Breaking News! It is now officially ok to question Hillary's Health
Hurray Hillary health fans. It is now permissible and even highly recommended that Hilarious be subjected to a thorough neurological examination. This recommendation was not issued by a right wing nut job nor a crazed Alligator. Instead it comes Obama's prior personal physician.
Enter Dr. David Scheiner, a former physician to President Barack Obama, on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront" on Tuesday night who had the audacity to raise a number of questions around both the health of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and the transparency surrounding it.
"There are a number of questions I have," said Scheiner, who was the president's physician for 21 years. "First of all, she's also 68 years old, and while I think that letter was well-written and very professional, unlike Dr Bornstein's (Donald Trump's doctor), it's not enough."For example, she's on Coumadin, a medication to prevent blood clots," he continued. "You have to monitor that and it says she's being monitored regularly, I'd like to know how well she's being controlled. That's a difficult drug to use."
Dr Schiener goes on to add:
"Also, I think she should have had a neurological examination, a thorough neurological examination in 2016," recommended Scheiner. "We know what happens to football players who have had concussions, how they begin to lose some of their cognitive ability...
Now where have we heard the loss of cognitive ability following concussion before? I remember now, it came from a member of the 99 percent
Teaser: be prepared gentles, for the filling of an epic bladder voiding about Her Heinous's plumbing.
Comments
I don't question her health.
That she's mentally incompetent is beyond question.
That she is a narcissistic, habitual liar is not in question.
She and penis cheney should get together and write a book about how they mange to survive without a heart of their own.
It seems to be a medical condition also suffered by the greedy rat fuckers they associate with.
No offense to real rats.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
McCain got ahead of this topic and provided hundreds of pages
of medical information. She ought to do the same.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
It doesn't matter.
If she doesn't start running a campaign about issues, she's not going to win. The media is finally covering her. And all she ever talks about is Donald Trump, the "loose cannon." What a loser candidate!!
It does matter
because enough people will vote for her that the results can be tampered with and made to show her "winning".
Wait, Dr. Ash Has Certified Hellery With Clean Bill Of Health!
Now let's all have one last meal before bedtime.
Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.
He's a
damned liar.
Coumadin "thins" blood. The test to find out whether a
patient needs a blood thinner is not part of a routine physical. Usually, they do the test after the result(s) of a blood clotting problem manifests, such as a stroke, a heart attack, a bowel infarction, etc. So, it may be interesting to know why she was tested.
She's on Coumadin (warfin) because
She had 2 blood clots in her legs back, one in 1998 the 2nd in 2009. Then of course she had the clot in her head in early 2013, after she fainted & hit her head around Xmas 2012.
As I read this closely, I'm unsure when she started Coumadin. She did not start it with the 1st clot. It could be that it only started when she had the clot in her head.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/physicians-letter-on...
Most patients on warfarin are tested monthly
because diet and stress and many other factors can impact how thick or thin blood is.
Theses days since there are more options, warfarin is not the first bloodthinner used for most issues (although for some, there is only warfarin)
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
The letter says that she's tested regularly.
I believe it's once a month.
Do you have a basis for your belief that Hillary is tested only
once a month?
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/169928#comment-169928
How does that apply to Hillary's health?
As I posted, the test is not part of a routine physical. So, the potential for clotting problem often escapes detection until some event occurs, be it a clot or a need for surgery or whatever. However, once a clotting issue has been diagnosed, the frequency of the test depends entirely on the test results of the specific patient.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/169928#comment-169928
Coumadin
From what I've read, Clinton was prescribed Coumadin after her concussion and clot in December 2012.
By clot in her head, do you mean in her brain?
Dural sinus thrombosis is not actually in the brain
but it is immediately adjacent to the brain. because the cerebral and dural veins are valveless, that means blood can back up into the cerebral venous system. The venous system has limited capacity to accept volume expansion and often ruptures when that capacity is exceeded. This can result in intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage or both.
For further details, see this article: dural sinus thrombosis
Thanks. So, is a clot "in the head" the correct lay term?
In layman usage, a stroke.
Like my SAH 5+ weeks ago, it could also be described as a stroke. Maybe non-paralytic. But likely symptomatic, to the patient and to a neurologist.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Duh! Thank you for giving the answer without pointing out
how dumb the question was.
I am so sorry.
