Conservatives have decried the mainstream press as having tilted the playing field in favor of Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Specifically, they claim that the media has ignored, belittled, or attacked those simply asking the question, “Are Secretary Clinton’s health problems a concern?”
Three polls give credence to the concerns over media medical malpractice regarding the “Hillary’s Health” issue. As opposed to mainstream media reporters, Physicians and voters in general overwhelmingly have misgivings about Clinton’s health status.
The first was a poll of registered voters done by Gravis Marketing. This poll demonstrated that 45% of voters did not know about Clinton’s 2012 head injury and that 69% did not know she had a cerebral venous thrombosis (blood clot in the brain). Another 69% did not know about Clinton’s episodes of deep vein thromboses. More than half of those polled were less likely to vote for Clinton after knowing she had these health issues.
What would an objective journalist do about a story like this that is obviously important to the public and may have an impact on people’s voting? A credible news person would want the facts. The Clinton campaign has released a little information: She has hypothyroidism, a concussion, two deep vein thromboses, a cerebral venous thrombosis (blood clot in the brain), and she is on Coumadin (a “blood thinner” that inhibits clotting) for the rest of her life. These conditions are well-known causes of cognitive problems. Given the history of Clinton’s dissembling, and the propensity of the campaign to hide bad news, the skeptical reporter would wonder what worse news they may be holding back. Why has no mainstream media outlet requested the release of Clinton’s complete medical records?
The campaign has declared that any concerns are a politically motivated conspiracy theory or a hoax. A responsible journalist should investigate such an allegation before ignoring or suppressing health questions. Journalists also need to consider the views of physicians.
About 71% of the 250 physicians who responded to an internet survey said they thought that Clinton’s health problems were “serious—could be disqualifying for the position of President of the U.S.” Nearly 20% of respondents were not even aware of Clinton’s known 2012 diagnosis of concussion, and more than 40% of the respondents were not aware of the diagnosed cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Only half knew about the two episodes of her deep venous thromboses. Furthermore, almost none of the Physicians (2.7%) felt comfortable relying on the letter from Clinton’s personal physician, Dr. Lisa Bardack. Nearly all Physicians wanted the release of Clinton’s medical records (they also wanted release of Donald Trump’s medical records).
Is the media trying to inform the public or alter opinion?
The third, most recent poll asks physicians their opinion of videos showing Clinton’s eye movements during her public appearances. Nearly two-thirds of the approximately 100 respondents said they saw eye movement abnormalities. Of those, the majority thought “the cause could be a potentially disabling neurological condition.” None stated an opinion that abnormalities they saw were of no neurological significance.
We know that Clinton was treated for double vision in the past (She wore prism lenses during the Benghazi Hearings), but we were told it resolved. It obviously hasn’t. We’ve not been given any information about the cause, treatment, or current status of her ocular problems.
More telling than the increasing number of physicians questioning Clinton’s health is the lack of any physician claiming that that there is no reason for concern. Clinton’s private physician, Dr. Bardack, cannot be relied upon since she is constrained by ethical and legal requirements. She cannot say anything publicly that is not approved by her patient. While a sparse few physicians have said that we shouldn’t judge from afar, there have been no physicians willing to put their reputation on the line to say that Clinton’s health is normal.
At this point, if the press ignores, belittles, or insults those raising concerns over Clinton’s health, it could only be generously described as media malpractice. A more aggressive interpretation would be press fraud.