• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

71% doctors say hillary health concerns serious 'could be disqualifying'

Redress said:
The association that did the poll claims that link, among some even more outrageous ones.
Click to expand...

Which is separate thing than a poll of doctors.
 
Fishking said:
Which is separate thing than a poll of doctors.
Click to expand...

A poll of AAPS members would be like taking a poll of pedophiles about what the age of consent should be.
 
Redress said:
A poll of AAPS members would be like taking a poll of pedophiles about what the age of consent should be.
Click to expand...

TheGoverness said:
No idea. I guess that all depends on if this informal internet survey is actually credible or not. But I highly doubt this survey has any sort of credibility, seeing as the organization that conducted the polling is extremely partisan in nature.

https://aaps.wufoo.com/reports/poll-concerns-about-candidate-health/
Click to expand...

Makes sense. I didn't realize they were so fringey. As an aside, some doctors have commented on it and Dr. Drew (for whatever he is worth as a Dr.) got fired for his comments. I think that's important to note. In most cases, a mistake or being out of line would result in a retraction and an apology but he got straight up canned. In other words, you won't here any other doctor saying anything negative about her apparent symptoms on the MSMs. At least that much is an established fact.
 
Mark F said:
Seems incredibly scientific.
Click to expand...

Well, of course, the director of the right wing "Association" is also a member of the Oregon Institute, who many will know from the famous Petition Project, the totally not-BS exercise beloved by wingnut deniers everywhere to prove all these "scientists" reject AGW, etc.

So, yes, I'm quite sure it's very scientific and not at all biased.... :roll:
 
Redress said:
Well, at least we know why you get fooled so often now...
Click to expand...

I receive several reputable medical publications and they all say the same thing....avoid vaccines if possible.
 
MickeyW said:
There is most definitely a link between autism and vaccinations! Sure homos live shorter lives...deviant practices will do that.
Click to expand...

that's really stupid Mickey because if the activities gay men engage in cause deleterious health issues (and yes some of those things like unprotected anal sex causes everything from AIDS TO GBS to ulcerative herpes of the rectum which makes STD transmission more likely) then lesbians who don't engage in unprotected intercourse etc should have the longest lives of any group

so its a wash!!!
 
MickeyW said:
I've talked to several people about how sick their kids got and the lasting ailments they now have, after receiving vaccinations.

They feel terrible about doing that to their kids.
Click to expand...

And that has what to do with autism?
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid Mickey because if the activities gay men engage in cause deleterious health issues (and yes some of those things like unprotected anal sex causes everything from AIDS TO GBS to ulcerative herpes of the rectum which makes STD transmission more likely) then lesbians who don't engage in unprotected intercourse etc should have the longest lives of any group

so its a wash!!!
Click to expand...

Well, since I don't know any gays these days(did in the past when I lived in Calf.), it really doesn't matter to me any longer, I'll just be quiet.
 
MickeyW said:
I receive several reputable medical publications and they all say the same thing....avoid vaccines if possible.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Reputable medical publications uniformly and vehemently reject anti-vaxxer BS. It's a litmus test, and failing it on vaccines means pretty definitively that all their "medical" advice is suspect and not to be trusted.
 
MickeyW said:
I receive several reputable medical publications and they all say the same thing....avoid vaccines if possible.
Click to expand...

there was a woman who used to post on dozens of boards with the handle "mercury" or something like that who would tell anyone who would listen that her then 20 something son had the mind of a 2 year old because of the mercury in an injection SHE received for a vaccination while pregnant. She spent four years claiming that she was going to win a huge class action verdict when the US Court of Claims ruled on this lawsuit. Guess what. The anti vaccination "experts" didn't even pass a Daubert test (for lay persons that means that the court ruled that the "experts" did not meet a standard that would let them offer opinion testimony because their arguments did not comport with known scientific reality)

she sort of disappeared after that ruling. I am sure there are cases where a vaccination has caused harm. I will not I had to put down a cat I really was fond of because she developed what was called "vaccination site sarcoma" where an inflammation caused by repeated injections leads to a generally incurable cancer. and I am sure there are children harmed by vaccinations. But every doctor I have talked to and all the literature i have read suggests that if you are playing the odds, you should vaccinate your children.
 
azgreg said:
And that has what to do with autism?
Click to expand...

The kids developed autism not longer afterward. The first sign that something was wrong, was the very next day for one of them.

But hey, people can do what they want with their kids, and it no longer affects me these days.

Carry on................................I'm outta this thread.
 
JasperL said:
Uh, no. Reputable medical publications uniformly and vehemently reject anti-vaxxer BS. It's a litmus test, and failing it on vaccines means pretty definitively that all their "medical" advice is suspect and not to be trusted.
Click to expand...

