It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

71 Percent of Doctors - Clinton’s Health Serious, May be Disqualifying for Position as President

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wiki shouldn't be taken too serious.

Did you look at the conotations of the wiki references? There are only 3, one referencing a Time article from 1967. The other written by the New York Times....in 1966. And the last being a 2002 USA Today article that merely states that it is "conservative" without any reasoning.


But quackwatch should. AAPS is indeed on their list.




posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonsoup


Have you all seen this video of Hillary clearly having a serious medical issue??? Its clear to me that Hillary is about to die in the vid.





posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonsoup
Liberals will try to debunk these doctors and their examinations of Hillary. The left loves to preach science, until its inconvenient. So what is it you silly leftist?? Is the science doctors frauds and the bible is real or will you admit god and trump are the only fact sources??

Balls in your court, lefty's!


These AAPS doctors have not examined her.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

THEY DID TOO how would they come to conclusion without sciencing her???



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wiki shouldn't be taken too serious.

Did you look at the conotations of the wiki references? There are only 3, one referencing a Time article from 1967. The other written by the New York Times....in 1966. And the last being a 2002 USA Today article that merely states that it is "conservative" without any reasoning.


Of course I did ... and you're actually being quite misleading:

Here are the first eight references that support the statement I quoted:




[1]1Meier, Barry (January 18, 2011). "Vocal Physicians Group Renews Health Law Fight". New York Times. Archived from the original on October 15, 2011. Retrieved January 24, 2011. ^

[2] "Portent". Time. 1944-05-08. Retrieved 2007-02-14.

[3] Pinsker, Beth (2005-08-07). "'I don't take insurance' not always a doctor deal breaker". Reuters. Retrieved 2014-08-20.

[4]Pinsker, Beth (2005-08-07). "What It Really Means When Your Doctor Says He Doesn't Take Insurance". TIME magazine. Retrieved 2007-02-14.

[5] Chu, Jeff (2005-08-07). "Doctors Who Hurt Doctors". TIME magazine. Archived from the original on February 16, 2007. Retrieved 2007-02-14.

[6] AAPS (October 2002). "Volume 58, No. 10 October 2002". Retrieved 2007-02-14.

[7] Jeremy Peters; Barry Meier (2015-02-05). "Rand Paul Is Linked to Doctors' Group That Supports Vaccination Challenges". The New York Times.

[8] Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, website — About us page". Aaps online.org. Retrieved 2013-05-09.


So, nice try ... but you're misrepresenting easily accessible facts.

You're egregiously misrepresenting the Time Magazine reference ... that article from 1944 (not '67) was DOCUMENTING THE FOUNDING OF THIS GROUP in 1943. You can't even get your misrepresentations correct. LOL.

Shame, shame.

And yes, the AAPS is well-known as an Ultra-conservative group.

I will replace the reference numbers in the quote above for clarity and accuracy.
edit on 8-9-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonsoup
Liberals will try to debunk these doctors and their examinations of Hillary. The left loves to preach science, until its inconvenient. So what is it you silly leftist?? Is the science doctors frauds and the bible is real or will you admit god and trump are the only fact sources??

Balls in your court, lefty's!

Can you point out where they have access to her full medical records? Oh yeah they don't do they. So their "analysis" is nothing more than political BS.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   
So if having a decent percentage of your members register Republican is enough reason to label your stuff as highly suspect for being overwhlemingly partisan, then what excuse does the mainstream press have?

An overwhelming majority of journalists in major newsrooms across America are open, registered Democrats. There is no attempt at party affiliation parity in any way. By that same rationale, we should pretty much discount every major media outlet that exists and claims "impartiality."

Obviously, they can't be by registered affiliation.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonsoup


Have you all seen this video of Hillary clearly having a serious medical issue??? Its clear to me that Hillary is about to die in the vid.


It's not a serious medical issue, you dummy. It's a self-described short circuit. No one recharged her battery when they plugged in the Toyota Hybrid.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Hillary is sick FACT. These science have proved it TRUMP 20016



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
So if having a decent percentage of your members register Republican is enough reason to label your stuff as highly suspect for being overwhlemingly partisan, then what excuse does the mainstream press have?

An overwhelming majority of journalists in major newsrooms across America are open, registered Democrats. There is no attempt at party affiliation parity in any way. By that same rationale, we should pretty much discount every major media outlet that exists and claims "impartiality."

Obviously, they can't be by registered affiliation.


All one has to do is to track the statements and positions of this "Group" to see where their allegiance stands.

Do some homework.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wiki shouldn't be taken too serious.

Did you look at the conotations of the wiki references? There are only 3, one referencing a Time article from 1967. The other written by the New York Times....in 1966. And the last being a 2002 USA Today article that merely states that it is "conservative" without any reasoning.



The society's "journal" JPANDS has published an article on the supposed link between breast cancer and abortion.[37] It has been roundly debunked.[38][39][40] Near the end of the 2008 Presidential Election the "journal" published a claim that Barack Obama uses neuro-linguistic programming to exercise mind control over people at his rallies.[41]On their website, former AAPS president Dr. Lawrence Huntoon describes peer review boards which review complaints against doctors as "an insidious and spreading evil which threatens to destroy not only the integrity of the medical profession but quality care for all patients."[42]


Not only do they say crazy things, they do not want any oversight, whatsoever, in order to continue doing and saying very disturbing things.
edit on 8-9-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Could they be struck off as doctors for claiming Hillary has serious illness that should end her presidential race?

It's not professional in the slightest



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: jonsoup
Liberals will try to debunk these doctors and their examinations of Hillary. The left loves to preach science, until its inconvenient. So what is it you silly leftist?? Is the science doctors frauds and the bible is real or will you admit god and trump are the only fact sources??

Balls in your court, lefty's!

Can you point out where they have access to her full medical records? Oh yeah they don't do they. So their "analysis" is nothing more than political BS.


Ya, that's a shame. It's just like they don't have access to Trump's taxes. So their "analysis" is nothing more than political BS.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonsoup
a reply to: buster2010

Hillary is sick FACT. These science have proved it TRUMP 20016


Yup. That'll be the year Trump has any chance in.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Makes sense tu my!!



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
So if having a decent percentage of your members register Republican is enough reason to label your stuff as highly suspect for being overwhlemingly partisan, then what excuse does the mainstream press have?

An overwhelming majority of journalists in major newsrooms across America are open, registered Democrats. There is no attempt at party affiliation parity in any way. By that same rationale, we should pretty much discount every major media outlet that exists and claims "impartiality."

Obviously, they can't be by registered affiliation.


Let's not muddy the waters.

This group is a bunch of hacks and that's aside from the fact that a poll of 250 is never enough of a target demographic to make such a suggestion.


You need at least a couple of thousand before you can start claiming polls are a representation of reality.


With over a Million doctors and surgeons in the US, less than 250 of them making this claim is a joke.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
Could they be struck off as doctors for claiming Hillary has serious illness that should end her presidential race?

It's not professional in the slightest


Could you please elaborate what is considered professional?



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonsoup
a reply to: reldra

THEY DID TOO how would they come to conclusion without sciencing her???


Ya, they scienced her allright. Maybe Scientology, phrenology, astrology....



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
If someone made a thread about Trump being a narcissist (highly probable) and used similar tactics by a similar hack org it would be laughed off the boards.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Question. The source says 250 doctors. Are they anonymous? If so would they put their reputations on the line and come out and say it? Oops. More than one question.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join