Mounting Evidence That Hillary Has Parkinson's - Our Interview with Dr. Ted Noel (Video)
Dr. Ted Noel suggested back in August that Clinton was suffering from a serious neurological disoder. Recent events have forced even mainstream media to take his theory seriously
Upon seeing Hillary's weird collapse at the 9/11 ceremony, the RI editorial team had a collective "Holy Cow" moment, because we knew that in an instant, the whole election had just shifted strongly in Trump's favor.
We immediately began scouring the internet for background, and came across the video analysis of Dr. Ted Noel, who has been arguing since August in very detailed and convincing videos, that the evidence suggests that Hillary could well have Parkinson's. Noel's arguments are very convincing, certainly the most credible explanation out there that we could find about Hillary's weird behavior.
We also researched articles criticizing Noel's hypotheses, and found them unconvincing, to say the least.
Russia Insider's exclusive interview with Dr. Noel:
We published an article presenting Noel's arguments and his videos on Sept. 13, and it generated a lot of interest, with 26,000 views to date. In the meantime, his original video, which had 1.3 million views when we discovered it, now has over 4 million, and picks up about 1 million views per week, hardly surprising, when half of American voters say Clinton isn't being forthcoming about her health. He appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show last week.
Hillary's health continues to be a major campaign issue, and now, 7 days after our "Holy Cow" moment, we still hadn't found anything as compelling as Noel, so we got in touch with him, asking if he would consider talking more about himself and his investigations. He was happy to. This 30 minute skype video is the result, taken from a longer, 1.5 hour talk last Friday with Noel, who is retired, with myself and deputy editor Riley Waggaman. He told us that keeping track of the Hillary health story has become a full-time activity for him.
Noel continues to argue that there is strong evidence to suggest that Clinton is suffering from the late stages of Parkinson's disease, although he's careful to point out that his conclusion is a hypothesis, not a diagnosis.
A transcript of the 30 minute version follows below.
- Noel's education and medical experience - and why it makes him particularly competent to understand the issues.
- Whether he might have any political bias in doing this - he prefers Trump, but is up front about it, and argues, convincingly, that what should matter are the arguments and the facts. He points out that you probably won't find a person without political preferences.
- His credibility, considering he is not a Parkinson's expert.
- How much time he has spent, and is spending on his investigations.
- Serious credibility issues arising from the latest statement from Clinton's doctor.
- Why most doctors would be hesitant to speak out on this - it is a potential huge threat to their careers.
- How Hillary can hide her hypothetical sickness most of the time, but not all of the time.
- The likeliness of her having another episode before the elections.
- The significance of Hillary's blue sunglasses.
Some highlights from our discussion:
Is Lisa Bardack's letter about Hillary's health convincing?
Dr. Noel: [Clinton's] pulse oximetry [is listed at] ninety nine percent. Pulse oximetry came in the clinical practice in 1986. I have used it every day on virtually every patient I treated since then. So I think I know what I'm talking about here. First. A pulse oximetry level of ninety nine percent would be expected in the normal person possibly through the age of thirty five or forty.
Beyond that a normal person with no illness whatever will see their oxygen saturation but drop by one to two percent per decade. So at age seventy for round numbers the highest number we should see for her totally healthy, no pneumonia, no nothing, is ninety seven. I'm sorry, ninety nine is not plausible. And when she has a pneumonia, it's going to take a week or two to get full recovery. So she should be ninety five ninety six. Now anything above ninety four, you can walk around and be OK as long as you're not exerting yourself.So, you know it's not a big deal, but this just puts the lie to the validity of this report.
Why don't more medical experts weigh in on Hillary's health?
Dr. Noel: Two reasons. One is time. You know, it takes time to sit down and prepare this. It took me over four hours just to get the script for that video correct. And even then it's obvious that I made some mistakes by not getting the mood of what I said correct. You know, the verbal mood. The second thing is that the I.R.S. is a piker compared to C.M.S.
Charles Bausman: You're going to have to explain what C.M.S. is.
Dr. Noel: C.M.S., well, I knew them by the acronym C.M.M.S which was the Center for Medicare Medicaid Services. They're the people who pay doctors for Medicare and Medicaid work. And they have within law and regulation the ability to walk into your practice unannounced, do an audit, in the moment they find something that's slightly less than perfect charge with Medicare fraud in you have the potential to lose years of income.
