Hillary Clinton has right frontal lobe epilepsy! video analysis and medical literature review
I won't disguise my animosity toward Hillary Clinton. But I am presenting here, for lay person's understanding, the neurologic disorders exhibited on video from multiple sources at multiple times. Extensive literature research has gone into the production of this essay, which will no doubt be labelled as fantasy by Clintonites. However the sources are independent, international and appearing in medically peer-revised journals. After talking to a very intelligent gentleman with a post-graduate degree, it became apparent to me that what I thought was obvious, was opaque to him. The problem is that he doesn't speak "medical". Be warned that I am fully aware that the main readership of this blog is non-medical. Therefor, I will make every effort to write in English instead of medical. Suffice it to say, that since I have only at work on this project for 5 days, I have reviewed over 50 journal articles. The reference to these articles are not intended for a lay audience, but the citations are presented just so that the factual basis for my assertions will be researchable by anyone who has the interest. Furthermore, I welcome questions in the comment thread (though I am not always prompt to respond to them. Anyone interested in more information, including URLs for the medical articles can c99-mail me.
Due to the subject, Hillary Clinton, we may assume several things, which are not medical but political in nature.
1. You cannot believe anything she says
2. We do not have access to her medical records, about which I will comment later
3. None of the so-called medical experts commenting on her condition did not have access to her medical records
As a consequence I feel it is incumbent upon her to release her medical records promptly.
The reason why I undertook this project was because of a video taken as she was walking off the stage following her acceptance speech. I then checked that reliable medical source YouTube (snark) for more videos. And there are quite a few. I have only seen 4 which I consider definitely neuropathological but there are probably more.
There are several other issues here about this essay. The list of references is not complete, as I felt that for the purposes of this essay that would be overkill. A second point also relates to listing my sources (references) is that this prospect has been entirely more time-consuming than I first envisioned, hence the references are not listed alphabetically by the first authors's last name.
Before we get to the video analysis, let's discuss what we do know about what happened to her in December, 2012. Alas, we know very little since, of course the reporting was done almost exclusively by the Main Stream Media (MSM).
First reportage in print of which I am aware is from CNN on December 15, 2012. The other almost contemporary report is from ABC news. the next press report which I found pertinent (which is not to say that my review of MSM offerings was comprehensive) came from CNN also.
On January 1, while Clinton was checking out of the hospital, further information relating to her medical condition was released
Mrs. Clinton, 65, was admitted to NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia hospital on Sunday after a scan discovered the blood clot. The scan was part of her follow-up care for a concussion she sustained more than two weeks earlier, when she fainted and fell, striking her head.
. The citation for this is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-is-dischar...
From this very limited sourcing, we have learned two things, which are unchallenged by Clinton:
1. She had a head injury resulting in concussion.
2. She sustained a symptomatic right lateral sinus thrombosis about two weeks later.
That information is undisputed.
Then there follows just two of the videos posted on YouTube
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMHOcmDVBP0 Hillary tries to laugh off seizure
This video demonstrates several things, best seen with slow motion:
Her eyes look down and to the right along with slight head turning briefly; immediately thereafter her head returns to neutral position but her eyes are not well-visualized because of slow blinking, slower than normal. Immediately thereafter, rapid neck flexion-extension oscillations begin; some brief time afterward she begins laughing but not making eye contact initially. These are involuntary movements--in other words, she had no control over them. Later, I will give scientific citations to what I am now proposing: first, this could be a manifestation of gelastic epilepsy, often seen with medial temporal lobe but more often frontal lobe seizures. Gelastic means "laughing". Secondly, but less likely this could be a manifestation of torticollis, which means "twisted neck". The problem with that explanation is that emotional displays do not occur. Third, it could be an immensely clumsy attempt at humorous interaction. This third alternative is also unlikely, because in previous video imaging of her laughing (or cackling) there are no such untoward movements.
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbDBRWb63s, the truth about Hillary's Bizarre Behavior.
First of all, ignore 90% of what the narrator says. He seems to have little understanding of the issues he discusses. Example, her laughter (other than the subject of the preceding video) is not psychotic. Plus the narrator conflates two conditions: personality disorder, which develops early in life and is not evidence of brain injury. Some of the tendencies of her sociopathic/narcissistic traits would be ease of irritation, explosive bad temper (sometimes violent), and impulsivity. Consult Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, edition 5 for descriptions of the various personality disorder.
Now, having said that, let me add that either or one or both of her known medical conditions could exacerbate her psychopathic traits.
The key video here is the one obtained after the nomination acceptance speech. Again, slow motion tells the best story because important finding occurred but too briefly to be detected at normal projection speed. In the video, while walking off stage, Hillary's eyes open widely, staring straight ahead while her jaws become slack and open--this is fleeting. What happens next is diagnostic of focal right frontal lobe epilepsy: she turns here eyes which are wide open upward to the left, turns her head upwards to the left, opens her mouth widely--but notice it opens more widely on the left side than the right. These are typical signs of an aversive seizure in which the body parts move in the opposite side to the side of the brain which is abnormally excited.