Often, Blood thinners
are given in prophylactic manner to post surgery patients as well as patients requiring long term bed rest.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
There are a good handful or more of issues where it is
prescribed that way (warfarin or other med if possible)
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
I'm not sure how that relates to Hillary's health.
The test for clotting is indeed given to patients about to have surgery, for obvious reasons. As I said, however, it is not part of a routine physical. Once a patient is diagnosed, the frequency of the test depends on the test results. Patients whose results are stable may be tested as infrequently as once a month. When I was on a thinner, I was tested every few days because my results varied so much. The results almost always showed that the dosage had to be adjusted up or down, so they would adjust it, then test again to see if the adjustment was successful. This went on until I no longer needed thinners. So, while knowing a general rule is fine, we should not extrapolate from a general rule to what is going on with Hillary or any individual.
Your personal experience is correct but is not the whole story
Patients with recurrent clots of the venous system (usually) or the arterial system (mainly cardiac) are placed on long-term anticoagulation, sometimes for life. Most common example would be patients with atrial fibrillation or people with recurrent venous thrombosis, usually of the leg veins. Coumadin is very difficult to manage. Blood tests should be done at least once monthly on well-managed patients. But many people have erratic response to the same dose, hence need more frequent testing.
Newer generation anticoagulants can be taken orally (such as Eliquis or Xarelto) and do not require monitoring at all. The down side of these drugs is that there are either no effective reversal agents or that if available, they are not commonly in stock at many hospitals. The clotting disorder responsible is often not discernible, but the treatment remains the same.
That's an odd characterization of my post.
By definition, a personal experience is not the whole story and is correct, unless the person claiming to have had the experience is lying. My post was complete in that it said more than enough to indicate a contrast to the general rule of once monthly testing, which was its express purpose and its only purpose. I take it you do not disagree with the only general statement I made, namely "while knowing a general rule is fine, we should not extrapolate from a general rule to what is going on with Hillary or any individual."
Inasmuch as replied a post about my personal experience, I will state that, while this may be of general interest,
it did not apply to my situation, in case anyone infers that. Does it apply to Hillary's health?
I think the rest of your first paragraph
was evident from my post about my personal experience. (Inasmuch "stickable" veins are hard to come by my body, I assure you that I have not forgotten.)
The rest of your post, being some general info about other anti-coagulants, of course, does not apply to my personal experience with warfarin/Coumadin. Does it apply to Hillary's health?
I prescribe consultation with Dr. Google for those who want additional general information about clotting disorders and medications, whether or not such info is relevant to Hillary's health.
Finally, I hope you will forgive an unsolicited suggestion: I recommend terms like "veins," "arteries." No doubt, a physician who has explained things to patients for decades knows how to translate docspeak into patientspeak far better than I do, but it seems a reminder can't hurt, unless being readily understood is not your goal.
A good, sensible fair-minded article on The Hill
thanks for sharing it!
If we can take a break for a moment and just think of Hillary as just another human being, I think it's good that this article focuses on the opinions of two doctors that both HRC and Trump should submit to thorough medical testing, which should be made public. My opinion leans toward thinking that HRC does have neurological problems that are progressing, and the 'conspiracy theory' impasse covered so well by The Hill suggest to me that HRC may be avoiding needed medical care, including the thorough neurological exams the doctors in The Hill recommended. I hope this article will create enough space for this suffering woman to get the care she needs, whatever the consequences to her political career.
The news today covered last night's speech/TV event. I didn't read about that, except to note that one report said she 'spoke haltingly'. Later, at reddit, someone had posted a headline and photo (no link to reporting), saying that HRC was wearing an in-ear hearing aid or sound-transmission device (Like GWB wore during one debate, to be fed answers). The theme in the thread was 'cheat/cheater/cheating/'.
I raised an eyebrow. The picture did show something that looked like a pearl in HRC's ear. 'Is this cheating?' I asked myself, 'Or is this a Reasonable Accommodation that will allow a woman with cognitive deficits do her job of making a speech and answering questions?' (That's the Fair Housing Act term; the ADA term, iirc, is 'Reasonable Modification'. My life has taught me about disability-related civil rights law.)
