Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Medicine Government Politics Science

AAPS Doctors Run Survey On Hillary Clinton's Health (prnewswire.com) 629

schwit1 PR Newswire: 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. More than 78% said the health concerns had received "not enough emphasis" in the media, and only 2.7% that there had been "too much emphasis." Nearly two-thirds said that a physician who had a concern about a candidate's fitness to serve for health reasons should "make the concerns known to the public." Only 11% said a physician should "keep silent unless he had personally examined the patient," and 10% that the candidate's health was "off limits for public discussion." A poll of 833 randomly selected registered voters by Gravis Marketing showed that nearly half (49%) were not aware of the "well documented major health issues that Hillary Clinton has." Nearly three-fourths (74%) were unaware of Bill Clinton's statement that Hillary suffered a "terrible" concussion requiring "six months of very serious work to get over." The majority (57%) thought that candidates should release their medical records.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AAPS Doctors Run Survey On Hillary Clinton's Health

Comments Filter:
  • by CajunArson ( 465943 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:02AM (#52853973) Journal

    Damn Russkie Republicans trying to lie about Hillary!

    • Realistically, BeauHD probably got a business inquiry to his business inquiries email alias: HowToAndMore@gmail.com
    • Re:SHUTUP PUTIN! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, 2016 @11:48AM (#52855341)

      You mean you don't trust a neocon "physicians" group? Here is what AAPS is:

      "The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine"
          ==================
      Is your doctor a member?
      Are membership lists public?
      How would you know?

  • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:03AM (#52853979) Homepage Journal

    Without actually examining her, how much faith can we put in their opinions?

    • by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:13AM (#52854077) Homepage Journal
      You mean you dont trust a neocon "physicians" group? Here is what AAPS is:

      "The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine"
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jandersen ( 462034 )

        You mean you dont trust a neocon "physicians" group?

        Be that what it may; but if we should be worried about the health of Ms Clinton because of these relatively common ailments, why was it not disqualifying that Reagan kept getting skin cancer? And if I remember correctly, he also, allegedly, suffered from Alzheimers. I think at some level we all know why: the people that attack Clinton, don't really care about the truth of their attacks, they just hope that if they make enough noise, then people will think there is a real problem. There is something deeply o

        • by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @10:54AM (#52854901) Journal

          I don't think there was much concern about Reagan having Alzheimers while he was president, and making decisions as president.

          Also, can anybody look at Hillary Clinton's behavior in the past year and honestly say she doesn't appear unhealthy? I just don't know of any other people in the media spotlight or candidates for office I've seen who go on 2 minute coughing fits multiple times, or who need a stool while they're on stage.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            >I just don't know of any other people in the media spotlight or candidates for office I've seen who go on 2 minute coughing fits multiple times, or who need a stool while they're on stage.

            It happened to Newt Gingrich while he was criticizing Hillary for coughing. Newt claimed that it was from speaking and travelling so much. Honestly, as much as I disagree with Mr. Gingrich, I believe him. And, guess who else has been travelling a lot and speaking a lot? Hillary.

          • I don't think there was much concern about Reagan having Alzheimers while he was president, and making decisions as president.

            Also, can anybody look at Hillary Clinton's behavior in the past year and honestly say she doesn't appear unhealthy?

            Yup! Me! I don't see any reason to think she's unhealthy.

            I just don't know of any other people in the media spotlight or candidates for office I've seen who go on 2 minute coughing fits multiple times

            Maybe she had a dry throat from talking all day, maybe she had a cold.

            or who need a stool while they're on stage.

            She's 69 years old.

            I don't care if she needs a stool, I'm pretty sure the oval office has a nice chair. Heck, FDR needed a wheelchair and he was up to the job.

            But I'll be sure to scratch her name from the 2020 Olympic team.

        • by networkBoy ( 774728 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @11:33AM (#52855209) Journal

          My only beef with Clinton comes down to her *willful* flaunting of the law about State documents and email on a private server.

          That. Is. Not. Okay.