Mild head trauma, by which the lay audience understands as concussion with brief loss of consciousness, actually spans a spectrum varying from no loss of consciousness at all, to prolonged deep coma. Focal neurological signs may or may not be present. Intracranial bleeding may occur even in the absence of unconsciousness. Headache, although present in about 90% of concussion, may be totally absent, or quite transient, or severe, prolonged and disabling. Due to the varying circumstances associated with concussion, there is great heterogeneity of pathologic responses both in location and severity.
Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is common in the United States, with estimates ranging between 1.3 million and 1.7 million per year. Of those TBIs, approximately 75-80% are mTBI. Only a small portion of otherwise neurologically intact are hospitalized unless acute imaging shows a lesion. Other reasons for hospitalization are failure of sensorium to clear, persistence or development of neurological signs or worsening headaches despite normal imaging.
Although the majority of patients with uncomplicated mTBI recover completely, there is a small but significant minority who do not. Other than outright neurological deficits, the bane of mTBI research and treatment has been the "post-concussion syndrome" (PCS). Only within the past 10 years has real progress been made between discerning purely psychological symptomatology and validated proof of underlying neuropathology. Five percent of mTBI patients go on to have PCS lasting 1 year or more.
This non-technical article describes common perceptions about minor head injury
This highly technical article discusses specific brain architecture changes following mTBI accompanied by PCS.
This article deals with neuropsychologic measures of PCS but no anatomic correlation with imaging. It contains a good description of some of the most commonly utilized neuropsychologic tests.
This article demonstrates early anatomic brain changes following MVA as demonstrated with advanced neuroimaging techniques within days of MVA. Most of the MVAs invalid neck extension-flexion injuries but some presumably were rotatory. Just as in concussion as a general field, MVA related neurotrauma is heterogeneous.
This article is long and complex but it illustrates very well the subtle anatomicdisturbances which are technically caused lesions. Though complex, these studies are totally safe (providing the patient has no metallic implants other than certain MRI-safe orthopedic implants), painless and noninvasive.
This citation is about an MRI-based technique which objectively quantifies chronic mTBI
Here is a very salient citation, concerning intermittent involuntary emotional outbursts, previously known as
pseudobulbar affect of which the primary symptoms include emotional volatility, pathological laughter--or crying. One of the causes for this condition is mTBI.
Another very appropriate question is whether Hillary Clinton is aware of her peculiar (epileptic) behavior. Surprisingly, the answer is No.
Saving the best for last: manifestations of frontal lobe seizures. Although the seizures described herein are "intractable". the general description of individual seizures comports with the video imaging and the medical literature cited not only in this essay but in the international literature. Note that some epileptics experienced coughing fits.
Commentary
Please consider this a work in progress. There is much more information to be explained by me--and I hope by others. Some of those issues involve further exploration of the post-concussion syndrome, neuropathology of cerebral dural sinus thrombosis, and inter-relations between post-concussion syndrome and cerebral damage from dural sinus thrombosis.
Admittedly, some of my remarks may be considered speculative. It would be delightful if knowledgable neuroscientists would comment on this work.
I make two requests of you, my fellow c99ers:
1. Please be liberal in your comments. Send me c99-mail questions/comments as well.
2. SPREAD THE WORD.
Comments
True
and most people in the 16 - 30 age group 1964 - 1980 were Wallace Democrats. My labels are pretty loose,
On to Biden since 1973
Ageist claptrap
spoken by someone who is ignorant of history, insulting to readers here, and allows demagogues to fill the spaces in his/her cranium with divisive lies to what purpose ... enlighten us? "The boomers are gobbling up everything that isn't nailed down and investing in crowbars..." What does that even mean? And FYI, the boomers were hard hit by the Great Recession. Many lost their houses and are homeless. Most lost their pensions and many lost their life savings. And just try and find a job if you've lost one after the age of fifty. Yep, ageism is alive and well here and everywhere.
At the very least, Americans deserve full disclosure of
existing conditions, given that we "elect" a Vice President mostly only in theory.
DISAGREE
This is serious stuff. We're not talking about her capacity to walk across a room, for example.
I find the "human frailty" argument to be a bridge too far. To the best of my recollection, we have never not demanded that our potential Presidents be as fully-physically fit as possible--and demonstrably so, medical records are appropriately released, with candidate permission--prior to being selected as the candidate.
Further, if TPTB are hiding a selected candidate's epilepsy from the public, sorry, but IMO, that's gone beyond unacceptable.
Agree, look at Gerald Ford
Gerald Ford's clumsiness became a living for Chevy Chase on SNL. No one said that he had a medical condition only the proclivity to fall down on the job (in more ways than one but, not physically impaired)...
Oh, I'm for Jill Stein so no $hill remarks from the gallery please.
Peace
FN
"Democracy is technique and the ability of power not to be understood as oppressor. Capitalism is the boss and democracy is its spokesperson." Peace - FN
Consider this caveat--most of us consider Trump a loose
cannon, prone to careening off in different directions at the same time. It's one of the reasons many people won't vote for him. What the American Public needs to understand, is, that by virtual of her possible neuropathology, Hillary Clinton is impetuous and emotionally labile. Sorry if I lack the appropriate political correctness, but such a neurologically damaged (and I am excluding her psychopathy) person cannot be allowed in control of our military and our nuclear arsenal. For the same reason that our military must be physically fit, the same must apply to the Commander-in-Chief. We don't expect her to do 100 push-ups but we do expect her to be able to cooly, rationally consider events and not to be prone to impetuosity, reduced multi-tasking, and emotional lability.
