CNN’s Stelter fails with partisan reporting on Clinton’s health

Joe Concha writes for The Hill:

Sunday was an active news day well outside of coverage of the 15th anniversary of 9/11: Clinton left a ceremony at Ground Zero early. And Fox News’s Rick Leventhal — as solid a news reporter as they come out there — first went to air of Clinton’s unexpected departure.

From there, Leventhal was alone in his report citing a Clinton health episode for leaving early. The Clinton campaign wasn’t talking. Other news organizations were waiting for another outlet or the campaign to come forward to verify before even cautiously broaching it.

But shortly after 11:00 a.m. on CNN, Stelter broke away from his planned segment on “Reliable Sources” to break the news, via CNN’s Jeff Zeleny, that Clinton had indeed become “overheated” during the 9/11 event under comfortable conditions (76 degrees at the time, mild breeze, low humidity).

Here is the CNN transcript of Stelter’s exchange with reporter Jeff Zeleny via the non-partisan RealClearPolitics.

Sunday RCP headline: CNN’s Stelter to Media: Do Not Give Oxygen To “Conspiracy Theories” That Hillary Clinton Is “Secretly Ill”

BRIAN STELTER, RELIABLE SOURCES: Very worrisome news to hear, obviously, Jeff. As someone who covers the Clinton campaign everyday, what can you tell us about how frequently Clinton may have any health issues. Because obviously for years, there have been conspiracy theories online promoted by conservative websites saying that she is secretly ill. The campaign denied that and her physician said she is fit to serve as president.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN: Indeed, her physician said she is fit to serve as president. She’s released more medical information than her rival has of course but still has not released all of her records that all candidates have had over the years.

Now, this certainly is going to prompt and renew and raise more questions about her health potentially here. She is 68 years old. She will turn 69 in October, before election day. It has, you know, we have seen it a lot over recent weeks, you know, some selected images and pictures and video of her either stumbling —

BRIAN STELTER: Taken out of context.

ZELENY: Taken out of context, yes. And I can tell you, Brian, I cover her a lot day in and day out on the campaign trail. Her schedule is very aggressive. We hear Donald Trump often saying, ‘Oh, she is taking a nap in the middle of the day.’ That’s not true. She has a very rigorous campaign schedule.

After a panel discussion consisting of the Baltimore Sun’s David Zurawik questioning Fox’s Leventhal for going to air with a story he had absolutely correct via two sources and Katrina Vanden Heuval of The Nation speculating what kind of unthoughtful tweet Republican nominee Donald Trump was writing at that moment over the incident (Trump still hasn’t weighed in as of early Monday morning), Stelter later connected with Zeleny for the following exchange — which had nothing to do with the episode Clinton experienced on Sunday that showed her knees buckling while falling into her security van with aides catching her before potentially injuring herself — around an older tabloid photo instead of discussing the situation at hand.

Translation: Nothing really to see here, so let’s deflect the conversation to a completely irrelevant point.

STELTER: “You know, they had that horrible — let’s be honest, Jeff, they had this horrible photo on the cover of that supermarket tabloid. Clearly, Hillary was Photoshopped in the picture. I thought it was disgusting.

And yet, even though there are these conspiracy theories, which we should not give oxygen to, saying that she is secretly ill, suggesting she is on her deathbed, which we can she is not, there are legitimate questions to ask by reporters. And I think that’s the distinction here to make.

ZELENY: Right. It is a distinction, no doubt about it. Like I said, she has released more information than Donald Trump has, but both of them have released far less than John McCain did and Barack Obama did, than Mitt Romney and Barack Obama did, going back much beyond that.

But the picture on the tabloid did looked doctored. I see her most every day. That looked nothing like her. And she has joked about it, Brian. I think we saw her on TV…

STELTER: Yes, good point.

ZELENY: … a couple weeks ago saying, you know, look, they’ve predicted that I would be on my deathbed by October and I’m still here. So she has made humor of this. And I think that this could go one of two ways here. If the other — if her critics keep this up and criticize her, this could certainly motivate and inspire some of her supporters as well here.