(Dr. Noel went on to explain that doctors fear harrassment from C.M.M.S., a very real possibility since the Clintons have a history of using government agencies like the IRS to take revenge on political opponents.)
How is Hillary still able to campaign if she has Parkinson's?
Dr. Noel: See, here's, here's the thing, and that's why I put out my field guide to spotting her symptoms. Parkinson's disease is an up and down, up and down kind of a thing. You get your levadopa levels up - you do well, you function well. If you get them too high, you start getting these oddball dyskinesias.
So, you're treading a fine line between enough and too much, but assuming that you’re up, you can move more freely. Hey, the movement disorders specialist did his job: I can move freely, I can speak freely, I don't have these other big problems. But in spite of that, you're going to see from time to time a freeze.
Dr. Noel: [Hillary's] blue sunglasses were identified on Parkinson's disease forums as Zeiss Z one F one fifty five sunglasses. They happen not to be sold in the US. And you saw on that video a piece of an incredible video of a man, I believe he actually had dyskinesia tardive, which is one of the major movement disorders where he's sitting with these horrendous, I mean his head is just rapidly doing this thing, and he manages to reach down get a pair of blue sunglasses, he puts them on, and all of a sudden he's able to sit still. He's able to walk without these major disorders.
And these blue sunglasses have been shown to reduce these major movement disorders. And also to reduce certain seizure, photosensitive seizure disorders. And so you look at that and you say “OK, that's interesting”.
Now you look at the crowd. Who's got sunglasses? Can I spell nobody?
Dr. Noel: Dehydration comes from two possibilities: one - you don't drink, two - you lose fluids. That's it. No alternatives. As an anesthesiologist and critical care medicines guy, those were my daily stock in trade. So I speak with firm authority here. She arrived at the event hydrated. Therefore, in order for her to become dehydrated, she either had to sweat like a pig - which I do on the golf course - hydrate or die. There's no imagery that shows a drop of sweat on her that I know about. She had to bleed, she had to have diarrhea, she had to vomit, or have taken some medicine that gave her a massive dieresis - that is peeing. There's no evidence of any of those things happening. Therefore, categorically, she was not dehydrated.
Here is Dr. Noel's main video with evidence that Hillary could very well have Parkinson's:
A rushed transcript of our discussion is provided below:
CB: Off we go. So Ted, Riley is going to take the lead on this.
CB: Cause he's the one who's got the best mastery of the facts.
RW: Well, first of all, Dr Noel, thank you so much for joining us. It's really an honor and a privilege to speak with you today.
TN: Yes, it's an honor and a privilege for me.
RW: And I think, maybe the best way to start off just for our viewers, and if you can just give us a quick bio, your medical background, how you came to make these viral videos on YouTube.
TN: You know, sometimes life takes you where you never expected to go. I started... Well, I went to medical school at Loma Linda University which people may remember from the story of Baby Favre the baboon's heart transplant. I know all the people who were involved in that. Graduated there in 1976, I continued on in training in N.S.E.C. ology and critical care medicine and finished it in 1980. That was also at Loma Linda University. And I moved to Florida where I never intended to go in 1980. I practiced at Florida Hospital and other associated facilities until I retired on New Year's Day 2013.
I spent some time doing critical care medicine, I spent some time doing pain medicine, and also served as the medical director which is an administrative position with what now is known as Downtown Surgery Center which is owned by Nova Medical, and that was from 2001 to 2010.
In any case. I got a call from my brother in 2013 after the very famous What Difference Does It Make Anyway event. And he says "she's got Parkinson's disease." I'm going “What are you talking about?” He says: “That's a Parkinson's rage”.
I've become very well acquainted with a gentleman in upstate New York who has advanced Parkinson's and so he's been quite a bit of time online, and I've since learned about a lot of other caregivers and Parkinson's family members. And basically, these are the people who are saying “Look, Hillary has got these signs: she has her big wide open eyes at times, she has her pauses which they call freezes, and so I started studying and I never really intended to do anything among other things, because I couldn't figure out how to tell the story.
And then when I saw the Infowars report of Secret Service coming to Joe Bigs, I said “OK, now I have a way I can tell the story that makes sense”.
And so I just simply used that as a way to tell the story, put together the story, and the rest is history.
RW: Very interesting. But so, a lot of your critics who are seeing your videos say that, you know, you're not a specialist in neurological disorders, you’re not a specialist in Parkinson’s. So how would you respond to that criticism?