Consider giving the disabled a break, would you want the pilot on your next flight to be epileptic? I don't think many people would.
This is an overreach, you can't diagnose her
from afar. What we know about her medical condition isn't exclusionary criteria by any standard.
She is unfit to be POTUS because of her affiliations, ideology, affinity for war, or any number of other reasons. Having experienced a health issue from which she's 99% recovered doesn't qualify, and as Elena said, pursuing this line will likely backfire.
Please drop it, unless you can demonstrate that she is severely impaired (which by all metrics, she isn't).
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Please see comments to you above
What "metrics" are you referring to? Her MRI scans? Her EEGs? Her neuropsychologic test batteries? Please enlighten me with facts. The sad truth is that we have very little.
No, I will not drop it. This matter is too important to accept your off-hand comments as valid. Give me proof or disproof.
Can you demonstrate that she is severely impaired?
Does she have uncontrolled seizures? Is she unable to function?
You've demonstrated nothing so far, except an outside chance that she may have an odd tic or two after her episode, which does not impair her cognitive function in any demonstrable form. Your attempt at practicing medicine via Wikipedia is frankly disgusting.
My recommendation to you is that if you are this interested in neurology, then enroll in med school, complete a residency and get board certified. Then we'll talk.
Except that if you actually do that, you'll already understand what I'm saying.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
You sir are practicing pseudomedicine.
What medical credentials do you have? Please see my response to a comment below. Please avoid ad hominem attacks--this is not DK. Everything I wrote in my essay is supported by the medical literature linked in the article. Did you read any of it? Did you understand any of it?
For your information I have gone to medical school. I am a Board-Certified Neurosurgeon. What are your superb medical credentials?
I don't believe that for even a moment
If that were true, you wouldn't have gone off on this crazy rant, and you would have identified the pathology better.
If you're a neurosurgeon, then I'm Napoleon.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
I strongly object
To you calling another poster a liar simply because he is refuting your assumptions of who he is. You in fact do not know he is lying, and unless you can bring any evidence to support he is not who he says he is, then I kindly ask you to stop BAD.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I think we'd better replace that terminal D with an A
lest we see another screaming tantrum about how offensively sexist and bigoted we are being.
Approximately 49% of the human race has dicks. 100.000000% of the human race has assholes.
And a few of them like to flaunt theirs.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Initially
I was going to go with STFU but wasn't sure about the policy of that one, so I stuck with TOP jargon of asshollery. Your suggestion for future use has been noted.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Did you watch the video
of her uncontrollable head shaking ( when she's wearing the blue suit) - and the startled expression of the person asking her a question.
That is an indication of a serious, serious problem.
I did and that observation is noted in the essay
As I pointed out, the episode could be a manifestation of pseudo-bulbar affect but also gelastic seizure. Difficult sometimes to tell them apart absent ongoing EEG recording.
Sorry Alligator Ed
I was trying to ask the question of dervish, not you.
Couldn't understand how he could dismiss your comments, if he had watched the video of Hillary.
Sorry for the confusion.
BTW, thanks again, Alligator Ed for this essay. Still surprised at how the MSM have managed to surpress all this information. Also think the doctors reports are worth nothing, nada, too easy to bribe them, they've got nothing to lose, and a lot to gain by reporting what the Clintons want reported.
Don't think much has changed since the days when docs hid JFK's Addisons - that filled out face and "suntan" from cortisone - tho we didn't know enough to question it then.
IMO, the key difference
is that most physical disabilities would not limit someone from being President as long as said disability does not impair cognitive function. What we are now questioning is how impaired is she? It appears that she may be more impaired than most people know of. That is probably why she does not hold press conferences and had mostly very small and intimate events when campaigning for the nomination. Now the question becomes how can she not address this issue with these videos that have surfaced.
What I found very disturbing is how her handler had to tell her to keep talking after she appeared to be a deer in headlights over some protestors. That is small stuff, so how is she going to handle the very physically and emotionally stressful job of President? Even her closest aide, Huma Abedin said in an email that Hillary is sometimes confused.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Take it to Obama
So, what do you wanna do, complain to Obama, the MSM, the corporations and foreign governments backing Her (and Bill)? Yeah, just tell them to bring Bernie back from the dead and install him in Hillary's place because it's better for the country to be run by a healthy psychopath than an unhealthy one, and since Hill is unhealthy and definitively has right-frontal epilepsy, she needs to be removed from the sham election, stat!
Medical records
According to this article, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton released their doctors' statements about their medical history. Based upon what I read in the linked article, Clinton has been on blood thinners for several years. Nowhere is epilepsy cited.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Thanks! I went from there to the original article that's more
about her. You can read her doc's entire letter here, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-medical-records
Damn. As of last year anyway, her BP and cholesterol were better than mine.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Thanks, E.C. for the citation.
