Saw a video (too lazy to look for it again) that shows she has had her cough since 2008.
Saw a video (too lazy to look for it again) that shows she has had her cough since 2008.Exactly what is being covered up? Certainly not that Clinton coughed. Oh, my, Clinton coughed. No one ever coughs unless they're seriously ill......LOL!
And UnderRoos, you really need to broaden your perspectives and info sources. At best you've linked tripe, if not unmitigated bullshit.
Saw a video (too lazy to look for it again) that shows she has had her cough since 2008.
Saw a video (too lazy to look for it again) that shows she has had her cough since 2008.
Dr Drew talking about Hillary's health care, and I agree, she's getting 1960's era health care.
So some doctor who specializes in addiction treatment (and media self promotion) feels that he can properly diagnose someone that he's never personally examined/had tested, simply on the information that's been released to the public. .
Glad he's not my doctor.
Actually, he's right, look up current treatment for what's in her records, it's really old school. Granted the industry likes new stuff, but for instance, the patents have run out on many more current treatment modalities, so there's no big pharmacy profit motive, it's a little odd.
As someone who is on synthroid I happen to know that not everyone reacts well to it. What she receives was something my own doctor considered at a time when I was having some medication issues with synthroid a few years back.
He's a media figure commenting on something that he don't know anything about. Good for him, it's what he gets paid to do.
And, again, based on what he did I wouldn't have that guy as a personal doctor if he offered his services for free.
You didn't hear what he said, and you're going off on a rant, listen again.
Are you taking Coumadin too? I'd rather be on a different drug than Coumadin as well, plus, there's another alternative to synthroid, with a third one coming.
And it explains a bit about why PETA is protesting her, her drug is animal sourced.
I did listen to most of what he had to say and again, no doctor should be trying to give the kind of analysis he seems to be doing without the proper personal examination/testing. He knows nothing about her background other than the released report and yet he's willing to call out her doctor and health care. In my opinion he's being an ass. And that's all I have to say about the matter.
And it explains a bit about why PETA is protesting her, her drug is animal sourced.
Don't know why anyone would need to. It's irresponsible for anyone to be diagnosing and evaluating the medical conditions of someone they have never examined. The same was said when people were questioning Trump's mental health a couple weeks ago.And you admittedly didn't listen to the whole thing, nice.
LOL, what a bunch of thin skinned fools. How the hell do you knot heads think doctors learn?
First off, there's NOTHING indicating she shouldn't be fit to be POTUS, second, her physician seems to be an idiot.
Meh, too partisan in here, see you after the election...
stick around, the drumpf supporters are leaving like rats fleeing a sinking ship.. oh wait...
Not a Trump supporter, just tired of trying to discuss anything without a partisan spin. Enjoy.
Actually, he's right, look up current treatment for what's in her records, it's really old school. Granted the industry likes new stuff, but for instance, the patents have run out on many more current treatment modalities, so there's no big pharmacy profit motive, it's a little odd.
And if you listen, he worked with a pretty sharp internal medicine doc, and honestly, nowadays most decisions are made by much less qualified PA's and NP's, we're not talking about her health, rather her health care, it's a little puzzling that's it's medication and treatment that would have been given to say Nixon, not someone in the 2010's.
Who cares what meds she takes to manage whatever she's managing? Who cares if the meds she takes are "old school". It's not as if the older meds suddenly stopped working. If they're still effective for her, why should she change? Just to satisfy a TV doc?
There are numerous reasons someone would be on "old school" meds. Not every new med is a better med for the same condition...side effects, tolerance, drug interactions/contraindications from other meds currently being taken. Also, switching a person from drug to drug for no other reason than getting off an "old school" med that's working perfectly well just because it's "old school" is stupidity.
So for you or Dr. Drew to disparage her MD for using "old school" meds without a hint of why she's choosing to use them, without a history and physical, is ignorance at best.
No partisanship here, just a few decades as an RN practicing in ER, ICU, physician offices, etc.
As an experienced health care professional, then you understand why safer and more effective drugs should be prescribed, and you're well aware of standards of practice, and why they're followed.
The "art" of health care was replaced by science, or did you miss the memo in your decades as a nurse?
Everything is data driven nowadays, for good reason too.
Standards of practice do not dictate taking patients off older meds and moving them to newer ones simply because they're newer. If you haven't noticed, many of the newer drugs have significantly more and dangerous side effects vs. many of the older drugs, older drugs that are still quite viable in a clinical setting. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding.
And the art of medicine is still an art and has yet to be replaced entirely by science, and never will. It's a lot more than "this is the newest drug for your problem, change to it because.....it's new!" Drug interactions, tolerance or lack of it for the new drugs, etc., are among the considerations that go into what meds get prescribed by competent MD's.
For Dr. Drew to insinuate Clinton's physician is incompetent for the meds that physician prescribes is, to me, just flabbergasting without knowing the medical history of Clinton and her physical exam(s).
I think that common sense would dictate that if a patient is responding well to a drug, you shouldn't chance moving them to something new unless there's a good reason for it (like the current drug is losing its effectiveness). The reality of medicine today is we don't fully understand anything, and introducing any new drug involves some risk. I can see the plausibility of sticking with what they know works well for Ms. Clinton.Yes, data driven treatment does indicate changing medications, and you're out of touch with current standards of practice, congratulations.