Is Dr. Lisa R. Bardack deceptive?
Does she wish the American public to believe that she examined and diagnosed Hillary Clinton, on Friday, with pneumonia and sent her out with only a recommendation to modify her schedule?
Let's look at her words.
First, consider that Hillary Clinton's handlers and the Secret Service all saw her collapse.
If a 70 year old has collapsed due to pneumonia, she must be rushed to the emergency room, for they would not know what has caused such a traumatic event, including fluid in the lungs, and so on.
Yet, there was no rush to the hospital.
How did they know that this traumatic event did not need immediate professional medical intervention?
A brief scan of main-stream media showed avoidance of the full quote, with two reversing the wording. Some stated that the doctor examined her on Friday and diagnosed her with pneumonia. This would mean that after weeks or months of coughing, a 70 year old was diagnosed with pneumonia and not hospitalized. Outside of questioning medical practice or wisdom, let's look at the words.
1. Did Dr. Bardack examine Hillary Clinton on Friday?
"Secretary Clinton has been experiencing a cough related to allergies.
Note the need to explain why Clinton is coughing. She does not state that she is coughing because of allergies, instead uses the distancing language of "related to" allergies. The need to explain why is made more sensitive by the distancing language.
The coughing is where the subject began her statement. This is the priority.
Note the post of the doctor's video speaks of the cough as related to Parkinson.
Parkinson sufferers only cough when they try extended talking due to the difficulty of swallowing. It is a 'choking' more than simply a cough.
Outside Information: As a boy, I watched Parkinson's destroy my father. Watching the video of the doctor relate the symptoms to Parkinson's had an emotional impact and brought back to memory things long forgotten. The physical and mental deterioration is debilitating. The loss of concentration, alone, may be noteworthy, but it is also with hallucinations and loss of sense of reality that is predominant. Adjusting the medications is a balance between allowing the sufferer good mobility while losing brain functioning, or by giving good brain functioning while losing gross motor control. It was a never ending battle.
Although "Snopes" lost credibility long ago for partisan articles, I noted that in their criticism they employ deceptive tactics, as is their norm, including withholding information as the doctor in the video was stated to be an anesthesiologist, leaving the reader with the impression that anesthesia was all he practiced.
The article also targeted the doctor for not examining Clinton. In the video, he says "I did not examine..."
The article "proves" the allegation that Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's "FALSE" due to various points; all made by the doctor, himself, in the video. This brings to mind Snopes' report of "FALSE" of "no go zones" in Europe; something European police and governments have long since acknowledged.
Did Dr. Bardack actually examine Hillary Clinton on Friday to make the diagnosis of pneumonia, which would include various tests (blood) and possible x rays of her lungs?
On Friday, during follow up evaluation of her prolonged cough, she was diagnosed with pneumonia.
Note "she was diagnosed" avoids saying, "I diagnosed her..." using, instead, the passive voice.
Passivity is used to conceal responsibility and/or identity. She does not say that she diagnosed Hillary Clinton on Friday; therefore, we shall not say it for her.
Note the coloring of blue in the wording above. This is something known to analysts and readers alike: the need to explain 'why' when not asked specifically, indicates a very sensitive topic. Here, it only says a "follow up evaluation" and not a "follow up examination."
This would be to diagnose untested and unseen.
This also confirms the passivity of avoiding saying "although I did not examine her personally, I looked at her records and diagnosed someone with pneumonia, without seeing the patient, taking blood, x-rays or anything else.
She was put on antibiotics,
Note the passivity continues while she avoids saying "I put her on antibiotics" directly.
Deception comes, more than 90% of the time, with missing information or that which is unsaid, with the intent that the reader/listener will simply interpret the meaning instead.
Who put her on antibiotics? The subject does not tell us. The subject does not take responsibility for the antibiotics. Why withhold this information? Why not say, "I put her on...?"
Note: most people do not like to lie directly.
She was "put on" and not "prescribed" antibiotics. What does this mean? What, in the subject's own personal subjective dictionary, does this mean?
and advised to rest and modify her schedule.
