2002: Geroge W Bush faints when eating a pretzel http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jan/14/news/mn-22490

People keep fainting around Sanders: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/bernie-sanders-supporters-keep-fainting-at-his-rallies-a6863266.html

Why do people keep fainting around Bill Clinton:http://www.salon.com/2011/01/04/bill_clinton_makes_people_faint/

Fainting in Obama Rallies: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/at-obama-rallies-fainting-spells-resurge/

What all this tells is that fainting is very common and associated with dehydration most of the time, because when you are going to rallies of presidential candidates or presidents, you usually go through long security lines where you most likely cant carry water bottles and its a long and tiring process. The same logic applies to those who are speaking in rallies, plus exhaustion by months of speaking and easy to be dehydrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hilary's vitals are really good. And they did a ct scan of her heart and her brain, both normal. Based on this she would be low risk from an actuarial basis.

You obviously don't have a clue about actuarial science. Just because her pulse and bp is good, and a ct of her heart and brain is normal, there are a 100 other things that can affect a persons health and mortality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilary's vitals are really good. And they did a ct scan of her heart and her brain, both normal. Based on this she would be low risk from an actuarial basis.

You obviously don't have a clue about actuarial science. Just because her pulse and bp is good, and a ct of her heart and brain is normal, there are a 100 other things that can affect a persons health and mortality.

You mean the actuarial science that greatly favors a 68-year-old woman whose mother died at 92, over a 70-year-old man whose father died in his early 70s from Alzheimer's which she was diagnosed with in his late 60s?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilary's vitals are really good. And they did a ct scan of her heart and her brain, both normal. Based on this she would be low risk from an actuarial basis.

You obviously don't have a clue about actuarial science. Just because her pulse and bp is good, and a ct of her heart and brain is normal, there are a 100 other things that can affect a persons health and mortality.[/quote

You can't find anything wrongs. So you're just gong to make shit up, huh?

This is like the birther bullshit over Obama's "long form" birth certificate all over again. You just weave conspiracy theories because you have nothing but dick in your hand. Deplorable.

[Anonymous]

She's copying Trump. In all honesty she had no choice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilary's vitals are really good. And they did a ct scan of her heart and her brain, both normal. Based on this she would be low risk from an actuarial basis.

This woman has had three known recent falls resulting in broken bones, loss of consciousness, and concussion. She is completely NON insurable. They don't care that she has low cholesterol!

Her triglycerides is a little high too. No big deal. But the frequent seizure/fainting/forgetfulness is concerning and not addressed by this release.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilary's vitals are really good. And they did a ct scan of her heart and her brain, both normal. Based on this she would be low risk from an actuarial basis.

This woman has had three known recent falls resulting in broken bones, loss of consciousness, and concussion. She is completely NON insurable. They don't care that she has low cholesterol!

Her triglycerides is a little high too. No big deal. But the frequent seizure/fainting/forgetfulness is concerning and not addressed by this release.

Well, they can't address made up stuff. Medicine is science, after all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a real doctor


https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/05-physician-letter/HRC_physician_letter.pdf

A real doctor would never say Hillary is healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilary's vitals are really good. And they did a ct scan of her heart and her brain, both normal. Based on this she would be low risk from an actuarial basis.

You obviously don't have a clue about actuarial science. Just because her pulse and bp is good, and a ct of her heart and brain is normal, there are a 100 other things that can affect a persons health and mortality.

You mean the actuarial science that greatly favors a 68-year-old woman whose mother died at 92, over a 70-year-old man whose father died in his early 70s from Alzheimer's which she was diagnosed with in his late 60s?

No, the fact that isolating someones health to one or two areas, which is that the pp did, is not enough. Family history is nice but it only plays a more significant part if there is a history of major illness and death in close family members at a young age. No one that knows anything about this would make such a statement as above. There is a reason there are a lot of questions asked about a persons health and lifestyle to determine what group they might fit in. In Hillary's case we already have a history of blood clots. Did her mother have that same history?

BTW, she is taking the coumadin for DVT and we know that is an effective treatment yet it recurred even so. But, DVT is a life threatening illness and can strike at any time and there are additional risk factors in taking blood thinners.

So, this isn't an assessment of her overall health, just rebutting the silly notion that a ct of someone's heart and brain, along with good blood pressure and heart rate, makes her a low risk from an actuarial standpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilary's vitals are really good. And they did a ct scan of her heart and her brain, both normal. Based on this she would be low risk from an actuarial basis.