          The classification of the material is actually irrelevant, the law is crystal clear and she violated it. Those e-mails have to be audit-able. I get that the state dept servers blow chunks, and that realistically you have to work around them, so set up a parallel server on *government* machines that you can use. That way they are still part of the audit and backup process.

          She'll be another Nixon. Willing to flagrantly delete evidence rather than not doing things that are really bad in the first place.

          • Uh, didn't you hear her softball answer on NBC? She had a second secure account. She accessed it under a cone of s 'those little booths'.

            Which means that the FOIA should be able to not only find the account but print some e-mails from it.

        • Two points: First, there were LOTS of questions about Reagan's health when he ran for President in 1980 because of his age. However, he showed no signs of health issues on the campaign trail and was able to maintain a similar campaign schedule to that of his opponent with campaign appearances 7 days a week. Hillary has maintained a very sparse campaign schedule with 3 or 4 day weekends where she does not appear at any campaign events. In addition, Hillary has had multiple incidents which are suggestive of a
          • Reagan's kid said he acted strangely in his book. Publically people didn't know about it, but privately that's another matter.
        • Democrats in 2008 made similar cause with McCain's health and ability to stay alive during even one term, let alone two. Democrats need to start owning their shit.

          • by admiralh ( 21771 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @01:44PM (#52856531) Homepage

            Trump is two years older than HRC.

            Also, have you looked at Trump's waistline? The suits hide a lot of it, but it seems quite unhealthy to me.

            Trump also sat for the entire CiC interview while Hillary stood during various portions of it.

            And Hillary has released a professional statement from her doctor while Trump's doctor released a statement that sounded like it was written for Kim Jung Un.

      • John McCain (Score:3, Informative)

        by sycodon ( 149926 )

        hmmm... sounds Familiar [usnews.com]

        Where have I read about this kind of thing before [malialitman.com]

        In fact, even the big dogs in the press admit they've gone down this road before [washingtonpost.com]. Of course, they claim "it's different".

        In the past, the media just went Full Stupid [go.com] about McCain and his health issues.

        I guess the difference is McCain released all his records and we knew what he faced health-wise. Will Hillary show the same courage?

    • by alexhs ( 877055 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:48AM (#52854321) Homepage Journal

      250 physicians responding to an informal internet survey

      Only 2.7% responded that they were "just a political attack;

      only 2.7% that there had been "too much emphasis."

      6/250 corresponds to 2,4%
      7/250 corresponds to 2,8%
      Are the opinions even real, or are the results doctored ?

      informal internet survey

      On the Slashdot polls of old, there was a mention that if you were taking the results seriously you were crazy. Applies just as well here.

    • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @10:37AM (#52854737)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Why, it's only the guy who founded Citizen's United, bringing about the world of "Superpacks" - over an anti-Hillary "documentary".
      Hey... remember that time he tried framing Bill Clinton for murder? [youtube.com]

      That's your world now, at least until elections.

  • Disgraceful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:04AM (#52853985)

    This has no place on slashdot. It is extremely offensive to the memory of a once fantastic tech site.

  • Look at the source (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:04AM (#52853989)

    Look at the source. This groups says HIV isn't the cause of AIDS. This group says being gay itself shortens life expectancy. I am in no way a Hillary fan, in fact the thought of either of these two running the country makes me say, however this group is a joke and this stance matches every other hard right stance they take.

    This is damn near more a political group than a true medical group anyone should listen to.

    • by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:10AM (#52854043) Journal
      According to Wikipedia, 'The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine."'

      Even if we reject the "politically conservative" categorisation, I'd say that quoted aim casts doubt on their neutrality here.
      • With 5000 members, I'm thinking maybe I should make sure any doctors I see aren't affiliated with this group. I wonder if their membership list is public.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:04AM (#52853991)

    I would have hoped "keep silent unless he had personally examined the patient" would have gotten a higher percentage of the response

  • Non Partisan my Ass (Score:5, Informative)

    by blackpaw ( 240313 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:05AM (#52853999)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    "The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine"

    Says all you need to know about them.