TN: It's absolutely true. And I'm not making a firm diagnosis. What I'm doing is saying “Look, I've been pointed to these things and I start with a foundation of knowledge that all physicians have, and I've taken the time to spend, I mean to bury myself in the literature, in the support groups, in all of the other things around Parkinson's disease talking with people, so that I think I have a fairly good understanding of how Parkinson's impacts people, and how the various treating physicians are going to manage it”.
CB: Right. Riley, I want to stay on this credibility question, because I think it's actually central, it's really key. So yesterday you were talking about the fact I thought there were two interesting things you brought up that spoke to your credibility.
You spoke about your own experience as an anesthesiologist and the necessity of you being conversant in an awful lot of different modalities of caring for people, but you also, I thought it was important, that you are retired and that you have the time to dig into this, because most people are really really really busy with what they do every day, and they don't, they can't do this.
And so, you know, if you've got a trained and competent and accomplished medical doctor who can spend hours and hours digging into this, that's actually a significant fact, and I think it speaks to credibility that you actually have the time to you know human able to put the time and to really do the research and study the literature and understand things, you know, and that's, so those two things.
TN: Well, let's look first at the first point - on having what I had to do in the operating room. I was the internist in the operating room. I had to be conversant in every medical disease it would come to me, and if something some rare bird showed up, I had to be able within a period of four or five minutes to become sufficiently conversant to be able to properly treat the patient.
TN: Which means in a sense I’m a cardiologist, pulmonologist, nephrologist - I’m all of those things in the one. I'm just not as specialized as they are. So I have a better foundation than almost anybody else to come to this.
As for as the time. Absolutely. Time is a big issue. And the interview I did with Shawn Hannity opposite Zuhdi Jasser, I think, is illustrative, because Dr Jasser is a wonderful insurance, he's a great guy and he had great points, but he had not had the time to do a frame by frame analysis of the episode where Hillary's getting into the Scooby van.
And actually people had pointed me to a couple things there and so I went back frame by frame and I was able to see that she didn't collapse at all. She was in a wooden posture, and when she tipped, she stayed in that wooden posture or had stayed absolutely the same in relation to her body. And that is a very different issue than collapsing. And he had not had the time to see that.
RW: Going back to, I think one of the articles that people look at when they see her on video and they are sceptical, when they read that it’s Snopes debunking, and a lot, about half of it is basically what you could call character assassination.
You're not a Parkinson’s specialist and you don't like Hillary Clinton, so that dismisses all of your points - whether they're valid or not like what. How would you respond to that? Do you think that your own political leanings has tainted your ability to look at this objectively?
TN: Well. If one takes a look at my video on how to prove me wrong, they'll see that my political leanings don't play into the issue. What I did say very clearly up front is say “I find Hillary Clinton to be morally and politically unacceptable”. That is saying I'm telling you what my biases, and every one of us has a bias. There's just no way around it - we all have bias.
And if I look at ABC, for example, you've got David Muir who is very telegenic up there. My wife likes to watch him. But when you watch the reporting... It's very clearly slanted - they pay no attention to anything that would ever cast a bad light on Hillary Clinton. Do they admit their bias? No! They won't do it.
I’m saying - look, here I am, I'm out for everybody to see - here's my bias. Now...
TN: Medically. Here's where I go. And in the video I did on how to prove me wrong I said there are two ways to prove me wrong. The first one is - look at any one of the specific things I pointed out and show me how Parkinson’s disease either does not fit or something else fits better, and two - how about we release real records and, as I said on the end of the show, records that explain what we see?
We can't be in the position of the lady in Duck Soup listening to Chico Marx say “Who are you going to believe - me or your own eyes?”
RW: Just sort of shifting gears... We would like to talk a little bit about the latest medical records that have been released, if we can call them that, by her doctor Lisa Bardack.
TN: You mean these?
RW: Yeah, right. If you could just for, in layman's terms, maybe highlight reasons that you think that this is not a very credible document, or any issues that you might have with it - if you could explain it to us.
TN: Well, I have to thank a doctor Wolf who tweets for a couple of points. Let's look here. She releases a known contrast chest C.T. scan including a C.T. a calcium score, a wait a minute. C.T.'s. Computer tomography angiography that is a contrast study. She says a non contrast to C.T. scan.
