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.