That thought made me flash back to one video that Alligator Ed used in one of his diaries about the variety of brain dysfunctions that could possibly stem from HRC's concussion in Dec 2014 (iirc). The video was of the incident which was reported as 'HRC's SS agents responded to protesters at event.' The video showed HRC on a stage, speaking before a crowd, over the usual crowd-sounds. A different sound arises off to one side, all heads pivot in that direction (to see the protestors rising to show their signs). Hillary does not move. Seconds go by. The old hand at this does not turn or start speaking again. She stands still, staring emptily, generating small filler-sounds like Ummm, Ummm, Ummm. her jaws champ together several times, then her head swings quickly to the right in a move that looks uncontrolled (to me). As her face swings toward, then past the camera, I see an empty look of complete terror in her eyes. She has not just lost her place in the speech, I realize; she is completely disoriented and doen's know where she is or what she is supposed to be doing except that she is on-stage at another speaking venue and it is her job to be speaking but she can find no words and has no idea which of the many, many earned phrases she is supposed to be saying now, right now. Her husky handler who carries the hypodermic jumps onstage behind her and speaks, quite clearly, the calming words: 'It's okay, you can do this, keep talking, keep talking, we've done this, you can handle this, keep talking, you can do it . . ..' I see a wave of relief and gratitude flood her face as she hears his voice; she seems to draw strength form him and her body straightens, her head lifts as her confidence returns. She finds a word, I think it was 'Well.' The crowd-noise has risen, become a gabble, she has to re-take the stage and the sound-space. She raises an arm, proclaims her word, 'Well!' and takes a step. For three or four moments, until the crowd has quieted, she continues taking a step, arm raised, proclaiming 'Well!', turning, taking another step. (in this interim, the two SS guys jump onto the stage, to one side. This was reported as their 'taking action against a possible threat', but it wasn't. If it had been, they would have moved swiftly into well-practiced positions or actions, purposeful, brisk. This did not happen. Instead, they milled around, indecisive, unsure of what to do, throwing questioning glances at each other that neither knew how to answer, throwing glances at the husky handler looking for clues about what to do. Eventually, iirc, they just got down off the stage, after HRC had reclaimed it.) After several moments of regaining the stage (and her confidence in her body and speech), Hillary was able to stitch together enough of a summary of what had just happened and turn it into a clumsy stab at Trump, HRC was able to regain enough of the thread of her speech to start again. The video ended.
Now look, folks: I've never been a fan of Hillary, and I went through my DemExit (so to speak) in 2014, during the DK flame-wars that precede the Purge the led, eventually, to the creation of c99. Knowing that I would withhold my vote (my only option until Bernie caught my attention), I had ignored the Primary pre-Season until the Ides of March edict happened. Even while ignoring things, I couldn't help but be dismayed by all we were learning about Hillary's character in the last year. I have nary a word of praise nor a recommendation for this woman; but one thing I know is that her kharma will come upon her, and it's best for me to keep my energies clear of that mess.
But I too have a Before and After in my life. In the Before-time, up till my mid-40s, I had a very good, extremely capable, and admirably reliable Brain/Mind. And then I remember how -- early in the After -- I would turn to my Mind expecting it to respond as usual only to find that it was gone, gone, not one word left to find, the concept of 'sentences' remembered but no hope of finding enough words to string together and no ability to string them together right even if a few showed up. And I am here to say that is one goddamn freakin' scary moment, or hour, or day.
So when that woman's empty, terrified eyes swung through my field of vision, my heart turned over. I felt Pity. I know that Terror. I felt Compassion.
Feeling compassion for an injured, terrified woman who appears to be losing mental abilities does not alter my reasoned belief that this neoliberal warhawk who believes it her duty to expand American Empire while walking roughshod over American Law does not deserve to serve one day in the White House.
It just frees me from having to mock her disability or use it against her as proof of her being undeserving of the Presidency. (It may, once established by medical testing, demonstrate her physical inability to fulfill the duties of office. But then again, once the parameters of any possible cognitive defects are clearly known -- what if Reasonable Modifications to her disabling conditions could be found that would make it possible for her to fulfill those duties? That would put me in the uncomfortable position of disapproving most heartily of the woman, her policies, and per positions -- but of also being obligated to defend her civil rights as a disabled person.)
(And just a thought for those who can't feel pity or compassion, who think Kharma is just a bunch of hooey and are quite happy holding on to SchaudenFreude, think about this: Think how much she would hate knowing that you Pity her?)
(No subject)