You obviously don't have a clue about actuarial science. Just because her pulse and bp is good, and a ct of her heart and brain is normal, there are a 100 other things that can affect a persons health and mortality.

You can't find anything wrongs. So you're just gong to make shit up, huh?

This is like the birther bullshit over Obama's "long form" birth certificate all over again. You just weave conspiracy theories because you have nothing but dick in your hand. Deplorable.

Make shit up? Exactly what was put forth that was made up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilary's vitals are really good. And they did a ct scan of her heart and her brain, both normal. Based on this she would be low risk from an actuarial basis.

You obviously don't have a clue about actuarial science. Just because her pulse and bp is good, and a ct of her heart and brain is normal, there are a 100 other things that can affect a persons health and mortality.

You mean the actuarial science that greatly favors a 68-year-old woman whose mother died at 92, over a 70-year-old man whose father died in his early 70s from Alzheimer's which she was diagnosed with in his late 60s?

No, the fact that isolating someones health to one or two areas, which is that the pp did, is not enough. Family history is nice but it only plays a more significant part if there is a history of major illness and death in close family members at a young age. No one that knows anything about this would make such a statement as above. There is a reason there are a lot of questions asked about a persons health and lifestyle to determine what group they might fit in. In Hillary's case we already have a history of blood clots. Did her mother have that same history?

BTW, she is taking the coumadin for DVT and we know that is an effective treatment yet it recurred even so. But, DVT is a life threatening illness and can strike at any time and there are additional risk factors in taking blood thinners.

So, this isn't an assessment of her overall health, just rebutting the silly notion that a ct of someone's heart and brain, along with good blood pressure and heart rate, makes her a low risk from an actuarial standpoint.

I can't speak to actuarial science, but I can say that the brain CT rules out Parkinson's and stroke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilary's vitals are really good. And they did a ct scan of her heart and her brain, both normal. Based on this she would be low risk from an actuarial basis.

You obviously don't have a clue about actuarial science. Just because her pulse and bp is good, and a ct of her heart and brain is normal, there are a 100 other things that can affect a persons health and mortality.

You mean the actuarial science that greatly favors a 68-year-old woman whose mother died at 92, over a 70-year-old man whose father died in his early 70s from Alzheimer's which she was diagnosed with in his late 60s?

No, the fact that isolating someones health to one or two areas, which is that the pp did, is not enough. Family history is nice but it only plays a more significant part if there is a history of major illness and death in close family members at a young age. No one that knows anything about this would make such a statement as above. There is a reason there are a lot of questions asked about a persons health and lifestyle to determine what group they might fit in. In Hillary's case we already have a history of blood clots. Did her mother have that same history?

BTW, she is taking the coumadin for DVT and we know that is an effective treatment yet it recurred even so. But, DVT is a life threatening illness and can strike at any time and there are additional risk factors in taking blood thinners.

So, this isn't an assessment of her overall health, just rebutting the silly notion that a ct of someone's heart and brain, along with good blood pressure and heart rate, makes her a low risk from an actuarial standpoint.

I can't speak to actuarial science, but I can say that the brain CT rules out Parkinson's and stroke.

Brain damage is not ruled out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilary's vitals are really good. And they did a ct scan of her heart and her brain, both normal. Based on this she would be low risk from an actuarial basis.

You obviously don't have a clue about actuarial science. Just because her pulse and bp is good, and a ct of her heart and brain is normal, there are a 100 other things that can affect a persons health and mortality.

You mean the actuarial science that greatly favors a 68-year-old woman whose mother died at 92, over a 70-year-old man whose father died in his early 70s from Alzheimer's which she was diagnosed with in his late 60s?

No, the fact that isolating someones health to one or two areas, which is that the pp did, is not enough. Family history is nice but it only plays a more significant part if there is a history of major illness and death in close family members at a young age. No one that knows anything about this would make such a statement as above. There is a reason there are a lot of questions asked about a persons health and lifestyle to determine what group they might fit in. In Hillary's case we already have a history of blood clots. Did her mother have that same history?

BTW, she is taking the coumadin for DVT and we know that is an effective treatment yet it recurred even so. But, DVT is a life threatening illness and can strike at any time and there are additional risk factors in taking blood thinners.

So, this isn't an assessment of her overall health, just rebutting the silly notion that a ct of someone's heart and brain, along with good blood pressure and heart rate, makes her a low risk from an actuarial standpoint.

I can't speak to actuarial science, but I can say that the brain CT rules out Parkinson's and stroke.

Brain damage is not ruled out.

And you are a... neurologist?