I Was Fake News before Fake News Was Cool

On March 26, CBS aired a “60 Minutes” story on "Fake News." Within that story was a two minute plus segment with Mike Cernovich of www.DangerandPlay.com. Scott Pelley declared that Cernovich had published "stories with no basis in fact" that were "categorically false." Prominently featured was a story "by a retired anesthesiologist in Florida who never examined Hillary Clinton" that said "she has Parkinson's Disease." I am that anesthesiologist. And it's true that I have not examined Mrs. Clinton. But the diagnosis of Parkinson's is based in observation, not examination, and “60 Minutes” wasn't interested in that fact.

“60 Minutes” carefully edited my name and website out of their broadcast presentation. But when the entire transcript of the interview was made public, my name was clearly present. One has to wonder why they felt it necessary to avoid naming the source of the story when I had gone public months before. Sean Hannity's producer found my cell phone number and called me while my wife and I were shopping at Costco, yet “60 Minutes” made no attempt to contact me. It also appears that they didn't bother to examine anything other than the headline Cernovich added to my story.

After my first report on Hillary Clinton's obvious medical difficulties went viral, I published another sixteen posts expanding on the original story. Among those are two of particular importance: "How to Prove Me Wrong About Hillary's Parkinson's Disease" and "Differential Diagnosis of Hillary's Neurological Disorder." I also posted a video that discussed how "tinfoil hats are not permitted." Had “60 Minutes” even looked at the thread on www.VidZette.com, they would have realized that, instead of me promoting "a bogus diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease," it was their story that was bogus.

One must ask why I tilted at this windmill. It was never my intention to get involved in the election other than contributing cash to a campaign. But a perfect storm of information and circumstances fell my way. Parkinson's patients and caregivers told me what they saw. A Parkinson's Disease researcher declared that Hillary demonstrated clear signs of the disease. A Secret Service source leaked that she had been ill for an extended period and the service had expended considerable sums to accommodate it. Finally, since I had been retired for three years, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would be legally unable to audit and penalize my practice, thus destroying my life. This last point is crucial. Most practicing physicians are afraid of CMS. That is why I keep my sources confidential. The threat to them is too great otherwise.

Professional opinion on my work is not unanimous. One particularly literary neurologist declared that it was "a steaming crock of equine excrement." But while some disagreed, an equal or greater number agreed, including a neuropsychiatrist specializing in Parkinson's Disease. His professional assistance was crucial in developing the "Differential Diagnosis" document, which discusses alternative explanations for the signs she demonstrates. And demonstrate them she does. Many members of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons agree that she is most likely ill and that it is a neurological ailment.

Unlike Fake News that is simply manufactured, I am guilty of committing science. Looking at evidence (and more evidence), I proposed a hypothesis: Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's Disease. I published that hypothesis because its implications are of great consequence. Should she become president, we would have a chief executive who would suffer "Off" states where for extended periods she could not make decisions in a timely manner. If she was suffering from Parkinson's Dementia, we would not have a leader who could make rational decisions. The Wikileaks revelations supported this possibility. America cannot afford another Woodrow Wilson.

My hypothesis is like all scientific hypotheses. It is falsifiable. As I stated in the "Prove Me Wrong" video, it's actually quite simple to make me go away: provide a better explanation for the signs we see. Or provide real medical records for detailed examination the way John McCain's records were handled. A two-page whitewash won't do. And don't tell me there's nothing to see here the way the National Parkinson's Foundation did. The video record is too extensive.

By way of contrast, let us consider one other story. The New Republic published an article by Dr. Steven Beutler suggesting that President Trump has neurosyphilis. As an infectious disease specialist, he ought to be well qualified to offer an opinion. Unfortunately, he appears to have flunked out of his freshman class on Physical Diagnosis.

The first step in any medical diagnosis is a good history. And Dr. Beutler doesn't appear to be aware of any history whatever, other than the fact that Donald Trump was sexually promiscuous as a young man. He then spins this one fact into a web of supposed insomnia, dementia, and hair loss.

Any attentive medical student (or Navy enlisted man) would have learned that syphilis is a very easy disease to treat. It is also progressive. But Dr. Beutler completely neglects to note that the President's "insomnia" is a lifelong pattern common in high achievers -- he only sleeps about four hours per night. His "dementia" is simply decisions Beutler doesn't agree with. Those decisions led to building a massive fortune and a decisive Electoral College victory. Need I note that the President has more hair than I do?

"60 Minutes" conclusively demonstrated that they are Fake News. A program that for decades has been respected for careful reporting has become a shill for partisan interests. They manufactured a declaration that my reporting was "categorically false." And they did it without even a cursory glance at what I actually said. And now they are joined by the New Republic on the left. One has to ask "Why?"

The New Republic is easy to understand. They have Trump Derangement Syndrome. As for “60 Minutes”, I can only speculate, but they led with the idea that the last election cycle was full of Fake News. But the only supposed "Fake News" they actually covered were two stories opposing Hillary Clinton posted by Mike Cernovich. No "Fake News" about Donald Trump was included. Could it be they are trying to immunize Hillary Clinton from these potent stories so she can run again?

