1?

I knew they were holding stuff back. Who exactly did the AP send who was qualified to tell us that McShame is in good health?

But McCain’s docs will always be obliged to keep his secrets.

Yep Kirk. That’s it in a nutshell.

Completely OT, but there is NO way in hell that the Israelis did not know who was on that plane…

‘Israeli fighter aircraft were scrambled to intercept a jet carrying former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair after its crew failed to identify themselves.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor…..415915.stm

Thanks for the clarity. The story is the holes in the information. sanitized and minimized; I hope a lot of voices pick up, shout out, on the vital omissions you are highlighting. 

Jackie, I agree.

Digg it Then Spotlight it!

Which is why we need to see the records for ourselves.

All of them. And until we see them, it’s not unfair to conclude that McCain has something to hide.

sorry kirk. on this one we disagree. i don’t need to be a doc and i don’t need to have access to his private medical history to know he is completely unfit to be a senator let alone a president. we have plenty of evidence without demanding more that we won’t (and in my opinion should not) get.

Were any of the reporters who looked at McCain’s records Doctors? I helped write a few of my fathers old engineering reports (the firm cut back on secretaries which is something you don’t want to here about a firm that designs reactors.)
Anyway I am not qualified to asses those reports at all even though I helped write a few!
Were any of these reporters even a first year medical student?

This is great post Doc :)
Dugggggg :)

So, what was that old Reagan brain injury? More, please.

And did it have anything to do with his “Alzheimer’s”, or with his tendency to confuse his real life with his work on the stage or in movies?

When he spoke spontaneously (which was not often), IIRC he often hesitated a bit longer than most people before (or while) answering.

And then there was Woodrow Wilson.

Bob in HI

opps, double duggg.. I dug it under political news..Anyway to fix it?

so… do you-all think that you have the right to know if a woman running for president has ever been pregnant? how old she was when she got pregnant? if she ever had a miscarriage?

how about if she ever had an abortion?

because when you demand ALL of a candidate’s medical records, that is what you are demanding be made public.

i call bullshit.

selise, what do you think should be fair game?

Oh boy! We’ve been hoping you’d take a look at this! Now to read.

Well I do have a problem with trusting these reports because there is no way to verify it independently. McCain will never let a real report that says anything bad about him surface.
But assuming we could trust the reports well what would be relevant?
The GOP should be concerned about McCain’s health sick candidates don’t campaign like healthy candidates do that and the GOP really has to watch who the VP is.
If McCain is lying about his health his lack of energy to campaign might give us an extra 10 points in the election that we would not have had otherwise.
Of course the GOP controlled MSM by protecting McCain actually weaken the GOP by not discussing this.
But what if it were our Candidate who was lying to us?

I would still vote for her if she were a Lefty!

TexBetsy, I can’t figure out who the AP sent. Their triumphant Thursday night story has already been scrubbed from their site (or moved) – in any event, the URL that worked earlier is broken now.

They only refer to a “small group” of reporters over several hours.

This time, a small group of reporters reviewed 1,173 pages of medical documents that span 2000 to 2008 over several hours in a conference room at a resort just outside Phoenix and a few miles from the posh Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, where McCain receives most of his medical care under a pseudonym _ which reporters were asked not to disclose. Coincidentally, the release came the same week that McCain’s close friend, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, revealed that he had a cancerous brain tumor.

Given the years that various reporters sat on the info about McCain’s appalling C*** tirade to his spouse, I’ve scant confidence that the BBQ set will do anything more than act as an extention of his press staff.

So – although I’d like to know the answer y=to your excelent question – in a broader scale it almost doesn’t matter.

The only way we voters will be able to know is to have direct unmeidated access to his (and all PRez candidates’) med records.

McCain is uniquely ill-placed to demand “privacy” – when it was poltically exedient for him in 200, he allowed an MD with the NYT to review all the recordds at length.

SugarMomma’s going to make some money if this deal goes through..
’Shares in US brewer Anheuser Busch, the maker of Budweiser beer, have jumped on a report that Belgian firm InBev is working on a $46bn (£23bn) takeover.’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7417392.stm

Ok Kirk given what you know about McCain’s condition and the likely medications he might be on just how will McCain handle a stressful campaign.

Any discussion at all of this in the msm? Not likely while they’re talking about Hillary’s Macaca Moment Act 2–apparently there was a similar comment to Time Magazine back in March.

It’ll depend on the blogosphere to keep demanding the truth, not the selectively edited whitewash of this “medical” report.

What foreigners are buying our beer companies! Please say they are going to improve our beer to European standards!

Keith says reporters would have had nine seconds per page to study McCane’s health.

Since I respect Doc so much I laid off Hillary’s bullshit but I am furious.

Maybe Sugar Moma will get downsized in favor of an other beer distributer:)

The whole MSM response, capitulation to McLimitations of scrutiny, without consulting with professionals from their notes before eagerly proclaiming everything a-ok.. It stinks to high heaven!

Dr. Gupta (sp) did coverage on CBS and the usual medical correspondent did the commentary. A list of meds, 6, including ambien and vitamins.

and the top speed for speed readers with a photographic memory is? Not that the MSM would ever get the facts shiv McCain in the back like that.

selsie, your prior objectios to this issue revolved around mental health issues. IIRC, yuo raised the concern that psych issues as a test of fitness for office could disqualify Lincoln from holding office.

IIRC, I pointed out that – unlike the mid 19th Century – in the early 21st century one grumpy late night decision could vaporize the palnet’s surface.

Thanks for your constructive contribution to todauy’s discussion. You raise and interesting point, and I too see no reason why a candidate’s history of abortion should be pertinent. As some medications taken for contraception can and do affect brain function in some people, I would wish to see that iinfo included.

I am quite aware that the subject of demanding access to Prez candidates’ mental health history will raise uncomfortable issues for manyof our readers.

After spending over twent years demanding privacy for my patients, I too find the concept of insisting on this information to be discomfitinig.

Yet – after eight years of mayhem – I find the prospect of further damagiing the Republic and the planet from a Chief Executive’s hidden CNS diease(s) to be even more troubling.

SOme voters may have already decided they have sufficient information to exclude McCain as a candidate. I respect their decisions. Yet for those voters to act of assume that all other voters will reach the same decision in the absence of access to further information is an act of solpsism.

Would be nice…:)

Oh, from your lips to God’s ear… And is it possible, under a new Democratic administration, to outlaw Budweiser?

Only if they’re blond and 25ish….;)

Prairie, from what we saw of the MSM (even the WaPo) picking up the topic of McCain’s behavioral/psych history (in an April 20, 2008 article IIRC…it’s in the linkies above), I’m hoping that reporters like Cliff, their books, and the blogosphere will acceelerate the movement of these questions to the MSM>

Raven, I doubly thank you.

So is it far fetched to assume that RNC has a clean brand waiting in the wings. While letting McSame take the hits until the newbe is sprung.

Kirk, have you taken the time to take a look into the peculiar case of Sen. Tim Johnson (D), the Senator from So.Dak. who had a stroke last year? I’ve occasionally seen him on CSPAN, hobbling around the Senate floor. His voting record since his stroke has veered sharply rightward; he used to be somewhat progressive, but now has sunk into bluedog territory. Are those really *his* decisions, or has some svengali taken over his staff?

His official website:
Senator Tim Johnson | Working for South Dakota

Wikipedia bio

FOXNEWS.COM HOME (December 2006) > Senate Physician: Sen. Johnson Recuperating Nicely After Surgery

Sen. Johnson recovering after brain surgery – Politics- msnbc.com

Bob in HI

Thank you man, I know this is important.

Good sign – the larger story is already emerginig.

For those who are willing, Digging and “redditing” this post – as well as reposting elsewhere when possible – will help.

(Does “redditing” sound like frogs to anyone else?)

i don’t know.

but i don’t think a political candidate should have to give up their right to try to keep some things private – if that is what they want to do.

my point is that i don’t think we need any of mccain’s medical records to be able to judge if he is fit to be president. imo, we already have plenty of evidence that he is not fit for the job.

and now we have to deal with this bs kabuki where we are told mccain is in great health based on a flawed disclosure. no gain. no gain at all. and in the future we will have no right to complain when the wing nuts want to see hillary clinton’s (or the next woman who runs for president) medical history so that they can find out what age she was when she first started using contraceptives or if she ever had an abortion.

please stop and think about what this means for future candidates.

They hid Roosevelt’s condition all the time.

Besides, they even hid McCain’s name, since he was examined under a fake name while at the Mayo Clinic.

What causes vertigo? Something in the ear…where was that melanoma?

tumor has it that McCain is fit as a fiddle.

bob, you’re asking a great question. I was told the 1989 imaging showed a previous brain injury, and that the injury could have compromised (or further compromised) CNS function.

In the cotext, “injury” could have menat prior subdural, prior ischemic event (death of brain tissue from lack of blood), or prior (small) hemorrhagic stroke with death of brain tissue.

I wish I could say more.

Well Mexican Truckers can go drive beer and other things in the United States thanks to NAFTA so how about Brown Thin with Long Black Hair?

umm – if we could avoid any ethnic stereotypes in this discussion I would be most grateful….

They “lost” JFK’s brain.

Duh you meant downsized by McCain, and I thought by the beer companies.

I see that McBush has adopted Clusterfuck’s approach to disclosure- fifteen seconds for a few people to read fifty thousand pages- most of which are bullshit…

This should exclude him from being president.

in further poor taste:

“OK, John. Benign by home.”

Which with repeated bleedings over time resemble the symptoms of Alzheimers?

Does anybody remember Thomas Eagleton? His hospitalizations and shock treatments were certainly very public…and caused him to be replaced on the ticket. That was awhile ago…

Strokes and personality changes?

The interesting question about Reagan was when he became unfit to serve–while governor?

kirk – it’s not just mental health. it’s everything. tonight the issue of abortion was the first thing i thought of. i expect next time it will be something else.

IIRC, I pointed out that – unlike the mid 19th Century – in the early 21st century one grumpy late night decision could vaporize the palnet’s surface.

exactly. which is why i’m more concerned with impulse control than what kind of contraceptive the candidate uses.

As some medications taken for contraception can and do affect brain function in some people, I would wish to see that iinfo included.

i think you’re very, very wrong on this. that is why unless you convince me otherwise i’m going to keep voicing my disagreement. because if i don’t, i won’t have a leg to stand on when the wing nuts demand disclosure because they want to know personal details they – and you – have no right to know.

Doctors say that they can’t find any abnormalities in McBush’s brain- until they find it.

They examined McCain’s brain recently and they found Bush’s brain…don’t know how that happened.

Bob I was aware of the Senator’s severe stroke and return to office, but that’s the extent of my knowledge….

I wish him a full recovery.

As for changing positions to be more conservative – that’s sadly been so common among Dem Congresscritters since 1980 that incapacity seems not to be a prerequisite for that outcome….

It’s everyone’s right to demand information- and the candidate’s right to refuse to release it…No rights are in danger here.

Of course political hay will be made out of it- but that’s a right too.

At least Dr. Lieberman personally checked his bearings.

the nutshell

A three hour window to a small group of trusted stenographers is a loud message: I am hiding something.

so long as you will support the wing nuts when they want all the medical records of your candidate.

KO’s special comment was amazing

more please?

BRAVO!!! ANOTHER great one from KO!
and not that i was forgiving her since her MLK comment,
but today’s horrific comment is absolutely UNFORGIVABLE!
Clinton needs to go now. NOW.
I’m not flinging pooh.
She did that all on her own, and hopefully, today FOR THE LAST TIME!

Yep – these are job applicants. Public safety job applicants (police, fire, etc) already have to provide accurate answers about past history of meds/diagnoses/injuries affecting brain function on pain of dismissal should their answers be falsified.

The Cheif Executive – even the deciderer – isn’t hired for physical prowess. They’re hired as an executive – to make choices.

Even in LBJ’s time, discussions of gall bladddr surgery were normal. In Reagan’s time, though his docs lied us about his condition after he was shot, we (IIRC) were treated to lovely simulations about the state of his bowes.

Yet gall bladdrs and colons (even Bush’s) don’t make decisions: our brains do.

One police officer can launch a few bullets -one President can shower the planet with missiles.

On a practical level, the question of demanding personal history pertinent to brain function of every applicant for public safety positions was decided long ago.

As we the people still (despite Diebold) have at least nominal power to hire the nation’s chief public safety officer, we have every bit of right to demand the data required to assess their brain function.

If that displeases some, so be it.

Pretty much toast.

Bill Moyers starting off with the Farm Bill….and other abuses.

Should we take it to the next one or the last one. Eli is up but it’s still McCain?

1500 pages to 1999 and 1173 to 2008. 2673 pages of medical records are a lot for someone supposed to be in good health, just saying.

Age
General physical condition
History of melanoma
History of substance abuse
Extent of physical trauma from his captivity
Current medications
Any major surgeries
Any other significant medical conditions

I think all of these are legitimate in assessing if McCain or any candidate is physically up to the responsibilities of being President. Beyond these, privacy is lost and there is no public gain.

basically KO said that HRC is NOT fit to serve as Prez…. repeated a long list of ALL her sins in this campaign but she didn’t just go over the line, she crashed & burned…. lets put it this way…. it brought me to tears and HRC was ripped a new one…

I’m w/ Eli. He can certainly understand this OT.

Anyone thinking that the logical conclusion if this while deal would be for the repubs to replace McCain with someone much harder to beat?

He’s pretty much yukin it up.

The semi slim sorta release of McCain’s medical information and the disclosure about the February melanoma removal prompts me to wonder when the next one is pending. Anybody have a read on the frequency/acceleration? A developing pattern?

dementia is a general term for a set of conditions that compromise cognitve function.

Alzheimer’s is one form of dementia (called DAT, or dementia, Alzheimer’s type)

Multi-Infarct Dementia (or MID) is yet another form. “Infarct” is medical term for brain tissue that died through lack of oxygen. People with severe hypertension, some forms of heart disease, and/or a history of “TIA’s” (transient ischemic attacks) are all at greater risk for progressive decline in CNS function from very small infarcts. Often ,the effect is cumulative – a person ay seem only mildly impaired (or even not show impairment without specialized testing) until yet another smallish inarct comes along and compromises total brain function in a way to be quite obvious.

Alzheimer’s and MID are not mutually exclusive: some unfortuate folk have underlying Alzheimers and small (or large) strokes: the result – in general – is a more rapid decline in cognitive function than would e ssen with DAT alone.

IIRC, a history of significan head injury seems to correlate with increased risk of developing the clinical symptoms of Alzheimer’s.

link to eli upstairs

The “new brand” could well be his VP pick.

Toobin guest on Moyers; talking about Supreme Court appointments.

your list seems pretty reasonable to me. i’m not arguing that the public shouldn’t ask for any medical info. i just don’t like the precedent that “all” records are to be expected. i think there ought to be a line somewhere.

CindyLou 6 million income in 2006…. that is sure shows she is one of the people…..

yep,
nothin’ “Elite” there!!!

Selise, I’ve already agreed that abortion history is not needed. In previous discussions I’ve suggested this info is pertinent for elected Federal officers. I also beive it may well be pertinent for governors – they can declare martial law.

So I’ve already departed from the general precedent that you claim motivates your repeatedly stated concerns.

Have you other specific concerns or suggestions? Sharing specific concerns would be more helpful – and constructive – than general expressions of dismay or dissatisfaction.

This may have been linked elsewhere, but the WaPo didn’t limit the fluffing to Ciliza’s column. In this article, they wrote:

Sen. John McCain’s 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam undoubtedly changed the course of his life. But now that he is 71, that remote trauma seems unlikely to shorten his life span or to lead to mental or physical conditions that are not already apparent.

Yep, all of the “Bomb, bomb Iran”’s, mood swings, trips to Baghdad to buy rugs, etc., nothing to see there.

The article goes on to mention a study that indicates that occurrences of PTSD among Vietnam-era POWs is about one fourth of normal. It doesn’t mention, however, that most of these guys were smart people motivated to hide any trauma so they could resume their military careers. It’s a fairly common view in psychology these days that smart patients can be more difficult to diagnose, because they’re better at hiding their illness.

So I’ve already departed from the general precedent that you claim motivates your repeatedly stated concerns.

great. you stop claiming we need to see all the candidate’s medical records (or that we have right to) and we can argue about which ones ought to be fair game and why.

clearly we disagree about contraception.

McCain appears strikingly cancer-prone. If you look at the public record (even omitting today’s limited medical records release, which I haven’t read) the odds seem to be very stacked against him.

Tumor tally so far, by my count:

1993 Melanoma(#1), left shoulder.

Unknown dates: “multiple” basal cell carcinomas (can be locally aggressive, but virtually no metastatic potential).

2000 Melanoma (#2), left temple. Tumor was reportedly excised with clear margins. Nearby lymph nodes were harvested and biopsied and were reported to be negative. Apparently they called it Stage IIa, which means there was no evidence that the tumor had metastasized to lymph nodes or other sites. However, I also read reports that McCain had part of his left parotid (salivary gland) resected, which makes me wonder if calling this a Stage IIa is really accurate. I also wonder whether this lesion on his temple in fact represents a metastasis from the melanoma found on his left shoulder 7 years earlier versus being a new “primary” tumor. It would be nice to have access to the pathology reports of his lymph nodes and parotid gland from his 2000 surgery. No chemotherapy or radiation therapy administered, per public reports. For Stage II melanomas, the 10 year survival rate is something like 65%. (not that great).

2002 Melanoma (#3), nose. Hmmm. Makes you really question that Stage II assessment and wonder that perhaps some of those malignant cells did escape, after all. Either that or this guy is REALLY melanoma prone. Hard to quantify, but life expectancy definitely not looking very good.

Melanoma (#4): Press reports indicate McCain has had a total of 4 different melanoma lesions, but I didn’t see any references to a date or anatomic site of this additional lesion. Maybe someone else reading this will have information.

2008 Squamous cell carcinoma, I don’t know the anatomic site. Squamous cell cancers on the skin surface rarely metastasize unless they are on the lip.

2008 Colon polyps, multiple. Excised. He is probably safe from recurrences of colon polyps for at least 5 years.

If this guy weren’t a U.S. Senator do you think he would be able to get a life insurance policy or health insurance?

His psychiatric history is a whole other can of worms, but I definitely don’t think that this is someone you want answering the red phone at 3 am.

be all you can be: read

Thanks for your constructive contribution to today’s discussion. You raise an interesting point, and I too see no reason why a candidate’s history of abortion should be pertinent.

from comment 29

I agree that “there ought to be a line somewhere.” I believe that we should not countenance or tolerate the leaking of personal medical information by any physician or by other personnel required to follow privacy protocols. I don’t know whether there has been any such leaking about McCain, but there is demand for that kind of information about public figures.

The concern that women would likely fare worse than men, if both were to be subjected to total disclosure of medical facts, is reasonable.

We should think through what science is now capable of. DNA testing can be used to detect or predict many medical conditions. There are tests to discover even trace levels of drugs and chemicals, or their byproducts, in a person’s body; some of those substances may not have been intentionally ingested. (A chemical recently reported to be common in drinking bottles may affect an endocrine level and hence may have behavioral effects.) How much medical information can the public reasonably demand?