QFT-this is constituent with what I have read and a component in our office was charged with defending a federally financed Health care provider over such a claim (we won) and I was pretty up on the evidence
 
MickeyW said:
Hillary's Health Concerns Serious, Say Most Doctors Polled by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

TUCSON, Ariz., Sept. 8, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Concerns about Hillary Clinton's health are "serious—could be disqualifying for the position of President of the U.S.," say nearly 71% of 250 physicians responding to an informal internet survey by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). About 20% said concerns were "likely overblown, but should be addressed as by full release of medical records." Only 2.7% responded that they were "just a political attack; I have confidence in the letter from her physician and see no cause for concern."

While more than 81% were aware of her history of a concussion, only 59% were aware of the cerebral sinus thrombosis, and 52% of the history of deep venous thrombosis.
Hillary?s Health Concerns Serious, Say Most Doctors Polled by the Association of American
Click to expand...

Because "informal internet surveys" are amazing!
 
That "association" is anti-vaxxer, anti-abortion, anti-birthcontrol, but mostly anti-Hillary
 
TurtleDude said:
QFT-this is constituent with what I have read and a component in our office was charged with defending a federally financed Health care provider over such a claim (we won) and I was pretty up on the evidence
Click to expand...

LOL, really no offense intended here, but can you restate that in English? ;)

Bottom line is no reputable medical group, or publication, or provider, that I've ever seen advises patients to avoid vaccines. Even if the risk of autism is real, and science says it's not, the benefits of vaccines far outweigh any risks, unless the patient is depending on being a f'ing freeloader and letting all the rest of the population take the vaccines and use their willingness to assume the very small risk of serious side effects to use herd immunity to protect the children of the freeloader.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
LOL, really no offense intended here, but can you restate that in English? ;)

Bottom line is no reputable medical group, or publication, or provider, that I've ever seen advises patients to avoid vaccines. Even if the risk of autism is real, and science says it's not, the benefits of vaccines far outweigh any risks, unless the patient is depending on being a f'ing freeloader and letting all the rest of the population take the risk of vaccines and use their willingness to assume the very small risk serious side effects to protect the children of the freeloader.
Click to expand...

sure Spell Check changed consistent to constituent

a component meant a section of the DOJ was charged with defending a claim brought by an anti-vaccination plaintiff who claimed a harmful vaccination given to his child by a doctor whose funding was such that the doctor was considered a federal agent (and thus entitled to DOJ civil defense at trial) by the statute in question
 
MickeyW said:
The kids developed autism not longer afterward. The first sign that something was wrong, was the very next day for one of them.

But hey, people can do what they want with their kids, and it no longer affects me these days.

Carry on................................I'm outta this thread.
Click to expand...

Running from a fight again, huh Mickey? Shows how weak your argument is.
 
TheGoverness said:
Running from a fight again, huh Mickey? Shows how weak your argument is.
Click to expand...

I propose a special section in this board, compromised only of "Hillary health" threads. It should be placed right between the Conspiracy Theory forum and the Abortion forum.
 
Fishking said:
Are they doctors? Do they get any kickbacks for saying there are concerns about Hillary's health?
Click to expand...

Now, now, no evading. You made several claims yesterday - well actually assertions without evidence - and I asked how you arrived at those conclusions. Lets look at them again:

Fishking said:
It will be interesting to see this be blown off. These are experts that have no skin in the game. There is literally no benefit to them to vote one way or another yet they will be ignored.
Click to expand...

Taking them one-by-one:

1. It will be interesting to see this be blown off.

I'm curious why this informal survey of unknown individuals with doctorates who presumably have not personally examined the patient and are giving medical opinions based largely on hearsay and innuendo would be taken seriously at all?

2a. These are experts that have no skin in the game.
2b. Do they get any kickbacks for saying there are concerns about Hillary's health?

Are they "experts"? Experts in what exactly? Would true experts diagnose a patient they have not seen based on hearsay and innuendo?

On what basis do you assert these alleged experts have "no skin in the game"? The organization which sponsored the survey, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a small group of physicians who primarily advocate and lobby for far-right conservative values in the practice of medicine with a main focus on opposing abortion rights, vaccination, Obamacare and birth control. So I would argue AAPS have some skin in the game. And who did they survey? AAPS members? Well, if you are a member of an organization like AAPS whose principal activity is lobbying for right and far right political causes is it likely you would be fully impartial? Might have have some skin in the game even if you are not getting paid?

3. There is literally no benefit to them to vote one way or another.

Mrs. Clinton losing the election would not be a benefit to a far-right lobbying organization that opposes her on many issues?

Really?

The findings of this very informal survey of unknown doctors who may or may not be experts in some relevant medical field (or may not even be currently practicing - we don't know) are pretty ambiguous anyway. One certainly can not draw any actual conclusions about the true state of Mrs. Clinton's health from them.
 
Pretty sure this is credible when half of em knew what conditions she had yet over 2/3rds knew her health problems were serious. Unless some of thing think a concussion means unfit for office, which would only further prove how stupid the poll is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom