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

A scientific consensus.

Here come the dem science deniers!

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
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.

There was a couple of threads on ATS saying that then all of a sudden within a week or so it become non stop Hillary is ill threads or crooked Hillary etc etc

strange this wasnt brought to light 10 months ago.

More backup demonstrating that this group is ultra-conservative and politically biased in their positions:

The Tea Party's Favorite Doctors - Mother Jones

Yet despite the lab coats and the official-sounding name, the docs of the AAPS are hardly part of mainstream medical society. Think Glenn Beck with an MD. The group (which did not return calls for comment for this story) has been around since 1943. Some of its former leaders were John Birchers, and its political philosophy comes straight out of Ayn Rand. Its general counsel is Andrew Schlafly, son of the legendary conservative activist Phyllis. The AAPS statement of principles declares that it is "evil" and "immoral" for physicians to participate in Medicare and Medicaid, and its journal is a repository for quackery.

"The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: Ideology Trumps Science-based Medicine"

I first discovered JPANDS in early 2006, when it published a paper by Dr. Mark and David Geier purporting to find a downward trend in autism diagnoses after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines. The paper was so ludicrously, execrably bad in design, execution and analysis that I had a hard time believing that any self-respecting journal would publish such tripe. (Indeed, it was even worse than the Geiers’ latest offering, hard as it is to believe.) Poking around back issues of JPANDS, I found that the Geiers were not the only ones torturing epidemiology and medical science in the pages of JPANDS (more on that later).

Fake Journals vs. Bad Journals

AAPS opposes the concept of evidence-based medicine, warning its members that: Physicians must beware of accepting the concept of a standard of care that is itself evidence-based, threatening the autonomy of physicians and subjugating the patient’s interest to that of the collective. (AAPS Newsletter) [Evidence-based guidelines] are a divisive force, creating uncertainty and mistrust, and undermining confidence in physicians and our medical system. EBGs can be used either to accuse physicians of withholding therapy, or of prescribing unnecessary or unproven treatments. Behind the façade of EBGs, [managed care organizations] can determine medical policy with impunity. (Norman Latov MD)

Do some research and decide for yourself.

originally posted by: jonsoup
a reply to: buster2010

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

You seem to be overlooking that fact they DO NOT have the necessary information to judge whether she is fit to serve as president. My bad talking about facts to a Trump supporter.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
A scientific consensus.

Here come the dem science deniers!

Who made this consensus? I mean names.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

Where are they working with Breitbart?

Hogwash. She made it an entire 27 minutes on camera last night without any projectile green jello.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Whereismypassword

Where are they working with Breitbart?

Look bottom right of their site and they Twitter about working with them mate

It's easy to miss,right down the bottom right

a reply to: ketsuko

Them being ultra-conservative isn't why I don't have time for their pseudoscience.

Them denying the link between HIV and AIDS, coupled with pushing the notion that an abortion leads to a high risk factor for boob cancer, along with other positions the group has is why I don't have time for them.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Your kidding right? It's obvious that you didn't examine the connotations or you would have found exactly what I stated instead of the misleading and utter nonsense you posted.

All you have to do is go to the portion where it states they are a "ultra conservative" group. You'll see conotations 9, 11, and 12. Those are the references for why the labeled it that way. Click the connotations and it provides a link to the article.

The connotations you mentioned (1-8) are not in reference to political views.

This is research 101!!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wow, get ready to "defend" against the truth combined with a sadly out-of-date sex joke.

Classy.

As a matter of fact, this is a well-known ultra-conservative partisan group known for taking and supporting extreme right-wing positions not backed up with medical facts.

Speaking about defending the truth, you're abusing the genetic fallacy, disputing an argument based on where it comes from and not on its merits. Though it could be true that the doctors are politically motivated in their choices, it is fallacious to make that presumption, and worse, foolish to continue doing so.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

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.

What does a group of doctors want with Trumps taxes?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wow, get ready to "defend" against the truth combined with a sadly out-of-date sex joke.

Classy.

As a matter of fact, this is a well-known ultra-conservative partisan group known for taking and supporting extreme right-wing positions not backed up with medical facts.

Speaking about defending the truth, you're abusing the genetic fallacy, disputing an argument based on where it comes from and not on its merits. Though it could be true that the doctors are politically motivated in their choices, it is fallacious to make that presumption, and worse, foolish to continue doing so.

The argument has to be based on where it comes from because there is no merit to it. When these doctors have actually seen her full medical records or have done an examination of her then their statement will have merit.

Gravis marketing are partnered with Breitbart news

This is what Breightbart said



“The explosive growth of Breitbart News rests on our ability to provide real time, actionable information to our community,” said Stephen K. Bannon, the Executive Chairman of Breitbart News Network. “Our partnership with Gravis is focused on just that — quantifying where the American people are on the issues of the day and the trends of tomorrow. Breitbart/Gravis will become a significant voice in the 2016 campaign and beyond.”

Breitbart News Editor-in-chief Alexander Marlow asserted: “It is not enough to grouse about bias and corruption. The best way to fight back is to get in the game ourselves, and that’s exactly what we’ve done.”

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You need to read back. I haven't disputed any argument. I have posted descriptions of the source of the argument, backed up with multiple references and statements of both fact and opinion.

I actually encouraged anyone reading to do some research and come to their own conclusions.

Thus, you're fundamentally mistaken in your critique.

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your kidding right? It's obvious that you didn't examine the connotations or you would have found exactly what I stated instead of the misleading and utter nonsense you posted.

All you have to do is go to the portion where it states they are a "ultra conservative" group. You'll see conotations 9, 11, and 12. Those are the references for why the labeled it that way. Click the connotations and it provides a link to the article.

The connotations you mentioned (1-8) are not in reference to political views.

This is research 101!!

Connotations? Your'e not making any sense.

I quoted the references made in Wikipedia that were included in the quote I gave, and I even went back to the quote and included them. The references backing up my quote are 1-8, and I copied those exactly.

You seem to be either very confused are attempting to intentionally misrepresent the truth.