I have read the letter. Now for my analysis. Dr. Bardack may be head of internal medicine but she is not a neurologist, epileptologist, neurosurgeon. Nowhere in the 2 page letter, which supposedly encapsulates a very complex medical history do we learn of pertinent medical interventions:
1. What were the results of her post-mTBI imaging?
2. What were the results of her pre and post-DST thrombosis imaging?
3. Exactly what clotting factor abnormalities were examined?
4. Did she have an EEG? If she did, did it contain a sleep tracing?
5. Were neuropsychological tests administered? If they were, what were the results?
6. The listing of "current medications" is not necessarily comprehensive. Indeed she may taking all those drugs--but she might also be taking anticonvulsants, anti-depressants, mood-altering drugs.
And if you had access to the results you're asking for
What would you determine? Is the patient suffering from massive seizures? Is she unable to function in her daily routines? If the previous were true, can her condition be managed through medications?
I don't doubt that Hillary may have the odd tic here or there, but most patients that display her level of functionality after a CVST are fine, and so is she.
I truly hate defending Clinton, but this line of attack is absolutely pointless.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Are YOU a doctor?
I don't doubt that you don't like speculation, but you don't get to determine whether it lives here or not; whether you comment the same way multiple times or not will not burnish your cred here, particularly if you're belittling others.
Even better
I'm an ICU nurse with long neuro experience, married to a neurologist.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
How would you like someone
Here to question your statement of who YOU are? And call YOU a liar? YOU see how that works?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Thanks, gg. but I don't think Mr Zeleny is a neuroscience expert
He quotes a note from doctor whose qualifications are not stated. It's not satisfactory that we take that doctor's words at face value unless we know a lot more about the situation. Let me just offer a few of the myriad of things concerning HRCs health: what type of neuroimaging did she receive after her TBI, what sort of imaging did she receive both before and after her dural sinus thrombus, did she have an EEG--and if she did, did it include a sleep tracing? Has she been checked for neuroborreliosis (tertiary Lyme disease) or tertiary syphilis? Did she undergo a complete hematologic risk factor analysis, such as for instance including antiphospholipid antibodies, Protein S or Protein C deficiency, Leiden factor V levels?
To be honest
I personally have thought that she was not healthy appearing, but I felt I had to link what her own doctor released in all fairness.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Yes, she's on blood thinners
She experienced a venous sinus thrombosis in 2012, which we knew already. If she is experiencing minor long term deficits from this, which I am not convinced that she is, they are minor enough to not impair her in any significant way. I think that this line of attack is both fruitless and petty.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Your medically uninformed ad hominem comments are wrong
I would like to know what medical information you posses which would disprove any of my assertions. To call my serious medical inquiries as fruitless and petty suggests that you join the Hillbots at DK.
Give me facts. What have you to offer?
I am no Hillbot as anyone on this forum knows
My point is that you're attempting to assert something that can't be asserted. Yes, Hillary had a vascular issue four years ago, as many of us have and will. You can't extrapolate that into unfitness for office unless you can demonstrate that she suffers severe deficits, which of course, you can't.
Your quackery is way off base, please stop, while you're behind.
You may be deep enough into this that you can't see it, but what you fail to realize is that the burden of proof is on YOU to show that she is medically unfit. Nothing you have stated disqualifies her on a medical basis. You haven't shown that her judgment or capacity is compromised in any way by this episode.
I can affirm that her judgment AND capacity is severely compromised by who she is, who she associates with and her ideology. Let's attack her on those grounds, and not on something stupid.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Obviously, you have not attended to any of my comments
about my personal qualifications, appearing both above and below this comment.
This person is running for President of the United States. THE BURDEN IS ON HER TO PROVE SHE IS MEDICALLY FIT. We have no proof of her cognitive status. The videos as explained in the main body of the essay are focal epilepsy until proven otherwise.
Just Stop
This is tedious.
And it won't work here. My vision for Caucus 99 is that a definite brain-drain exists between LOF and here, and that we can benefit from this trend. Highly qualified and brilliant diarists post here. Diaries like this deflect from the main goal.
Seriously, I would consider deleting this diary entirely, but if you are of a conspiratorial mind-set, and believe that I am actually "one of them", then by all means continue, but know that you are fundamentally and entirely off-base. This diary is an embarrassment.
Good day.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Mr. Dervish, if you are a mister
your factless ad hominem attacks on the essay serve only to reflect the vacuity of your intellect. You don't bother to rebut a single piece of medical evidence--you have your opinion and you're going to stick to it--facts be damned. All you have presented are mindless ad hominem attacks. I repeat, have you bothered to read the comments I already submitted? Did you follow the links to multiple articles emanating from peer-reviewed journals? You have presented a copious stream of witless, unreflective commentary--see, I can go as hominem, too.
You lack even the basics
required for medical inquiry. You are a fraud, and I am calling you out. You are no neurosurgeon, despite your claims.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
DBAA
It's our ONE rule here.
Conspiracy Theory is NOT forbidden.
Wild Mass Guessing is NOT forbidden.
Off-the-Wall speculation is NOT forbidden.
Gratuitously slamming and insulting other users is VERY VERY STRONGLY frowned upon.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
OK, here's the point
the guy is making claims while stating that he is a board-certified neurosurgeon. I find his claims to be reckless, and completely inconsistent with standard medical practice. Am I an asshole for pointing that out?
I stand by the fact that I think he is a fraud.