But we see her waving there, again. She’s scheduled to go to California tomorrow. She will be on the West Coast for three days this week. As of now, her schedule is going forward here, Brian.

On Thursday, for example, I flew with her all day as she left the airport in Westchester around 10:00 a.m. after a press conference and we returned at 11:00 p.m. She had a couple different campaign stops, a couple different fundraising stops and working along the way. So she is keeping up a rigorous pace here.

But there are going to be questions about her health. In this incident, this episode, this situation this morning in Manhattan is just the latest example of that. The fact the Clinton campaign putting out this statement this morning saying that she felt overheated at Ground Zero and was taken to her daughter’s apartment certainly is the information we have right now at this hour, Brian.”

…Stelter has since pivoted to take journalists to task for not “being honest about the double standard women sometimes face with regards to their health,” especially in the workplace and in politics. So instead of conspiracy theories, which was all the rage before Sunday, it’s now a narrative around gender dynamics and unfair stereotypes.

Translation: Clinton wouldn’t face this kind of scrutiny around her health if she was a man. Uh-huh.

By the way, here’s why this column should mean something to you: Stelter is supposed to monitor media and report on all that’s right and wrong with it. A watchful eye of the gatekeepers, so to speak. That’s how I view the job with a simple mantra and two questions:

Is the media/press being objective in situation X, Y, Z?

Is it telling you the full story without bias, without agenda?

“[Questions about Clinton’s health] have been debunked time and time again,” Stelter argued on his nationally-televised program in August, adding, “This is stuff that does not belong on the lead website, like the Drudge Report, or on the Fox News Channel. It just doesn’t belong there.”

Media reporters are supposed to be the last stand against dishonesty and partisanship in the media.

But one of its more prominent ones with a large megaphone — like the kind CNN provides — has been compromised in favor of pushing one candidate’s narrative in this election.

And in the process, it now appears even the watchdogs of the Fourth Estate can’t be trusted.

Which makes one wonder as trust in media plummets well below historic lows:

Who’s really watching the gatekeepers anymore?

Posted in Hillary Clinton, Journalism | Comments Off on CNN’s Stelter fails with partisan reporting on Clinton’s health

What Happened To Hillary?

An internist writes to Rod Dreher:

The most likely diagnosis – in my mind – an acute cardiac arrhythmia – either ventricular tachycardia – or more likely atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response. A FIB with RVR is very very commonly associated with people feeling flushed or overheated – for quite extended periods of time – dizziness and nausea are also possible. When they exert themselves – it is not unusual at all for them to have complete syncope like she appeared to do today. If not afib with RVR – it is possible there could have been some other supraventricular tachycardia – there are several different types.

(A side note – this is NOT without precedent in modern American presidential history – If you will recall the incident where George H W Bush stood up and vomited all over the Prime Minister of Japan at a state dinner. That incident was precipitated by exactly this – AFIB with RVR.)

Why am I gravely concerned about this diagnosis?

In my experience as a physician – this can happen at any time – however – it typically and often happens at times of great stress. Cardiac arrhthymias can be very easy to control – or very difficult to control. However – this has often meant “retirement” for my business executive patients down the years – the syncopal events can simply happen at very inopportune times and cause all kinds of havoc for the person and his/her company. This is NOT the type of thing that I would want my President to have during a very stressful time.

My fear is that it is fully known what is wrong with her – and this is being hidden from the American public.

By the way – the diagnosis of “pneumonia” being put forth by her physician – Dr. Bardack – is just simply imbecile. A patient who would have this kind of event with pneumonia – would NOT be up and walking around an hour later. If this type of thing happens during pneumonia or any other infection, the patient is almost always suffering from sepsis – and not up and walking. Again – this is imbecile. Third year medical students know better than this.

