posted 08-19-2016 05:00 PM                  

Imagine, if you would, that tomorrow Donald Trump suffers a concussion. Suppose he trips on a flight of stairs, falling down and hitting his head. The head injury is so severe that he is unconscious for a time and has to be hospitalized for a week.

After getting out of the hospital, the Trump campaign tells us he has fully recovered, and that there are no lingering effects of the head trauma. During the following weeks, he is seen in public to wear glasses with a Fresnel corrective lens on one side. He also seems to have trouble maintaining his balance, loses his thoughts in the middle of speeches and has episodes of spasmodic movements suggestive of seizures.

In this imaginary scenario, would it surprise anyone if the media became skeptical and pressed for release of Trump’s medical records? Would it surprise anyone if the Clinton campaign made an issue of Trump’s health status during speeches and in TV ads? Would the media cry “foul” over the Clinton campaign doing so?

The answers to these questions are self-evident. The media and the Clinton campaign would be all over this, and no one would question the appropriateness of their actions.

To my knowledge, Trump has had no such issues with his health. However, Clinton has had multiple problems -- some she has revealed and some that she has not revealed.

So why has the media not been asking Clinton to release her medical records? Is her health status less important than Trump’s?

What do we know about Clinton’s health? We know that she has suffered two deep vein thromboses and an episode of cerebral venous thrombosis.

Blood spontaneously clotting within one’s veins on three separate occasions is not a good thing. In fact, it is life-threatening. This tells us that she has a hypercoagulable state requiring the use of Coumadin (a “blood thinner”) for the rest of her life to try to prevent this from happening again. While Coumadin may prevent future blood clots, it can also lead to life-threatening hemorrhage if she has any future trauma.

We also know that she suffered a concussion and, according to her husband, she took six months to recover. How do we know she recovered?

If she was a high school athlete, she would have had mandatory neuropsychological testing before being allowed to participate in sports again. Given that being the leader of the free world is more important than playing goalie for the local high school, why is the mainstream media not demanding to see Clinton’s post-concussion testing?

We also know from the Clinton camp that she has had a right transverse venous sinus thrombosis. This has been described as a blood clot in her brain, but that is not accurate.

More specifically, it is a blood clot that formed in one of the two major veins that drain blood from the brain. Coumadin was prescribed, not to dissolve the clot (it won’t), but to prevent the clot from extending to the other transverse venous sinus, which could result in death.

However, the right transverse sinus clot by itself will cause longstanding consequences. Since there are only two veins draining blood from the brain, the blockage of one results in increased intracranial pressure, which will remain a lifelong problem for such patients.

What are the symptoms of increased intracranial pressure? The most common are headaches, visual problems, and dizziness/balance problems. We know that Clinton has had all three of these. Less commonly known are “brain fog,” problems with concentration, and short-term memory problems. Sounds familiar?

Why has the media not been inquiring about Clinton’s health records as aggressively as they did when GOP candidate John McCain had skin cancer? What do her visits to ophthalmologists and neurologists show? Has she had any neuropsychological testing, as is routinely done in traumatic brain injury cases?

We also know from the leaked Democratic National Committee emails that some of the major media outlets were in collusion with the Clinton campaign and the Democrat Party. Could this be why they have not pursued the issues of Clinton’s health? This is an important issue to be explored for any candidate of any political party.

As a concerned American, I ask the media: Would you please do your job?

posted 08-22-2016 04:31 PM                  

Rutgers University Professor of Medicine says Clinton should be assessed by an impartial panel of physicians

Paul Joseph Watson - August 22, 2016 Č1249 Comments

Top doctor and Rutgers University Professor of Medicine Bob Lahita says that concerns over Hillary Clinton¡¦s health are not a conspiracy theory and that Clinton should be assessed by an impartial panel of physicians.

Lahita told Fox Business that he agreed with Dr. Drew on several points about Hillary¡¦s health. Last week, Drew told KABC that he is ¡§gravely concerned¡¨ about Hillary Clinton¡¦s health, noting that the treatment she has received is ¡§bizarre¡¨.

¡§This is a very unusual story with Hillary,¡¨ said Lahita, making reference to her suffering two blood clots, a stroke and post-concussive syndrome, which caused Hillary to have to wear special prism glasses to counter her double vision.

¡§The very fact that she¡¦s having these clots and she¡¦s had two bouts of thrombosis is disconcerting to say the least,¡¨ said Lahita.

Asked whether the concerns over Hillary¡¦s health were objectively authentic regardless of politics or whether the leftist media were right to label the issue a conspiracy theory, Lahita responded, ¡§I don¡¦t think it¡¦s a conspiracy.¡¨

¡§You go back to the history of our presidents and we¡¦ve had many presidents up until Lyndon Johnson who¡¦ve concealed their health during their campaigns and it had dire effects for our country, going from Kennedy to Roosevelt, to Woodrow Wilson whose wife ran the White House for some time ¡V so we have issues here and I think both candidates should be very forthcoming and perhaps have an impartial panel of physicians review the data and make that kind of decision before Americans go to the polls,¡¨ remarked Lahita.

Dr. Lahita also dismissed claims by the media that a summary released last year by Hillary¡¦s personal physician Dr. Lisa R. Bardack saying she was in good health was enough to satisfy questions over Clinton¡¦s fitness to serve as president.

Calling for a more recent assessment, Lahita said, ¡§We should be able to see the laboratory results ourselves, the letter is kind of a summary (it) doesn¡¦t go into much detail,¡¨ adding that more information on Hillary¡¦s hypothyroidism would also be ¡§quite interesting¡¨.

¡§We owe it to the country, we owe it to the voters, not only for the presidential candidates, but also for the vice-presidential candidates ¡V particularly in this election,¡¨ concluded Lahita.

According to his bio, ¡§Doctor Lahita is Professor of Medicine at Rutgers University, the medical school of New Jersey, and an adjunct Professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the Chairman of Medicine and Vice President of the Newark Beth Israel Medical Center. He is a fellow of the American College of Physicians, a master of the American College of Rheumatology, and fellow of the Royal College of Physicians.¡¨

Lahita has also authored more than 16 books and 150 scientific publications in the field of autoimmunity. He doesn¡¦t really fit the picture of an ¡¥Internet conspiracy theorist¡¦, which is how the Clinton campaign is attempting to characterize anyone who questions her health.

In a related story, a New York Times columnist even called on Google to censor searches pertaining to Hillary¡¦s health in order to silence ¡§conspiracy theorists¡¨.