If you want to ban me for pointing out a quack, go ahead. That's a hill I'll gladly die upon.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
In case I didn't make myself clear,
I think Alligator Ed is lying about his credentials, and that he is no neurosurgeon.
I hope that's clear.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
What makes you say that?
I'm genuinely curious about that. What qualifies you to make such a claim?
dervish...
you are not going to be banned. I'm just asking that you dial back the personal attacks.
FWIW, I am on the fence about this matter.
I'm done
Thanks for your patience.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
dervish...
you are tiptoeing on the outskirts of DBAA. Either dial it back or take a break from this thread.
Strongly disagree
Please stop trying to censor Alligator Ed. He's done his research. I respect his opinion.
Don't think telling him to Just Stop is acceptable.
If this essay disturbs you, then I suggest you stop reading, as well as commenting. Clearly many of us are grateful for the work Alligator Ed has done, and are interested in this research.
You might check with the admins
unlike the thought police at LOF, speculation is entirely permitted here.
And not for nothin', but I don't believe you're the sole arbiter of "what will work here".
True enough,
but unqualified assertions like this drag the site down. What we have here is someone who wishes he had something tangible, yet doesn't. This won't fly by anyone's measure, I know it, you know it and everyone else knows it.
Wait for the crash and burn. He's claimed he's a neurosurgeon, yet anyone with even cursory familiarity with the field can see that that isn't true.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
What he doesn't have is SOLID INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF
And if that's the only thing that you will accept, then stop dancing around the mulberry bush and just SAY SO!!
At this point there is a variety of circumstantial indicators of varying degrees of reliability (from "sorta" to "not"). There is definitely enough smoke to check it out and see whether it's just a smudge-pot, dry ice, or, possibly, a real fire.
There is also a distinct possibility that her doctors will collude to conceal whatever problems she's having from the general public - it would certainly not be the first time the Medical Establishment has hushed things up (FDR, JFK, probably other instances less familiar).
The bottom line is, if you're for Her and you think She is fine, then go vote for her (and stop slamming people who disagree!).
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
It's clear that she had a CVST
in Dec. 2012, that's well-established. In layman's terms she had a small clot near her brain stem, technically a minor stroke. It affected her vision, and while it's possible that she has residual effects, there is nothing about this incident that would suggest that she is sufficiently compromised to be disqualified. There is no evidence that she's had anything but a near-complete recovery.
What is there not to understand?
I know that people wish that there were a "magic issue" that could somehow side-track her, but this isn't it, believe me.
You can blame me for stating the truth all you want. I have been an ardent opponent of Hillary for a very long time, but this isn't the issue that will bring her down.
Sorry.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
I don't believe you
when you claim to be "an ardent opponent of Hillary". That's a well-known Hillbot tactic, to claim to be an "opponent" and yet rush to Her defense by savagely attacking anyone who criticizes Her in any way.
It's not as well-known as the "formerly for Bernie, now for Hillary because reasons" copypastry, but that's because it hasn't been used as much - yet.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
The attacks on this poster are savagery
reminiscent of DK, I'm glad it's not just me that sees this.
That means one of two things, in my speculative opinion: either these folk are brainwashed to the point of no return on "demanding proof" before you can even talk about ANYTHING online--which is complete bullshit beaten into their heads by other blogs, and unreasonably so. Or else they're trying to put out a fire before the smoke gets too thick.
And there's certainly something to be said about those who protesteth too much. And it's not flattering, so I think I'll stop now
Pardon the interruption TOM,
but looking at Dervish's comments I'd say Dervish really is a Hillary critic. This conversation obviously has gone beyond polite discourse, but I'd say the participants are legitimate.
On to Biden since 1973
And Dervish did the driving to get it there
with repeated, blatant attacks on Alligator Ed's credibility, going so far as to label him a quack and a fraud. (That constitutes LIBEL, Mrs. Know-It-All Dervish, which is ALSO a felony, don'tcha know?)
I claim the right to not believe what she says about herself, based on her claims to not believe what other people say about themselves.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Agreed, but let me tell you a story to show where
I'm coming from:
I'm a member of a writers' group. One day another member wrote a story about a misogynistic, violent buffoon, an obvious gonzo comedy. The buffoon was no hero, and in fact was the target of much more violence than he committed. One of the other members, a woman (but more on that later) went ballistic in her hatred of the story, immediately crossing the line - every possible line. I attempted to calm the waters by pointing out that the story was obviously a parody of 70s/80s ish macho television, but her response was so over the top (questioning my morality) that I was unable to write for months I was so hurt. In the end we had to ask her to leave the group. (even though her point was legitimate, her behavior was terminal - sound familiar?) Turns out that the woman had spent thirty years as a rape counsellor and he (we) had triggered her. I saw the same sort of dynamic happening here.
I see the people who comment here as friends,(but friends who don't really know each other) and I don't want to see a friend banned when we don't really understand why they act as they do.
On to Biden since 1973
Argumentum ad ignorantiam is a fallacy, even for MDs.
Without a ton more evidence than you appear to have you cannot make a diagnosis, and nobody needs to jump through hoops in reaction to everybody who attempts a remote medical or psychological diagnosis without access to the patient or their records. In fact, the making of such diagnoses is generally frowned upon within both communities because there simply isn't sufficient evidence to do so without access toi the patient, their records, and any tests indicated by the suspected diagnosis.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
No Mr. Otter, I do not deny that I speculated in my essay.