    • by Zalbik ( 308903 )

      That, and:

      The association is generally recognized as politically conservative or ultra-conservative, and its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there are links between autism and vaccinations

      Now that's just scary!

  • by Elfich47 ( 703900 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:05AM (#52854001)
    This is why psychiatrists/psychologists are not allowed to comment on the health of people who are not directly under their care. If you don't know what is going, you can't make a reasonable assessment of the subject's health. Doctors who have not reviewed the patient's medical file and made an examination of the subject should shut up because they do not have all of the information needed to make an accurate assessment.
    • This is why psychiatrists/psychologists are not allowed to comment on the health of people who are not directly under their care. If you don't know what is going, you can't make a reasonable assessment of the subject's health. Doctors who have not reviewed the patient's medical file and made an examination of the subject should shut up because they do not have all of the information needed to make an accurate assessment.

      This does not dismiss the one thing that needs to happen; release the medical records. That is a way that any qualified MD can make at least an initial assessment of someone's health and formulate and educated opinion, particularly in recommending her capability to hold a demanding job for the next four years. THAT is what is truly in question here; her capability to do an important job for quite a long time.

      If she had merely caught the common cold 12 times in the last 2 years, I could understand people de

      • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        This is why psychiatrists/psychologists are not allowed to comment on the health of people who are not directly under their care. If you don't know what is going, you can't make a reasonable assessment of the subject's health. Doctors who have not reviewed the patient's medical file and made an examination of the subject should shut up because they do not have all of the information needed to make an accurate assessment.

        This does not dismiss the one thing that needs to happen; release the medical records. That is a way that any qualified MD can make at least an initial assessment of someone's health and formulate and educated opinion, particularly in recommending her capability to hold a demanding job for the next four years. THAT is what is truly in question here; her capability to do an important job for quite a long time.

        If she had merely caught the common cold 12 times in the last 2 years, I could understand people demanding only an opinion from someone who has directly examined her. However, that is far from reality, even with her medical history remaining somewhat private.

        I say she should agree to release her medical records when Trump agrees to release his tax returns. Fair trade, right?

      • And if she "needs to" release her records then trump needs to do the same. He is older, and a man so has a shorter life expectancy than her. He is fat as a cow, gets very little exercise, so may well be diabetic and the only thing his quack of a doctor released was a fluff statement that he was healthiest man ever to run. Don't forget trump was also so unhealthy as a young man that he got 2 or 3 medical deferments. So I would expect him to be in poor health as an adult if he was in such poor condition when

    • Psychiatrists and psychologists have the same First Amendment rights as anyone else. That includes freedom to express their opinions and beliefs. The fact that this survey, crappy as it is, exists, should be proof enough.
  • by amacbride ( 156394 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:10AM (#52854039)

    I get that this is in the Politics section, but really? PRNewswire? On an Internet poll run by an organization no one's ever heard of?

    Sheesh.

  • by ugen ( 93902 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:10AM (#52854051)

    Do slashdot editors even bother checking sources? Or have this site finally found found its place among tabloids? LMGTFY - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons ("The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine."[1][2] The group was reported to have approximately 4,000 members in 2005, and 5,000 in 2014....The association is generally recognized as politically conservative or ultra-conservative, and its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited theories, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there are links between autism and vaccinations."

    I do find it interesting that even these shills were only able to muster 250 out of 5000 members to sign this crap. I guess even in that group 95% are not willing to completely disavow their responsibility as doctors. In that they are already better humans than whatever slashdot editor that posted this.

  • by plsuh ( 129598 ) <plsuh@noSpAM.goodeast.com> on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:13AM (#52854081) Homepage

    "...responding to an informal internet survey"

    That pretty much says it right there. The numbers in this survey can be given about zero credence. There is no sign of vetting of the responders (are they even really MD's?), no pretense at a representative sample, and no sign that there was any attempt at all to prevent ballot stuffing.