With the prolonged coughing alone, given her age, pneumonia and hospitalization is expected, however, with the video of her various falls and losing concentration, this would be akin to malpractice; not something many doctors would be willing to risk. This says nothing of a nation of doctors critiquing a doctor who claims to diagnose pneumonia without requisite tests. If this is the case, expect the press to not report it. We have only seen a few reporters asking about the location of Bardack on Friday, compared to where Clinton was.
We are also aware of repercussions for doctors/journalists who question Clinton, narrative or the political elite.
While at this morning's event she became overheated and dehydrated.
Noted that it was warm with low humidity in New York and that the "pneumonia" sufferer greeted a little girl. It is doubtful a little girl could get pass the Secret Service to physically contact Clinton.
I have just examined her
Here is where we see affirmation of deception.
1. She does use the pronoun "I" in her statement
2. There is no passivity now employed
3. The subject takes responsibility for the examination
4. The additional and unnecessary word "just" is the key to understanding the statement.
"Just" is a 'dependent' word in Statement Analysis meaning that it only 'works' as it depends upon something else; the subject must be thinking of something else while using it.
"I just..." speaks to an element most important in this analysis:
The element of Time.
Question: What is related to the element of timing within the statement?
Answer: When Hillary Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia.
The element of timing is where the sensitivity lies. Unless Dr. Lisa Bardack wishes to say "I diagnosed Hillary Clinton", we cannot say it for her. That would then lead some outside main stream media to ask, "What state were you in on Friday?" and "who is the doctor that caught Hillary Clinton falling, rubbed her back and told her to keep talking as she lost her bearings...?" and so on.
and she is now re-hydrated and recovering nicely."
If a candidate has an illness that will impact job performance, the candidate should consider the needs of the nation above her own. If a candidate has a debilitating illness, it is long known by those around her, making the deception both broad and acute. This would indicate that even within the party and early debates, it would have been impossible to hide the serious medical condition from which Clinton suffers.
This is particularly interesting for Statement Analysis in recognizing how often Hillary Clinton has employed the word "conspiracy" in her statements.
In what has become routine within media, deception must still be discerned as truth must trump narrative.
In wanting to know the truth, is the reader reduced to being "deplorable"; unworthy of an opinion?
Dr. Lisa Bardack deliberately attempts to deceive the public in her statement, without a "technical lie."
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" is technically true, but its intent was to deceive. Deception is not seen in error, broken promises, or in changed viewpoints. Deception is seen in intent. Clinton reminded Monica Lewinsky that "sexual relations means intercourse..."
Where most of us would be terrified to lie under oath, even privately, here is one emboldened to the point where lying to 300 million Americans came with ease.
His meeting with Loretta Lynch was reported deceptively, as well, and continued to undermine American confidence in the rule of law.
'The grand jury has finished and there is no indictment ...' led the American people to believe that the grand jury who heard the case against John and Patsy Ramsey did not find evidence to indict.
They indicted the Ramseys in the death of Jonbenet by "child abuse."
It was only that Alex Hunter, fearing the private attorneys he would have to face before the nation, refused to sign it. Hunter deceived the American people while being technically truthful.
Simple state workers who inadvertently forward an email with a client's name on it, outside the state system, would not only lose their job, but their social work license, and could be subject to prosecution. A soldier sent a simple email (one), while yet another took a photo and although he had no connection to terrorism, he may spend a year in prison.
Such is the case of much within deception.
Lies have consequences...sometimes deadly.
There are dead policemen today because of "hands up don't shoot" fabrication. Heather MacDonald had the courage to post the truth using statistics.
A commander-in-chief who's felonious crimes may rival the breadth of Herman Goering, is unfathomable. To factor in a Parkinson's like 'dementia' of one who "cannot remember" setting up an expensive and sophisticated private server to circumvent laws and who "cannot remember" deleting thousands of emails (about yoga) and who used state-of-the-art software to make sure the deleted emails cannot be recovered...
may hold the most powerful position in the world.
It matters that lies flow easier than the truth and that all those around her, including media, will lie as well.