Saturday, August 27, 2016

New York Times columnist calling on google to censor commentary on Hillary's health...

The recent media frenzy surrounding Clinton and Trump's health records has accomplished little more than to, once again, expose a "press" that is becoming increasingly partisan with each passing day.
Right-leaning media outlets have spent countless hours reporting on the various health issues experienced by Clinton over the years and pointing to pictures of her falling down on the campaign trail or seemingly zoning out at times as evidence of her frailty.  Meanwhile the left-leaning organizations have mostly dismissed the Hillary health concerns as conspiracy theories of right-wing nut jobs.
Like this tweet from a New York Times columnist calling on google to censor commentary on Hillary's health...

Or this interview by Rachel Maddow where Hillary's health concerns are repeatedly dismissed as conspiracy theories.

The problem is that Hillary's potential health issues were easy to dismiss when they were only being covered by some "right-wing" media outlets like Breitbart.  But now, as The Hill points out, reputable doctors are starting to come forward to suggest that Hillary's health might be a serious issues.  One such person is Dr. Bob Lahita, Chairman of the Department of Medicine at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, who offered the following comments on Hillary's health:
"This is a very unusual story with Hillary,” said Lahita, pointing to the two blood clots she's been diagnosed with in the past. "The very fact that she’s having these clots and she’s had two bouts of thrombosis is disconcerting to say the least."

When asked if questions about Clinton's health are legitimate and not part of a political conspiracy, Lahita said without hesitation, “I don’t think it’s a conspiracy.”

Lahita then pivoted to past presidents who entered office with health problems.

“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," explained Lahita.

"It had dire effects for our country, going from Kennedy to Roosevelt, to Woodrow Wilson, whose wife ran the White House for some time," he continued, "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."
Last week, we also reported how Dr. Drew Pinsky, board-certified medicine specialist and CNN employee, broke the mold of conformity at CNN, when he said that he is "gravely concerned" about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s health, pointing out that treatment she is receiving could be the result of her bizarre behaviors (see "CNN Cancels Dr. Drew's Show One Week After He Voiced "Grave Concern" For Hillary's Health").  Pinsky's honesty promptly got him fired from CNN.
With legitimate doctors coming forward with questions about Hillary's health, the left has been forced to pivot on their "conspiracy theory" narrative.  Which is why they are now going on the offensive by raising questions about Trump's health and painting his doctor as someone who belongs in the "loony bin" (they may have a point there actually).
Countless hours of media coverage have been spent analyzing the following letter from Trump's doctor who declares "If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency." 
Trump Health Letter

And the following video where Trump's doctor admits he threw together the letter in a rush...

While we find the media circus "entertaining", we have some radical ideas on how to put this topic to bed.  Is the health of the next President of the United States a legitimate issue?  Of course it is - let's face it, no one is voting for the candidate with the best VP.
So why not just have a transparent process where independent doctors review and assess the historical health records of both candidates?  Wouldn't the American voters benefit from some facts rather than the empty media rhetoric?