Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, he did offer a diagnosis. As the link I provided points out:
"Nevertheless, at the end of a litany of hearsay, conjecture, and conspiracy theories Noel states, flat out: "Hillary Clinton has advanced Parkinson's disease.""
And the link clearly refutes what Noel has said. You might want to read it, if you're at all interested in truth.
I did read it, it never even attempted to refute Dr. Noel's statements. It simply said he didn't exam Hillary, that is not refuting what he said. To refute something, you have to provide some evidence it is wrong.
He stated that all the medical episodes seen in her public appearances that are on video, all point to Parkinson's.
Nobody has even tried to refute what Dr. Noel has said.
If a video shows me limping and complaining of leg pain & weakness, it might be because I'm experiencing the early stages of multiple sclerosis, have a blood clot, broke my leg, or maybe I just have a muscle cramp.
Diagnosing someone from a "video" is not only irresponsible, it's totally unacceptable.
Example: In 2010 I was taken to a hospital in an ambulance. I couldn't get up after being knocked down in a store. So what did I have? Well, apparently it's not that simple to diagnose someone, even when a doctor is looking at you in person. That's why doctors have X-rays, blood tests and all sorts of modern, technical equipment. But of course this Florida anesthesiologist knows exactly what's wrong with Hillary.
If you're curious about my injury, the initial X-rays ordered by the ER doctor were inconclusive. 3 days later an orthopedic surgeon ordered an MRI which showed pelvic fractures.
Anyway, had I been a celebrity or political candidate, after reading all these posts and links I'm guessing the news would be buzzing with all sorts of medical diagnoses. "She fell and couldn't get up..she must have been stoned or drunk! "She was dizzy and disoriented, so she probably has a form of dementia."
I did read it, it never even attempted to refute Dr. Noel's statements. It simply said he didn't exam Hillary, that is not refuting what he said. To refute something, you have to provide some evidence it is wrong.
No evidence was ever offered that he was wrong.
The article clearly refuted his statements. Point by point, in fact. And with evidence. And summed up with:
In closing, we wish to make it clear what our aim has been in this analysis. We have not tried to make the case that Hillary Clinton does not have Parkinson's disease (in point of fact, we don't think that case even needs making). Rather, we have shown that what Ted Noel did in this video is systematically misrepresent perfectly ordinary and explicable phenomena as "Parkinson's disease symptoms," and his motivation for doing so was purely political.
What's really sad is that millions of people are alive today because of the Clinton Foundation and all the Republicans can do is try to bring it down. I'm sure if the Pope worked with the Clinton Foundation they'd find some kind of conspiracy too.
"The most recent Clinton Foundation rating from another watchdog group, CharityWatch, gives the organization a solid “A.” The group says that the foundation spent 88% of its 2014 outlays directly on programs (rather than overhead) and that it only has to spend $2 to raise $100."
“We can only judge organizations based on their own financial disclosures, corporate governance, and level of transparency,” Borochoff told Fortune in an interview. “And by those accounts, the Clinton Foundation has a strong record. They reveal much more information about themselves than many other charities.”
Ah the 2008 article - Hillary was running against Obama in 2008 - when the liberal media favored Obama - so guess where this came from?
Also you democrats have no trouble drudging up 20 yr old incidents involving Trump - but when faced with the same you call foul - get real.
Also as far as the Clinton Foundation, Charitywatch reported the that the foundation donated far below the 75% that a good charity spends on it's mission.
So we have many conflicting stories and I'm waiting to see the released emails before making further judgements - but the Feds wouldn't be looking into it if it was indeed a true charity.
Would have been a political minefield to avoid it.
If she was ill she could have told the truth and been excused but not inclined to tell the truth precluded her from that.
If I had pneumonia I would have stated that and the American People would understand.
If she had stated that she had pneumonia--which, in her case, is not at all life-threatening or even a serious case, and thus is nobody's business--no way would the right wing "understand." Instead, we'd be off on conspiracy theories about how her pneumonia was just a cover for something more serious. You know, like Parkinson's Disease.
Funny - in the real world - we have experts all the time refuting one another in Comp cases, in law suits ex... who have never examined the patient but their expertise while questioned is admissible and cases are decided based on this. Only Hillary gets a pass. The next time the comp insurance denies my son needed medication because a Long Island dr read his reports and told them he no longer needs it even though we live almost 400 miles away and he's never examined my son - I'm going to bring all you folks along - to tell them they can't do that. Maybe we'll finally get some justice!
Apparently the Trump supporters feel Secretary Clinton's physician who released a statement about her health is a liar. Yet doctors who have never met her are spreading conspiracy theories based on videos and these are the physicians we're supposed to believe?
If Hillary failed to show on 9/11, I doubt if pneumonia would have been an acceptable explanation for her opponents. I can just see/hear them now. "She's not patriotic and doesn't care about the fallen heroes of our country!"
In your opinion. 70% is indeed high humidity. Were you able to find the heat index for that day? Additionally, if you are not acclimated to a hot, humid environment, you are much more vulnerable to heat exhaustion, which, by the way, can lead to heat stroke.
were you in downtown Manhattan last Sunday? I was there. It wasn't very humid. There was even a nice breeze there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