By the way – as an internist – I have been very very concerned about the reporting of the physicians covering Trump and Clinton. There is something clearly mentally wrong with Trump’s personal physician. I am not sure what is wrong with that guy – but something clearly ails him. The scrutiny there was deserved and as of yet has not been answered even remotely by the Trump campaign. For the life of me – I do not know why there has not been equal attention on Dr. Bardack – Mrs. Clinton’s physician. It has been known for a few weeks to internists in America connected to social media THAT Dr. BARDACK IS NOT BOARD-CERTIFIED by the American Board of Internal Medicine. If you look at the website for the American Board of Internal Medicine – and look her up – abim.org – you will find that SHE IS NOT BOARD-CERTIFIED. Why would Mrs. Clinton release a medical statement from a non-Board Certified physician? I have been puzzled by the fact that the national press has made such a deal about the failings of Trump’s physician (rightly so) – but chirping crickets about the obvious board issues with Dr. Bardack. Any ideas about that?

I have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton may have been diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. That is entirely possible. 70 year olds have pneumonia all the time. My point is that pneumonia in and of itself – WOULD NEVER make someone do what happened today. I am fully aware of walking pneumonia – and indeed – by definition – it is “walking”. It is a type of pneumonia caused by very specific organism(s) that are much different than those types that will put you in the hospital. The point being – walking pneumonia will produce ill symptoms – often a cough and overall malaise – but will never ever cause a syncope like episode. Pneumonia or reaction to antibiotics simply do not produce what happened today in the absence of many other grave symptoms – and believe me people would not be walking through a parking lot with these symptoms.

I want to clarify the cardiac arrhythmia issue as well. AFIB with RVR is but one of many types of rhythm problems that could be going on – it is by far the most common therefore the most likely. This is what happens when people have afib: the atria – the top chambers of the heart – are beating in total chaos. Normally – your AV node protects the bottom part – ventricles – or pumping chambers from being exposed to the chaos. You can go for long times months even years without any problems at all. However, ever so often the AV node fails in its protection – the chaos from above is transported to the ventricles below and suddenly the bottom of the heart is beating 150, 160 whatever. Just think how you feel after 15 minutes on a treadmill. Running hard. Heart rate of 150 – light-headed and short of breath. Now imagine that you get off the treadmill – and your heart just keeps right on going at 150. In about 10 minutes you will begin to feel very bad. This is manifested in different ways by different people. Shortness of breath is very common. The feeling of being flushed or hot is very common. Nausea and vomiting are very very common. But your heart will not slow down. After several minutes of this – even the most simple exertion like walking – can lead to such low blood pressure that you will have syncope (pass out). That is why AFIB with RVR is so high on the differential diagnosis of the tape I saw today.

Something else of concern that has been running through my mind since I saw that tape is yet another diagnosis that I neglected to put in the initial discussion. This is EXACTLY how people will react if they have an implantable defibrillator and it fires. This would be the same as having the big paddles put on you in the ER – and shocked. Over the past 20 years or so – we have been putting “paddles” directly into patients chest that fire and shock them whenever the computer that is attached to them perceives there is a problem. These patients would already have a diagnosis of a cardiac rhythm problem. One of two things in my experience happens. 1) The rhythm problem comes out of nowhere – and the patient is shocked. They would seem to drop to the ground instantly 2) Often, the rhythm problem is lurking for several minutes before the shock occurs. It all depends on the diagnosis and the settings of the device. But the patient will often feel very very weak and tired, dizzy, hot and light-headed in the seconds/minutes before the device fires. When it does fire however – most of the time – the patient goes down temporarily – just like Mrs. Clinton did today.

Will someone ask her please if she has a defibrillator in her chest? This may or may not be so – but do you want someone who can be shocked like that in charge of the country in a crisis?

I want to for personal reasons address concerns about my ethics in some of the above comments.

I agree – no diagnosis should ever be made without the patient being right in front of you. And many of the tapes and videos used in the past month about Mrs. Clinton’s health have been “out there”. I am not making a diagnosis on her – I am offering up medical facts about what could have caused something like this to occur. Common things occur commonly. This video today is clearly not from the lunatic fringe like some of the others I have seen this past few weeks. I am gravely concerned about this after what I saw today – and I wholeheartedly believe the voters need to know the whole story – whatever that may be – and what the campaign is telling and putting forth makes little sense medically speaking. As is so often in politics – it is the lies and confusion put forward to cover things up – that gets people in trouble.