Many thanks, Doc. It seems no one in the MSM, which has as many medical specialists on call as it does former generals, wants to state the obvious. McBush’s contrived, highly-controlled disclosure was no disclosure at all. But even the NY Times bought it, giving the AP story a front-page headline that said, in effect, “apparently all clear”. It failed to note that the restrictions prevented reasonably drawing any such conclusion.

The oh, so openly stage-managed affair, as if releasing a state secret to a select Congressional committee fueled two fantasies dangerous to our political health: 1) that he had released adequate information, which he didn’t; and 2) that doing it the way he did was proper and protected his “legitimate” privacy interests.

All of which says there’s enough doubt about his prognosis that it would effect an appreciable number of votes, and he doesn’t want anyone to know it.

I don’t think that we ought to be going anywhere near reproductive issues for the following reason: any useful information we gain from *undemonstrated* links between *current* contraceptives and mental function will be more than offset by the negative of raising the “crazy-once-a-month” question. In other words, by discussing reproductive issues, you are just begging for a segment of the population – let alone Colter and “fiends” – to argue (or, at least, secretly believe) that women should never hold high office. This argument has been used in many other areas, ranging from the military to fire depts, and it need not come up again, thanks.

You can ask for all the records you want. You can also suggest that laws be enacted to require them. But please keep in mind that, as of right now, all you have are your wants.

Finally, you (as in: Kirk) seem to be implying that the statistical relationships that exist at the group level between various medical conditions and mental states will apply to individuals. There’s a name for this kind of thinking: the Ecological Fallacy.

How much medical information can the public reasonably demand?

For President – the man or woman who can go to work and launch thousands of warheads – as much as is demanded of public servants who go to work with one gun on thier belt

Please defend the contention that we “the public” – the people with the responsibility to select one of these deeply flawed candidates – should know less about the President’s brain (the VP’s brain) than the LAPD knows about the recruits they hire.

And please pardon me in advance if I burst out laughing at the contention.

The speculation about tests for trace levels of drugs and chemicals is a straw man – the post refers to history of diagnoses and treatment.

WRT to DNA testing: Huntington’s chorea is a progressive degnerative brain disease that causes psychotic symptoms. VIctims are often in their late 40’s or older. Family history can suggest a risk for the disease: only genetic testing can reveal if a person does or does not have the gene that will casue them to have the disease.

Should a candidate have tested positive for the gene, thier risk of the disease is 100% (unless they die of something else first). If that shows in their medical history, that’s a tragedy. If a candidate with hidden Huntington’s comands the nuclear alresenal – or the next Katrina – and the psycotic symptoms have begun, that’s a catastrophe.

Once again: the election is a job interview.

Depsite all the hand-wringing and pearl clutching about how knowledge of biology pertinent to performance as Chief Executive should be withheld from the employers- the voters – I haven’t seen a whit of concern about the inherently discriminatory biological qualification to be President: age.

No one under 35 can be President (or at least chosen by the Electoral College).

It would be funny watching otherwise reasonable people show such reflexive distress about the concept of knowing about the Pres candidate’s brains if it were so sad.

A century ago, talking about heart disease was a social taboo. Half a century ago, cancer was a social taboo. Sadly, for many people in 2008, brain disease is a social taboo.

Brains are just another organ: like the thyroid, the gall bladder, and the colon. However, brains are uniquely the organ required for function as Chief Executive. In a society that has already accepted the right to know of the President’s exercise tolerance and colon polyps, the squickyness about acquiring adequate information would be risible – if it weren’t so tragic.

I look forward to the day when we’ll laugh at prejudices about brain disease the same way we now look sideways at past prejudices about talkkg of our loved ones’ cancer and heart disease.

Until then – until the prejudices about mental illness ahve left us – I’ll probably find myself once again explaining the radical concept that we, the Presidents’ employers, are every bit entitled to know about the psychiatric and cognitve condition of those who seek to be hired as is the local police force to know the psychiatric and cognitive condition of the rawest recruit in the local police academy.