This is a necessity based upon HRC's penchant for not revealing the truth, not even if it involves lying Congress, which comes said she had done. I have proposed some non-invasive, painless and completely safe testing to redone to either confirm or deny my suppositions. Knowing HRC as well as anybody, do you really think you are going to get the REAL information from an unbiased source?
I reiterate what I said in my essay:
1. This is speculative
2. Medical documentation, of course regarding other people, has been presented supporting my suppositions
3. I invited anyone to present my essay to qualified unbiased experts for their review.
I am not afraid of the truth--but Hillary is.
Didn't Paul Tsongas also release medical records?
Her fall, that hospitalized her, could have been a seizure
and the blood clot a result of that. Bill was quoted somewhere as saying that she'd worked hard for six months to recover, which sounded like a stroke or serious brain injury.
There can be a long lag between a head injury and the start of seizures. I knew someone who had been in a coma from a car crash, seemed fully recovered, and developed seizures five years later. So whatever set off her behavioral oddities could be much earlier.
Something is wrong, besides her values.
According to her doctor, her fall was from dehydration due to
a stomach virus. Also according to her doctor, her concussion symptoms resolved in 2 months even though you're right, I googled it and it was widely reported in the MSM that Bill said it was very serious and took her 6 months to recover.
Now, this is interesting: http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/physician-warns-hillary-suffering-post-concus...
Here I am saying we shouldn't speculate, and yet a medical doctor, a neurologist, is speculating.
Here's Dr. Kassicieh's ratings: Average 3 stars out of 5. 11 reviews. http://www.ucomparehealthcare.com/drs/daniel_kassicieh/reviews.html
For comparison, here are the ratings at the same Web site for Dr. Bardack, who is Hillary's doc. Also 3 out of 5, but no negative comments. But only 4 reviewed. http://www.ucomparehealthcare.com/drs/lisa_bardack/reviews.html
Take them for what they're worth.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Percipient observation
In a coming essay, continuing this exploration of HRC's neuropathology, I will deal with this interplay of mTBI and dural sinus thrombosis (DST). Chronic DST has occurred, preexisting diagnosis for as long as years (documentation coming with next essay).
Did she recover from PCS? There is a formerly hidden e-mail in which Huma Abedin commented to someone else that Hillary was having short-term memory problems. I am not sure of the chronology. 5% of mTBI patients have PCS lasting more than 1 year.
I wonder if medical marijuana would help
I'm sure she could get some even after she reverses cannabis legalization. I think I might have less of a problem with her if I knew she was regularly smoking marijuana.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Good question, Timmethy
Good ole Mary Jane is an extremely complex plant from which no less that 105 different cannabinoids have been isolated. TBD is a cannabinoid found useful in epileptics unresponsive to other drugs, even with the best medical management. We have a problem here with a dearth of information. My conjecture is that HRC has epilepsy, but as noted in the essay, we can say for certain only that she has had a single observed seizure. To make the diagnosis of epilepsy requires either the presence of at least one other unprovoked seizure OR recording of an active epileptogenic focus on EEG. Even proven that she has frontal lobe epilepsy, TBD is not the drug of first choice. It has not been tested with large scale population bases and compared to like cohort taking no anti epileptic drugs. Furthermore, and sad to say, even if Medusa does prove to be epileptic and does use TBD for seizure control, this will in no way ameliorate her psychopathy.
I shared a hospital room a few months back with a DHS officer
who had seizures and he confided in me he uses medical cannabis and it does take the edge off a bit. He said while it didn't prevent his seizures, they helped with his recovery.
The real SparkyGump has passed. It was an honor being your human.
That there is a question at all
about the woman's long-term prognosis is a serious problem. And I think I'd say that even if I supported her. It's supposed to be a given that you're voting for someone that's given a fairly reasonably clean bill of health.
Yes, but they're also
Yes, but they're also supposed to be representing the public interest, rather acting against the public interest to serve destructive hostile self-interests...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Fine, I understand why many want a healthy prez.
They are merely the executive, many other may act on their wishes. {not to burden things, but check Hillary murders}. I hope we never get to the decision point for who to elect because their doctor said so. Does anyone really trust their PCP?
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.
I advocate for hiring people with disabilities
and have no tolerance for discrimination.
But, that said, if she has anger issues, inappropriate laughter issues, she might have an outburst while with some head of state. What happens then? A dr. tells them, it's just a seizure, so disregard?
Falling, head shaking, eyes rolling, none of that is a disqualifier. Not being able to distinguish her laughter or anger from it's cause is a disqualifier.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
That's a really good point
that you make--because there ARE anger issues. There ARE inappropriate laughter issues. You can't go and tell people after the fact that "oops, we forgot to mention the part where she's now prone to epileptic seizure because of a fall she took", and that's why she's having these inappropriate anger/laughter issues.
Well-stated. Thank you.
I commented earlier about the anger issues
I had after my TBI is suffered when I was 17. I had no idea why I was so angry, but I would put in a hard rock tape in, turn up the volume and sing at the top of my lungs.