I like most of America am absolutely dismayed with the choices we have this year for President. This video today did not help decrease my concern about this election.

Another question I have – and about this I need to be perfectly clear. Had I seen that video on any of my patients – and believe me – having things caught on video is actually very common in medicine today – my very very first reaction would be GET THAT PATIENT TO THE ER – I AM MEETING YOU THERE. Why on earth was Mrs. Clinton not rushed to the hospital???? — That issue alone brings up all sorts of concerning thoughts in my mind..

And about her personal physician – Dr. Raback. In my haste – to get the previous comment done – and typing quickly – I did not fully convey her status with the Board of Internal Medicine. (This is really in the deep woods) If you care to do some research about this issue – Board Certification and its maintenance is HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL among internists now. (Please see drwes.blogspot.com for full details). She is listed as CERTIFIED – but NOT PARTICIPATING in MAINTENANCE. That means that she has made the decision not to maintain her certification. She passed her initial exams and was certified at some point in the past – but is not participating in maintaining this going forward. At some point – this will put her at great risk of being dropped from insurance panels, etc. This is a huge thorn in the side of the internal medicine community at this point. The whole thing is a total mess. It is an example of government regulation gone horribly awry. But the fact of the matter is that she is not participating in her continued certification – There are those in internal medicine who would think that to be not a good thing.

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on What Happened To Hillary?

The New Yorker

csk3fhjxyaedec

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on The New Yorker

Research Proves Google Manipulates Millions to Favor Clinton

REPORT: In this exclusive report, distinguished research psychologist Robert Epstein explains the new study and reviews evidence that Google’s search suggestions are biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. He estimates that biased search suggestions might be able to shift as many as 3 million votes in the upcoming presidential election in the US.

Biased search rankings can swing votes and alter opinions, and a new study shows that Google’s autocomplete can too. A scientific study I published last year showed that search rankings favoring one candidate can quickly convince undecided voters to vote for that candidate — as many as 80 percent of voters in some demographic groups. My latest research shows that a search engine could also shift votes and change opinions with another powerful tool: autocomplete. Because of recent claims that Google has been deliberately tinkering with search suggestions to make Hillary Clinton look good, this is probably a good time both to examine those claims and to look at my new research.

As you will see, there is some cause for concern here. In June of this year, Sourcefed released a video claiming that Google’s search suggestions — often called “autocomplete” suggestions — were biased in favor of Mrs. Clinton. The video quickly went viral: the full 7-minute version has now been viewed more than a million times on YouTube, and an abridged 3-minute version has been viewed more than 25 million times on Facebook. The video’s narrator, Matt Lieberman, showed screen print after screen print that appeared to demonstrate that searching for just about anything related to Mrs. Clinton generated positive suggestions only. This occurred even though Bing and Yahoo searches produced both positive and negative suggestions and even though Google Trends data showed that searches on Google that characterize Mrs. Clinton negatively are quite common — far more common in some cases than the search terms Google was suggesting. Lieberman also showed that autocomplete did offer negative suggestions for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. “The intention is clear,” said Lieberman. “Google is burying potential searches for terms that could have hurt Hillary Clinton in the primary elections over the past several months by manipulating recommendations on their site.”

Google responded to the Sourcefed video in an email to the Washington Times, denying everything. According to the company’s spokesperson, “Google Autocomplete does not favor any candidate or cause.” The company explained away the apparently damning findings by saying that “Our Autocomplete algorithm will not show a predicted query that is offensive or disparaging when displayed in conjunction with a person’s name.”