Personally, I can’t wait for the day to come.

Oddly Clintonian, this idea that some kind of brain-disease taboo would be the only reason why some would reject your idea that we ought to be given near-complete medical records … that we must be suffering a prejudice for disagreeing with you.

I’d write more, but I have the check the want ads. It seems I have a prejudice that makes me unfit for my job.

- a soon-to-be-ex- cognitive neuropsychologist

I’d like to thank everyone for not feeding the trolls.

As for what medical records to demand, one ought to consider the job. The president is expected to manage the most complex government on the planet; to hire, utilize and frequently joust with his Cabinet and agency heads, several of whom ”just know” they’d be better at the job than the president; to answer the red phone and decide whether to use the nuclear football; to model behavior traits we might all admire, especially in local, national or global emergencies, yet compete successfully in the political jungle; raise enormous funds for his campaign and his political party; devise and implement policies; deal with a budget and ”accounting system” that would challenge a score of Harvard B School profs; and manage scheduling demands that would make a Hollywood mogul cringe.

I’d say we should have all his or her records. That’s pretty much what corporate boards demand of their top executives these days, too. Including psych tests. Including psych. tests. VP candidates at many Fortune 200 company undergo several hours of written tests and interviews with someone described as having psychological training. Nowadays, that’s routine business. And those executives only have to run a company.

This argument has been used in many other areas, ranging from the military to fire depts, and it need not come up again, thanks.

I didn’t raise it. You did. You then falsely and inaccurately projected onto what I’ve written.

You can ask for all the records you want. You can also suggest that laws be enacted to require them. But please keep in mind that, as of right now, all you have are your wants.

Wow – thanks for sparing me from the erroneous belief I ruled by decree. DO I have to let Karl out of jail now?

any useful information we gain from *undemonstrated* links between *current* contraceptives and mental function

Factually incorrect. Whatever may be the case about large groups, certain individuals can (and do) demonstrate very relibale and repeatable histories of profound psychiatric symptoms when exposed to specific medications. These medications can include specific contraceptives. If the medical record for candidate Y shows psych hospitalization evey time they take contaceptive X, that’s relevant to assessing their brain function. Just as if the medical record shows that candidate gets psychotic every time he takes erectile dysfunction drug P.

Yep – some drugs affect reprodcutive function. SOme aspects of medical history touch (figuratively) upon how we use our genitals. SOme aspects of medical touch very pertinent to brain function touch on reproductive history. Other aspects – such as abortion – appear not to.

In a society with a long and dishonorable history of sexism, will wingers and reactionaries seek to use such issues to discriminate? Yep.

Is that a reason to stop seeking information pertinent to assessing brain function in the peopel who ask me to hire them to be President (or Veep – or governor?) Not as I see it.

Your mileage – and others’ may vary.

I’ll still be demanding the information. A planet’s a terrible thing to waste. And so – as we’ve seen tehr last eight years – is a Presidency.

Finally, you (as in: Kirk) seem to be implying that the statistical relationships that exist at the group level between various medical conditions and mental states will apply to individuals. There’s a name for this kind of thinking: the Ecological Fallacy.

Your conclusion is fallacious. Because any med can – in some person -cause profound perturbation of CNS function – full knowledge of the specific meds taken by a specific candidate and the candidate’s histroy of adverse reactions to meds is pertinent for that candidate.

If you choose to project onto this basic fact an irrelevant concern about population biology, that’s up to you.

And would like you to consider the consequences of what you’re suggesting.

If you demand all medical records on the grounds that it might allow you to detect a mental problem, then many people will infer that the absence of a medical sign implies that the person is fine.

Do you believe that Clinton’s “mis-speakings” are rooted in a TIA or left temporal infarct? I do not. I believe that she probably would pass all medical tests; she just happens to be full of ….

Kirk -

If you don’t understand the Ecological Fallacy, then we have nothing to discuss. Cheers.