Or I would roll up the windows in my car and scream. The anger issues have stayed with my entire life but they get much worse when I am under stress.
I think being president of the US is much more stressful than my life.
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
Like I said, guinea pig of n=1.
6 days' out from fall, concussion, subarachnoid bleed. I assume that I will be sent for new MRIs Friday. First post-hospitalization visit with PCP. I am feeling rocky. Ibuprofen helps the arm and leg pain. Daughter saw me today, she's an RN. I will keep y'all apprised of my feelings, let me say, typo city right now, worse than before, better than 2 days ago.
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.
But....the disability is known to the employer before the hire.
You don't advocate for those who cover up their disabilities in order to increase their chances of being hired.
I've watched all of the videos I could find over and over again
I know one thing for certain! If that was my wife or one of my loved ones that did that, we'd immediately have a discussion that began with, "Are you feeling okay", and end with, "we're going to go see the doctor and get this checked out". There is something that just isn't right there and whatever it is, it's being hidden from us.
We're talking about the job of being the most powerful and influential person in the world. We're supposed to be the ones doing the interviews and screen the likely job applicants. We have a legitimate right to know if there is a condition or ailment that might prevent that person from successfully performing that job. That is the very reason used by companies when they require a applicant for the janitorial job to submit to a drug test. We need to know if their is something that might impair their judgment or affect their ability to do the job.
If Hillary is having seizures, and they are being brought on by stressful situations, then it's my opinion that she should be disqualified from the job of the most powerful person in the world. The job of president is about as stressful a job as one could find. The American public and voters deserve to know just what is going on and their should be full disclosure on her condition. AS I said when I started this, something isn't right with her. I'm not qualified to make a determination, but someone who is qualified needs to make an evaluation and make those results public.
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
George W. Bush
Thank you for your common sense approach
We 99%ers and even the 1%ers would rush off to a hospital immediately if only one such aversive, right frontal lobe type seizure would have occurred. How do we know if this is the first one or the hundredth? I doubt very much the public will ever get access to the necessary health information, but I can tell you what I would like to see happen: that Hillary be examined by a neuropsychiatrist, epileptologist, and stroke specialist. That she undergo one of the myriad of safe, non-invasive, painless procedures. I might within reason recommend that she undergo video telemetry for 24 hours to detect seizures.
I just got up and read through all the comments here
and a number of them are attacking you and then go onto to state that there is no evidence that Hillary is continuing to have these seizures. You point out above that we don't know if this was the first or the hundredth. Yet those seeking to discount your portrayal of the analysis claim that further examples of seizures don;t appear to exist.
To those here that feel that way I ask, what percentage of Hillary Clinton's life are you able to see? I'd suspect she isn't present in public more than 1% of her time and yet we have 2 possible examples caught on video. How many others are there? I suspect many based on the reactions of people closest to her in the 2 examples we have. To them, there is nothing shocking about this. The only rational explanation for that is that they have seen it many times before and to them there is nothing shocking about it.
Based on these 2 events, it appears that excessive stimulation might be causing the issues. I fully believe it may be the reason Hillary is refusing to do a press conference where numerous reporters can ask her multiple questions in rapid succession. It's one thing to sit down for a controlled interview, one on one, where questions are predetermined and the environment is controlled. It's clearly another when the whole event is unscripted and people are firing questions from all angles. The stress levels between the two situations is enormous. I suspect that Hillary having a major seizure event at a press conference would pretty much put an end to her campaign. I really wonder if her handlers expect to get all the way through election day keeping her away from the press?
I still find it absolutely unbelievable that out of all the people in our country, these are the ones we end up having as a choice for president.
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
George W. Bush
This may not be a popular thing to say, but we need to
stop with this line of attack. I have no issues attacking neoliberal Democrats for their policy decisions and corporate love, but this is starting to seem like a D'Souza type of "investigation"
We should be better than meticulously dissecting videos to establish mental or physical health issues.
Why attack her health at all? If she has to leave office, there is a VP candidate, who is just as neoliberal.
This is becoming too personal and the rhetoric is problematic too. We should not be this obsessed with Clinton--she is only one person representing a whole bunch of people who are trying to fuck us, check that, are fucking us.
Also, should a person with epilepsy not be allowed to serve as President? I hired a young man with epilepsy to work on a very strenuous project for more than a year. He did a great job, and in that time had one seizure. It lasted about 5 minutes, and within a couple of hours, he was back to his normal self. So, he missed 1/2 day of work during the entire project. I can handle the VP taking over for 1/2 day.
This is NOT "a line of attack"
it is a thoughtful discussion based on factual speculation.
I'm sorry, but we should all be "this obsessed" with someone who wants to be President.
It is an attempt to undermine or disqualify Clinton
based on sketchy medical analysis. There is no supporting evidence--just looking at videos and speculating. It is absolutely attacking Clinton as a person, not a politician. Clinton has been a public figure for nearly 30 years now. How did she hide her condition from us for so long? Why is there absolutely no evidence, other than some bullshit video analysis supporting this conclusion? Why does her medical report not mention it?
This is the worst kind of speculation, intended to demean another human being. If this is who we are, then maybe I don't belong.
You have not made this case:
And where are We, The People, supposed to get Detailed Medical Analysis on Hillary Clinton?
