Bernie Sanders: Evidence for Medical Cover-Up
|
What type of heart attack was it?
The most fundamental descriptor of a heart attack is STEMI vs. non-STEMI.
(The acronym's translation is unimportant.)
Patients with a non-STEMI infarction tend to have better short-term survival
than STEMI patients. Long-term, the situation is reversed: STEMI
patients have higher survival. Statistically, non-STEMI infarctions are more common,
especially in older patients.
STEMI vs. non-STEMI is determined with just a glance at the electrocardiogram (EKG).
Senator Sanders probably had a non-STEMI infarction.
What type of heart attack was it?
The most fundamental descriptor of a heart attack is STEMI vs. non-STEMI.
(The acronym's translation is unimportant.)
Patients with a non-STEMI infarction tend to have better short-term survival
than STEMI patients. Long-term, the situation is reversed: STEMI
patients have higher survival. Statistically, non-STEMI infarctions are more common,
especially in older patients.
STEMI vs. non-STEMI is determined with just a glance at the electrocardiogram (EKG).
Senator Sanders probably had a non-STEMI infarction.
This page summarizes important information that the physicians of Senator Sanders certainly know, but did not disclose.
"Important" is defined as information needed by voters to help determine the odds that Senator Sanders will be able to lead the country to his desired goals during a full term of office.
Voters should reasonably ask:
- What are the odds that Senator Sanders will have another heart attack?
- What is the risk of complications from the first heart attack?
- What are the odds that the same thing that happened in Senator Sanders' coronary arteries might happen in brain arteries, causing a stroke?
- To what degree are other important organs threatened by atherosclerosis in their arteries, especially the kidneys and the eyes?
Anatomical Information from Cardiac Catheterization
Functional Information from Cardiac Catheterization
- The most important of this undisclosed information is certainly known to the physicians. The letters disclose that the relevant tests were done, which is expected given that they are essential to the care of a heart attack patient. However, only a fraction of each test's results were disclosed, with the rest of each test's results not mentioned in any way, shape, or form, or even alluded to -- a distinctly unusual and unprofessional pattern of physician communication.
- The known-but-undisclosed information is so vital to prognostic assessment of Senator Sanders' health that a deliberate cover-up, involving both the Senator and his physicians, is the inescapable conclusion if one assumes the physicians are even marginally competent.
- Had this undisclosed key information been favorable to the Senator, common sense and political calculation dictate it would have been disclosed. Because it is absent, and because there is suspicion of a deliberate cover-up, it is reasonable to conclude that the information is unfavorable to the Senator.
- Some of the disclosure failure is in using imprecise qualitative terms for key elements instead of precise quantified values. Given the disclosure of precise quantified values for unimportant medical elements in the letters, it is moderately suspected that use of the qualitative terms also constitutes deliberate concealment.
- Some of the disclosure failure paints a picture of pathological (or unprofessional) reticence to share information. Professional standards do not allow a physician to report merely a "general" physical exam of a patient who recently had a heart attack: a detailed cardiovascular examination is mandatory. Nor do professional standards allow the results of even a "general" physical exam of a heart attack patient to be characterized as simply "normal," especially for a 78-year old man for whom we can be sure the examination is not normal.