    There were also no questions concerning Donald Trump's health, which makes me think that this group is partisan and has an axe to grind.

    Editors, can we please not publish click-bait non-news like this? I'd like to downvote the whole damn story.

  • Nothing wrong with Hillary that can't be fixed by more RAM and a firrmware upgrade.

  • aaps (Score:5, Informative)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:17AM (#52854107) Journal
    The AAPS is the group that sued to invalidate Obamacare [aapsonline.org].

    That doesn't make them wrong, but I'd like to see more on their methodology; how many of the physicians didn't respond to the poll? How did they select respondents? Was it random, or was it based on membership in their organization?

    Incidentally, Open Secrets shows that AAPS only donates to Republicans [opensecrets.org] (unless they have some kind of sub-lobbying group or something).
    • by Maritz ( 1829006 )

      That doesn't make them wrong, but I'd like to see more on their methodology; how many of the physicians didn't respond to the poll? How did they select respondents? Was it random, or was it based on membership in their organization?

      That you are asking these questions means that you are not part of the target audience. They don't offer that information because they are trying to make you think things.

  • Not a 'real' group. (Score:5, Informative)

    by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:18AM (#52854119)

    There are countless faux doctor groups. This is one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine."The group was reported to have approximately 4,000 members in 2005, and 5,000 in 2014. Notable members include Ron Paul and John Cooksey. Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul, was a member for over two decades until his election to the U.S. Senate.

    In 2004, AAPS filed a brief on behalf of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh in Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, opposing the seizure of his medical files in an investigation of drug charges for Limbaugh's alleged misuse of prescription drugs. The AAPS stated the seizure was a violation of state law and that 'It is not a crime for a patient to be in pain and repeatedly seek relief, and doctors should not be turned against patients they tried to help.'"

    The next year, AAPS helped appeal the conviction of Virginia internist William Hurwitz, who was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison for prescribing excessive quantities of narcotic drugs after 16 former patients testified against him. Hurwitz was granted a retrial in 2006, and his 25-year prison sentence was reduced to 4 years and 9 months.

    The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed or the Web of Science. The quality and scientific validity of articles published in the Journal have been criticized by medical experts, and some of the political and scientific viewpoints advocated by AAPS are not held by mainstream scientists and other medical groups.

    • I forgot to list their best of:

      • that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern;
      • that HIV does not cause AIDS;
      • that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.
      • that there is a link between abortion and the risk of breast cancer.
      • that there are possible links between autism and vaccinations.
      • A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer.
      • t
  • by Maritz ( 1829006 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:18AM (#52854129)
    From Wikipedia.

    "The association is generally recognized as politically conservative or ultra-conservative, and its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited theories, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast"cancer, and that there are links between autism and vaccinations."

    Well that explains that.

  • by pitr256 ( 201315 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:19AM (#52854139) Homepage

    Proving once again that rocket scientists are the smartest people in the room

  • > Hillary suffered a "terrible" concussion requiring "six months of very serious work to get over."

    So the very thing that would make us like a politician - overcoming adversity to rise again - is supposed to be a disqualification in this case?

    That this comes from the AAPS is not at all surprising, but if anyone needed more ammunition to believe conservatives in the US are sexist, they're doing a fine job of providing it. Thanks, AAPS.

  • FUD at its finest (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:31AM (#52854209)

    What the hell is this crap and why is it on slashdot? When did slashdot turn into the Rush Limbaugh show? "Concerns" about Hillary's health are made up FUD by the right. Nothing more. Oooh, she got a concussion... (not) scary. Her health is certainly nothing worse than Dick Cheney's was. Ronald Reagan reputedly showed signs of dementia [go.com] while still in office.

    This "survey" is funded by a conservative group which has nothing to do with the real practice of medicine and certainly no interest in actual scientific facts. I'm disappointed the slashdot editors posted this drivel.