Since then, my associates and I at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT) — a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based in the San Diego area — have been systematically investigating Lieberman’s claims. What we have learned has generally supported those claims, but we have also learned something new — something quite disturbing — about the power of Google’s search suggestions to alter what people search for. Lieberman insisted that Google’s search suggestions were biased, but he never explained why Google would introduce such bias. Our new research suggests why — and also why Google’s lists of search suggestions are typically much shorter than the lists Bing and Yahoo show us. Our investigation is ongoing, but here is what we have learned so far…

The three main findings were as follows:

1) Overall, people clicked on the negative items about 40 percent of the time — that’s twice as often as one would expect by chance. What’s more, compared with the neutral items we showed people in searches that served as controls, negative items were selected about five times as often. 2) Among eligible, undecided voters —the impressionable people who decide close elections — negative items attracted more than 15 times as many clicks as neutral items attracted in matched control questions. 3) People affiliated with one political party selected the negative suggestion for the candidate from their own party less frequently than the negative suggestion for the other candidate.

In other words, negative suggestions attracted the largest number of clicks when they were consistent with people’s biases. These findings are consistent with two well-known phenomena in the social sciences: negativity bias and confirmation bias.

Negativity bias refers to the fact that people are far more affected by negative stimuli than by positive ones. As a famous paper on the subject notes, a single cockroach in one’s salad ruins the whole salad, but a piece of candy placed on a plate of disgusting crud will not make that crud seem even slightly more palatable. Negative stimuli draw more attention than neutral or positive ones, they activate more behavior, and they create stronger impressions — negative ones, of course.

In recent years, political scientists have even suggested that negativity bias plays an important role in the political choices we make — that people adopt conservative political views because they have a heightened sensitivity to negative stimuli. Confirmation bias refers to the fact that people almost always seek out, pay attention to, and believe information that confirms their beliefs more than they seek out, pay attention to, or believe information that contradicts those beliefs. When you apply these two principles to search suggestions, they predict that people are far more likely to click on negative search suggestions than on neutral or positive ones — especially when those negative suggestions are consistent with their own beliefs. This is exactly what the new study confirms. Google data analysts know this too. They know because they have ready access to billions of pieces of data showing exactly how many times people click on negative search suggestions. They also know exactly how many times people click on every other kind of search suggestion one can categorize.

To put this another way, what I and other researchers must stumble upon and can study only crudely, Google employees can study with exquisite precision every day. Given Google’s strong support for Mrs. Clinton, it seems reasonable to conjecture that Google employees manually suppress negative search suggestions relating to Clinton in order to reduce the number of searches people conduct that will expose them to anti-Clinton content. They appear to work a bit less hard to suppress negative search suggestions for Mr. Trump, Senator Sanders, Senator Cruz, and other prominent people.

Posted in Google, Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on Research Proves Google Manipulates Millions to Favor Clinton

Hillary’s Path Ahead

Comments at Steve Sailer:

* What do the press/DNC/elites know about Hillary’s health and when did they know it?

* 9/11 anniversary was a huge public appearance that she had to make. Her medical team must have prepped like crazy to get her through the ordeal and she still collapsed.

Huge dilemma for the campaign now with eight weeks to go. They will have zero confidence of her passing muster in public appearances without a radical change in her treatment. But if it’s Parkinson’s, and Huma email researching Provigil points to that, then alt treatments are risky.

This episode will also erode Hillary’s confidence. Good chance team Clinton pulls her out of public appearances. It weakens her poll numbers but doesn’t tank them.

So strategy: hide her for eight weeks and try to devastate Trump with an October surprise. She could still win.

* She would have been contagious from her mouth at least, and she should have worn a mask over mouth and nose, or stood well away from everyone else.

So she can either admit she was hiding the pneumonia and willing to infect others to do it, or admit it wasn’t really pneumonia.

* So is Hillary really prone to illness, or does she just have the worst luck ever, and came down with this pneumonia right before a major public event, in the most crucial few months of her life, just as insane conspiracy theorists (paid by the Kremlin) are spreading totally unfounded rumors about her health?

* Taking 4 day weekends at this point in an election inherently suggests health issues.

* This whole thing was done on the West Wing with MS. Basically the same scenario is playing out in reality.

* Contagiousness aside, simple prudence would indicate staying away from other people in public and not going within ten miles of her two year old granddaughter.

Posted in Hillary Clinton | Comments Off on Hillary’s Path Ahead