On March 26, CBS aired a “60 Minutes” story on "Fake News." Within that story was a two minute plus segment with Mike Cernovich of www.DangerandPlay.com. Scott Pelley declared that Cernovich had published "stories with no basis in fact" that were "categorically false." Prominently featured was a story "by a retired anesthesiologist in Florida who never examined Hillary Clinton" that said "she has Parkinson's Disease." I am that anesthesiologist. And it's true that I have not examined Mrs. Clinton. But the diagnosis of Parkinson's is based in observation, not examination, and “60 Minutes” wasn't interested in that fact.

“60 Minutes” carefully edited my name and website out of their broadcast presentation. But when the entire transcript of the interview was made public, my name was clearly present. One has to wonder why they felt it necessary to avoid naming the source of the story when I had gone public months before. Sean Hannity's producer found my cell phone number and called me while my wife and I were shopping at Costco, yet “60 Minutes” made no attempt to contact me. It also appears that they didn't bother to examine anything other than the headline Cernovich added to my story.

After my first report on Hillary Clinton's obvious medical difficulties went viral, I published another sixteen posts expanding on the original story. Among those are two of particular importance: "How to Prove Me Wrong About Hillary's Parkinson's Disease" and "Differential Diagnosis of Hillary's Neurological Disorder." I also posted a video that discussed how "tinfoil hats are not permitted." Had “60 Minutes” even looked at the thread on www.VidZette.com, they would have realized that, instead of me promoting "a bogus diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease," it was their story that was bogus.

One must ask why I tilted at this windmill. It was never my intention to get involved in the election other than contributing cash to a campaign. But a perfect storm of information and circumstances fell my way. Parkinson's patients and caregivers told me what they saw. A Parkinson's Disease researcher declared that Hillary demonstrated clear signs of the disease. A Secret Service source leaked that she had been ill for an extended period and the service had expended considerable sums to accommodate it. Finally, since I had been retired for three years, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) would be legally unable to audit and penalize my practice, thus destroying my life. This last point is crucial. Most practicing physicians are afraid of CMS. That is why I keep my sources confidential. The threat to them is too great otherwise.

Professional opinion on my work is not unanimous. One particularly literary neurologist declared that it was "a steaming crock of equine excrement." But while some disagreed, an equal or greater number agreed, including a neuropsychiatrist specializing in Parkinson's Disease. His professional assistance was crucial in developing the "Differential Diagnosis" document, which discusses alternative explanations for the signs she demonstrates. And demonstrate them she does. Many members of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons agree that she is most likely ill and that it is a neurological ailment.

Unlike Fake News that is simply manufactured, I am guilty of committing science. Looking at evidence (and more evidence), I proposed a hypothesis: Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's Disease. I published that hypothesis because its implications are of great consequence. Should she become president, we would have a chief executive who would suffer "Off" states where for extended periods she could not make decisions in a timely manner. If she was suffering from Parkinson's Dementia, we would not have a leader who could make rational decisions. The Wikileaks revelations supported this possibility. America cannot afford another Woodrow Wilson.

My hypothesis is like all scientific hypotheses. It is falsifiable. As I stated in the "Prove Me Wrong" video, it's actually quite simple to make me go away: provide a better explanation for the signs we see. Or provide real medical records for detailed examination the way John McCain's records were handled. A two-page whitewash won't do. And don't tell me there's nothing to see here the way the National Parkinson's Foundation did. The video record is too extensive.

By way of contrast, let us consider one other story. The New Republic published an article by Dr. Steven Beutler suggesting that President Trump has neurosyphilis. As an infectious disease specialist, he ought to be well qualified to offer an opinion. Unfortunately, he appears to have flunked out of his freshman class on Physical Diagnosis.

The first step in any medical diagnosis is a good history. And Dr. Beutler doesn't appear to be aware of any history whatever, other than the fact that Donald Trump was sexually promiscuous as a young man. He then spins this one fact into a web of supposed insomnia, dementia, and hair loss.

Any attentive medical student (or Navy enlisted man) would have learned that syphilis is a very easy disease to treat. It is also progressive. But Dr. Beutler completely neglects to note that the President's "insomnia" is a lifelong pattern common in high achievers -- he only sleeps about four hours per night. His "dementia" is simply decisions Beutler doesn't agree with. Those decisions led to building a massive fortune and a decisive Electoral College victory. Need I note that the President has more hair than I do?

"60 Minutes" conclusively demonstrated that they are Fake News. A program that for decades has been respected for careful reporting has become a shill for partisan interests. They manufactured a declaration that my reporting was "categorically false." And they did it without even a cursory glance at what I actually said. And now they are joined by the New Republic on the left. One has to ask "Why?"

The New Republic is easy to understand. They have Trump Derangement Syndrome. As for “60 Minutes”, I can only speculate, but they led with the idea that the last election cycle was full of Fake News. But the only supposed "Fake News" they actually covered were two stories opposing Hillary Clinton posted by Mike Cernovich. No "Fake News" about Donald Trump was included. Could it be they are trying to immunize Hillary Clinton from these potent stories so she can run again?