It's a total non sequitur - somebody is putting words out to make them look good. It says she has a small right middle of pneumonia. Let's suppose she has it. It's possible. It happens that the right middle low because of the anatomy of the bronchi is the most common of place to get an aspiration pneumonia which could come from her Parkinson's.
TN: And please excuse me here. I just spoke in the declarative mood and that's was a problem where people were looking at my big video, because I slipped from the subjunctive that is the mood of possibility or probability into the declarative mood from time to time for the ease of presentation.
This is all subjunctive, it is the realm of probability that you have not thought of a certainty. It's hypothesis, it is not the realm of certainty. I want to make that clear, because people have tried to take it the other direction. Okay. As I read down on the second page mill toward the bottom of the large paragraph, her thyroid blood tests are normal of note, she has remained stable for many years on Armor Thyroid to treat her hypothyroidism or at the C's a low T three level close parentheses.
I'm sorry, that's archaic. Armor Thyroid - yeah you can use it. It's out there, it's legitimate. And if somebody has been stable on it - fine. No big deal. You don't change meds to change meds. But, when we look at it - Hypothyroidism a low T three level? No. Inner chronologists, when I was in medical school, were using what's called T four - that's the thyroid hormone with four iodine and on it as the level of your thyroid function.
Well it turns out the body has to convert it to thyroid hormone with three iodines - that’s T three and that's what actually works at the cellular level, so they went to measuring T three. Well, they discovered that wasn't quite useful, because it's such a short half life and varied with a bunch of things, and so they tried to come up with some way of putting it together - they went to what's called the Risen T three index which has been since been supplanted by TS H. And basically what that is a styrene stimulating hormone.
And it says, when your thyroid function goes down, your pituitary gland says - n,o it's got to come back out and pushes out T.S.H. to tell the thyroid put out more thyroid. Anti SH is the standard of care. So we've got someone here using an archaic method of monitoring.
Well, let's go further. Blood pressure one hundred over seventy heart rate of seventy. Well, that sounds really really good. If you were an athlete, that would be fine. The standard for women of her age is a blood pressure above one hundred thirty.
Here's another place where I have an advantage. One of my close golfing buddies is chief of cardiology or Westie of cardiology at Florida Hospital where I practiced. That's where I met him. And he talks about that at her age you don't want blood pressure that low. So you say one hundred over seventy - that's really low! Heart rate of seventy.
Women’s heart rate is typically eighty. And so while this is not proof of anything, please again, we're in the realm of probabilities. This is something that might happen if you had Parkinson's disease, because there is what we call it autonomic dysfunction. The autonomics are the system the nervous system that controls all the automatic parts of your body. You're sweating, your blood pressure, your heart rate and so on. That's all autonomic function.
And so this is just, it's just one more piece that says “Hmmm”.
But then comes the one that just jumped out at me. Pulse oximetry of ninety nine percent. Pulse oximetry came in the clinical practice in 1986. I have used it every day on virtually every patient I treated since then. So I think I know what I'm talking about here. First. A pulse oximetry level of ninety nine percent would be expected in the normal person possibly through the age of thirty five or forty. Beyond that a normal person with no illness whatever will see their oxygen saturation but drop by one to two percent per decade. So at age seventy for round numbers the highest number we should see for her totally healthy, no pneumonia, no nothing, is ninety seven.
I'm sorry, ninety nine is not plausible. And when she has a pneumonia, it's going to take a week or two to get full recovery. So she should be ninety five ninety six. Now anything above ninety four, you can walk around and be OK as long as you're not exerting yourself.
So, you know it's not a big deal, but this just puts the lie to the validity of this report.
CB: Wow, it's really interesting. Tell me, Doctor, that high oxygen saturation number - would you, are you suggesting that that was an oversight somehow? That they that this report has no basis in fact or reality? Because obviously if they're trying to if they were making up a medical report and they were putting out numbers, they wouldn't deliberately put out a number that's totally unrealistic.
I mean, it suggests that this was a mistake at somebody’s part. Is that what you're suggesting?
TN: Well, the benign explanation is that it's a mistake or the machine was malfunctioning. That's the benign explanation.
CB: Is it possible that a doctor Bardack would not have noticed this mistake, because she's not as conversant in them in these numbers as you are who seems seen it much more than she has?