News flash: the woman should be disqualified if she has A SERIOUS MEDICAL CONDITION THAT AFFECTS COGNITION IN HUMANS.
And one more time for the people in the back rows:
Nowhere does the poster deny that's exactly what he is doing. Speculating with links to back it up means it's SUPPORTED. Speculating is permitted on this blog. I'm sorry if you think you can't "belong" to something where grown-ups have informed conversation about serious matters that sometimes--yes--may involve actual speculation, absent specific facts from the principals.
Which are NOT forthcoming, and they goddamn well should be.
Some of you are not taking this shit seriously enough, IMO. I do not want someone of questionable cognitive ability as my Commander in Chief. In point of fact, no one should want this.
Fine, miaow, I'll speculate some more.
She has has expensive facial reconstruction. Note the chubby apples on her cheeks she never had before. Aging is gravity, that is anti-gravity. That may be beyond fillers and BoTox. I had $>5k done to a ravaged face; mine looks more "normal" with fillers and now weight gain.
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.
Right, because this is all about someone's LOOKS
Jesus Christ, how fucking rude...
OMG, another ad hominem
Are you suggesting that I am a fraud? a convicted felon? Are you going to base your complaints on factless assertions? Your anecdotal report of an epileptic worker is just that. How many epileptics have you observed? I have treated hundreds. Your experience with a single epileptic person simply does not comport with many issues reading epilepsy of which you are unaware. That comment is not meant in a belittling fashion. But consider this: are you aware of the rate of significant depressive illness in chronic epilepsy? Are you aware of the cognitive decline in many chronic epileptics? Are you aware of the chronic epileptic's susceptibility to unexplained death (SUDEP).
We should be obsessed with Clinton. She well may have cheated and lied her way into the presidency. However the unbiased medical facts are, that until proven otherwise, Hillary Clinton suffers from serious neuropathology--and by this statement I am not commenting on her psychopathy.
With this comment I quite agree. The Ds and Rs have done a great job screwing us over.
I am suggesting that you are a fraud.
Absolutely.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
That's full-on DBAA
and you HAVE been warned, I saw the warning myself.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Except this happens to be true
As I said elsewhere, if he is a neurosurgeon, I am Napoleon.
Falsely claiming a medical credential is a felony, be advised (Ed).
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Keep that up and JtC WILL be forced to ban you
He has warned you twice to back off and dial it down.
Instead you have doubled down, and then doubled down again.
Goatse.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Wow
You're threatening others now?
Who are you, again?
My advice
is that you may want to contact the admins directly if you have evidence that AE is a fraud.
I am advising you to do this for your own sake.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Your responses to skepticism in this post are over-the-top.
With the anecdote, I was merely pointing out that people with epilepsy can lead healthy lives, and are not pariahs unfit for service.
I don't know shit about you, other than you are speculating on this without any type of concrete supporting evidence.
I think we should focus on criticizing Clinton for her policies, not try to degrade her as a human being.
I'll let you all have at it though.
Being epileptic is not degrading and most are productive
people, leading normal lives except for their medication needs and monitoring. When it comes to having a commander-in-chief who seemingly suffers from PCS and at least one form of epilepsy, then it is a big deal. Let me present to you two hypothetical questions. Would you like the pilot of your next commercial flight to be epileptic (even if FAA rules didn't already preclude this)? Let's go one step further would you like that epileptic pilot flying a bomber with nuclear weapons. Her neurologic health is most definitely an issue.
Was your employee forthcoming
About his condition? If so, anyone asking us to hire them as President of one of the most powerful country in the world should also be that HONEST.
You see the problem here?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
It's been suggested that
It's been suggested that Hillary is being used to get a theocratic anti-abortion VP into line to take over the Presidency when she drops out for reasons of health (after most likely being cheated into office, which 'win' might be thought plausible by at least some of the public in Hillary's case - but not as regards her appalling VP pick). This is an actual possibility which needs to be considered.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
How to explain her crazy lies?
Her head injury is less of a concern than her lying (which may be related). Drug abuse is also possible because she repeatedly told us about fictional snipers in 2008. That could have just been her trying to fool people for political reasons, but what kind of idiot tells a whopper like that one? Maybe a pathological liar who is never challenged directly by a compliant and fearful media. No one misremembers being shot at, especially when your kid is there as well.
She recently told us about Nancy Reagan fighting AIDS. This one is bizarre to the max. She must have believed it at the time and it is completely false so she has serious gaps in her fact base. To me that indicates a mental disorder of some type, NO liberal her age remembers Nancy Reagan being an early voice for finding a cure for AIDS.
I think she is somewhat crazy, as further evidenced by her continuing lies about the emails. Her madness may be due to drugs, or head injury, or she might be a pathological liar. Maybe all of the above. I don't care which it is but its very clear that the promises she's made aren't worth anything. Her trust numbers are going to be in single digits soon.
Turnout in this election is going to be horrible, and if she is elected the Democrats will be blamed for her regime and turnout in 2018 will be even worse. If Trump wins we will get a huge opportunity for cleaning out the establishment deadwood in the DNC and taking over the party, because president Trump would fire up our base. IMO that is our only opportunity for real change.
There is no more time for incremental solutions.
Pages