  • Please, please, please, for the love of Gawd, hire a computer nerd to provide input on your TFA selection process. Then maybe, just maybe we wouldn't be subjected to stinking stupid crap posts like this that assault our intelligence.
  • by inicom ( 81356 ) <aem@inicom.cEEEom minus threevowels> on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:35AM (#52854227) Homepage

    a) nothing to do with slashdot's "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters".
    b) blatantly partisan
    c) questionable news source

  • by naris ( 830549 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:37AM (#52854251)
    100% of Trump supporters claim Hillary is unfit for President!
  • Why can't we downvote or flag the topic?
  • by sirwired ( 27582 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @09:43AM (#52854293)

    I've been a reader of Slashdot since before they even had user accounts, and if I had felt like making my first comment with an account sooner, would have easily landed a 4-digit UID. I have a couple thousand comments to my name (though not many over the past couple of years), excellent karma, and a long history on this site. I've always been impressed with the commenting/moderation system, which I think remains the site's biggest innovation/strength, and one that I wish more websites would use to get control of their comment sections.

    But over the years, I've watched Slashdot become less and less interesting as the quality of stories has gotten lower and lower. But this is the last straw.

    Rarely have I seen the commentariat completely united in pointing out that this story was a bad idea:
    - It's purely political with zero tech content.
    - It's a direct repost from PRNewsWire
    - It's all about a pathetic self-selected internet survey
    - It comes from a group so political, it might as well be called "Doctors Against Filthy Liberals"

    The comments section of Slashdot can be lively and interesting, but only if the editors pick something other than pathetic troll-bait to get the discussion going, and they've fallen down on that job horribly. Rob & co. knew how to get a discussion going; the latest bunch alternate between click-bait and the most abstruse and boring tech stories they can find.

    After nearly 20 years with Slashdot, I'm done. I'm deleting the Slashdot feed from my RSS reader, and I guess it'll go on (or not) without me.

  • This is the doctor that should examine Hillary:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]

    https://heavyeditorial.files.w... [wordpress.com]

  • I was wondering when the usual conservative FUD would take over on the front page again, it had taken a strange hiatus for a while. Now we see it back in full swing:

    nearly 71% of 250 physicians responding to an informal internet survey

    Now who would be most likely to answer such a survey? Related, who would consider 250 responses - when we have over 800,000 active physicians in this country [statista.com] to be significant?

    As I've said before, there are plenty of problems with Hillary. Why go with these silly ones?

  • As you get old, you develop medical conditions. Both Trump and Clinton are older than the average main party candidate. Presidents aren't immune to aging- and *gasp* could die in office.

    If that happens, that's why we have VP and a predetermined order of succession. When nominating a candidate, don't just look at the President, look at their Vice Presidential candidate too. In the case of the current Presidential candidates it might be extra-important; I don't think either are immune from being impeached

  • The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943 to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine."


    Not to say Wikipedia is an awesome source, but I admit I'm really not in the mood to dig up something more definitive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
  • by FaxeTheCat ( 1394763 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @10:27AM (#52854647)
    Why cannot the moderators take 20 seconds to check the source of this rubbish?
  • by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Friday September 09, 2016 @10:42AM (#52854781)

    "The [Association of American Physicians and Surgeons] is generally recognized as politically conservative or ultra-conservative, and its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there are links between autism and vaccinations".

    Way to go. Slashdot has been reduced to giving anti-vaxxers and homophobes and fundamentalist nut cases an uncritical platform to publish propaganda about a presidential candidate.

    Nice work.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

  • by rlk ( 1089 ) on Friday September 09, 2016 @10:52AM (#52854875)

    This organization is hardly impartial. It's a conservative organization that was originally formed in the 1940's to fight "socialized medicine". It takes a number of decidedly off-beat positions, including that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that human activity doesn't contribute to climate change (what this has to do with medicine is beyond me), and so forth. See their Wikipedia entry. [wikipedia.org]

    Now, having an opinion isn't grounds for not voicing one, but under the circumstances I think this is relevant information about this group.

"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker

Working...