TN: I tell you what happens with a general practitioner or internist. When you go into their office, the nurse does all of the intake stuff, blood pressure, puts you on the scales, heart rate, and puts an ox emitter on your finger and writes down a number. And so this is not something that's particularly likely that she would be closely conversant with.
I mean she could be, but it's not likely, so I, because of all of the other times, when we have had stuff come out that says she's perfectly healthy and then we have these various episodes that aren't answered, it takes us all toward the less benign answer.
CB: OK. Alright.
RW: We're seeing more and more actually doctors like yourself or medical experts coming forward and offering their opinion or their take. You know, I don't think as many are as invested in this as you are, but we're seeing more of it but I want to ask you briefly why don't we see more head Noel's making these really compelling videos on YouTube.
What do you think is keeping doctors from weighing in on this really important topic which is you know the health of our potentially future leader?
TN: Two reasons. One is time. You know, it takes time to sit down and prepare this. It took me over four hours just to get the script for that video correct. And even then it's obvious that I made some mistakes by not getting the mood of what I said correct. You know, the verbal mood. The second thing is that the I.R.S. is a piker compared to C.M.S.
CB: You're going to how to explain what C.M.S. is.
TN: C.M.S., well, I knew them by the acronym C.M.M.S which was the Center for Medicare Medicaid Services. They're the people who pay doctors for Medicare and Medicaid work. And they have within law and regulation the ability to walk into your practice unannounced, do an audit, in the moment they find something that's slightly less than perfect charge with Medicare fraud in you have the potential to lose years of income.
TN: Because they get multiple repayment. It's not a pretty story. Let me tell you, there is no physician who can withstand an audit where they want to find something. There is a psychiatrist in prison right now because he undercharged Medicare. Undercharged, and he's in prison for Medicare fraud.
CB: OK. This is just a repeat of the question I asked yesterday. Well, wouldn't people be, well there's two answers to that - one is people who are more than three years retired as you are so they're not in danger of losing their income stream.
Secondly, what about, you know, I mean, if a doctor came out and criticized Hillary Clinton and then was investigated by the C.M.S. group? It would be such a red flag. He'd become a hero of the, you know, the alternative media, and the libertarians, and the pro-Trump people so they wouldn't dare touch.
TN: I don't find that a compelling argument at this point.
CB: The second one?
TN: I don't find that a compelling argument right now. Dr Drew Pinsky simply raised the question about how well treated delivery was on thyroid medicines. And he lost his reach on his T.V. show. And no explanation - you're out.
Give me a break. That's trivial and hits a fairly substantial loss right there. Is he considered a hero to some degree, but he still has a big financial loss?
RW: Right. So you are saying there's a big, there's a lot at stake for a doctor to come forward?
TN: Huge. Huge amount at stake.
CB: What about the first excuse? What about retired doctors who are in danger of having their practice affected?
TN: It depends on how interested you are in the subject. It really does. And do you have the preparation to be able to go after it? And do you have the interest? You know, it's an issue of - OK, do I really want to do this, or do I want to play golf?
Do I want to do other things? What my friends do? Do I want to travel, but I want to these other things... And you look at it and say which is more important.
RW: Let's just sort of look at the future now. So, assuming that Hillary Clinton has some very serious health condition, very possibly Parkinson’s, what should we be expecting, what should we be looking for in the in the coming days and weeks? Because, to be honest, she made two appearances yesterday, and she doesn’t look that bad, I have to say.
TN: Yeah, she looked good. See, here's, here's the thing, and that's why I put out my field guide to spotting her symptoms. Parkinson's disease is an up and down, up and down kind of a thing. You get your levadopa levels up - you do well, you function well.
If you get them too high, you start getting these oddball dyskinesias. So, you're treading a fine line between enough and too much, but assuming that you’re up, you can move more freely. Hey, the movement disorders specialist did his job: I can move freely, I can speak freely, I don't have these other big problems. But in spite of that, you're going to see from time to time a freeze.
RW: One of the things that are fascinating about this whole debate is, you know, Hillary Clinton doesn't have exactly the best track ever comes to transparency and telling the truth. But this is, this seems like if she's lying about this, this seems like something that she won't be able to hide forever.
Eventually something's going to come - at least that's the feeling that I get. So, just as a doctor, I'm really curious about what your opinion is. I mean, will she, assuming she does have a medical condition, do you think she'll be able to hide it from the American public right up to the election?
TN: She might be able to. You can argue that what she's trying to do is run out the clock. And with careful stage managing, with careful management of her meds, and again I'm in the declarative mode here.
