A number of physicians and other medical professionals in this country do not feel free to question Hillary Clinton’s health status publicly — even just weeks before the presidential election, when so much other information has come to light.
To go against the powerful Democratic candidate in any way — even with pertinent medical information — is to take a risk both personally and professionally, apparently.
“Doctors can’t talk about this — they’re afraid they’ll be personally attacked,” said one doctor.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a national nonpartisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties, recently conducted an informal online poll. The results of the sampling were conclusive: Concerns about Hillary Clinton’s health are “serious — could be disqualifying for the position of president of the U.S.,” according to nearly 71 percent of the 250 physicians who responded.
Doctors may record their real concerns in an anonymous poll — but when it comes to speaking in public, only the courageous few are willing to share their opinions.
“Are there any doctors willing to put their name and reputation on the line, read the physician’s [Clinton physician Lisa Bardack] letter that Clinton says is adequate information, and agree with that?” asked Jane Orient, executive director of the AAPS. “Is there a doctor willing to say, ‘I have looked at the doctor’s letter and I have looked at available videos, I know something about her past history, and I think as a physician that she’s neurologically normal'”?
Orient answered her own question. “My guess? Less than 3 percent would be willing to do that.”
A prominent physician in the Washington, D.C., area added the human element to the equation. “Many doctors themselves are liberal, so they automatically give Hillary Clinton a pass,” he said. “Political decisions are emotional, and doctors are people — and like others, they backfill emotions with selected data.”
There is also a protective angle at play, in this doctor’s opinion. “They’re afraid of reprisal and blowback. These large institutions receive a lot of federal funding, and we’ve got a Democratic president now — they’re legitimately afraid of reprisal.”
And a third powerful reason to not talk about Clinton’s health concerns may be keeping many doctors silent.
“They can’t talk about this — they’re also afraid they’ll be personally attacked. Doctors are told not to believe their eyes when it comes to Clinton’s health issues, since they don’t have access to her complete, un-redacted medical records.”
It’s worth remembering that when journalist David Seamon questioned Clinton’s health in a piece on The Huffington Post back in August “in an articulate and professional fashion,” according to The Hill — he was promptly barred from the site.
In addition, the last two posts he wrote for The Huffington Post were deleted.
“It’s chilling. I still haven’t really absorbed it,” Seamon said in a video message on Aug. 29. “This is happening in the United States, in 2016.”
In addition to the major health challenges that have been made public, emails released through WikiLeaks show that Clinton's own campaign behind the scenes has repeatedly covered for her as she rests or naps during the day — and ensures she has a podium to lean on at any engagement, at all times. They have also expressed concern for her mental and physical health.
Clinton also appears to exhibit ongoing neurological issues, such as her eyes not appearing to be in sync. The latest example of this was caught on tape at a rally in Cleveland, Ohio, on Friday evening.