If you do things right, you could reduce the chance of showing any of these bad events. There's one place you're going to have real trouble doing that and that's a debate. And if she has to stand for an hour and a half or two hours, that's going to be a load that will tend to show what's out there, and almost certainly the Donald will come up with some sort of a stressful comment, and those are the things that tend to trigger events.
So when we get done with all of that, we have a real probability that something will show, but it is not a certainty. And so when we look at all of this, we're sitting here going - OK, what is the upshot of this? The uncertainty over her health doesn't go away. It continues to weigh on her candidacy.
And so she gets more and more pressure to be out in front and look healthy to try to dispel the uncertainty. I can't, you know, I don't have a crystal ball to say what happens but my impression is the longer she waits the more the drumbeat just keeps going, the drip drip drip just keeps going and just like the e-mails - they wouldn't go away.
This is probably not going to go away, and ultimately it's going to be very difficult for her to maintain a winning vote.
RW: Well, I imagine that if she has another episode that she did on September 11th, that's... that's it, right? So...
TN: I would say that if she has an episode at the debate, there's going to be no way to cover it. And then you have, then the political calculation is - OK, the Democratic National Committee has to come up with “Oh she hid all of this from us, and so now we've got to put somebody in”.
And who do they put? They put Joe Biden, Kaine, do they find a third person, you know, Elizabeth Warren. You know, it becomes a real problem for them.
RW: I don't know if you saw it, but she filled a few softballs after her speech at Greensboro North Carolina, and she was asked about when Tim Kaine was told about her pneumonia, and she wouldn't give a straight answer. She deflected all questions, even basic questions like “When did your running mate know that you had pneumonia?”. She wouldn’t even answer it.
TN: Oh see, that just makes it worse. That looks like cover up, and again that's political, that’s not medical. But that looks cover up, all the way.
RW: Yeah, what I really like about your analysis, Dr Noel, is that, I think, that if you look at some of the odd behavior, or whatever you want to call it, from Hillary over the last six months, year, decade and you can just chalk it up to “Well, you know, sometimes people do odd things”, but when you really put it all together, it really makes a very convincing case.
And the one thing from your most recent video that really struck me as beyond coincidence are those blue glasses, the blue sunglasses. Who wears those? They’re blue, blue sunglasses! And can you explain why would someone wear blue sunglasses?
TN: Let me look on my desk here for a minute, I've got it in the notes. Those blue sunglasses were identified on Parkinson's disease forums as Zeiss Z one F one fifty five sunglasses. They happen not to be sold in the US.
And you saw on that video a piece of an incredible video of a man, I believe he actually had dyskinesia tardive, which is one of the major movement disorders where he's sitting with these horrendous, I mean his head is just rapidly doing this thing, and he manages to reach down get a pair of blue sunglasses, he puts them on, and all of a sudden he's able to sit still. He's able to walk without these major disorders. And these blue sunglasses have been shown to reduce these major movement disorders. And also to reduce certain seizure, photosensitive seizure disorders.
And so you look at that and you say “OK, that's interesting”.
Now you look at the crowd. Who's got sunglasses? Can I spell nobody?
RW: Or who is dehydrated?
TN: Well, that's a separate question. We can get to that, but I mean there are a couple of bikers over on one side, you were kind of on the outside or were in brown sunglasses, but when you look at the handful of people with sunglasses on this overcast day are all wearing brown or grey.
She's wearing bright blue, she's the only one wearing bright blue. That just waves a big flag. And we saw this once before on Memorial Day in Chappaqua, when she attended a celebration she wore blue sunglasses, the same ones.
CB: Alright, let’s talk about these sunglasses thing for a second here. Just because I'm somebody, I'm a good, perhaps, example of of somebody who might be watching this, who, whatever.
Here's the thing - I don't, I never wear sunglasses and I don't pay attention much to what kind of sunglasses people wear. Is it really uncommon to wear blue sunglasses, or do some people actually wear them just for fashion purposes?
RW: Why would you wear blue sunglasses at a 9/11 Memorial? Seems like something you'd wear, I don't even know, you know, Woodstock, like you know, convention or something.
TN: Well, first of all, on an overcast day why are you wearing sunglasses at all? I mean, 9/11 Memorial - blue sunglasses - yeah, would be bad taste. Yes, there are other blue sunglasses out there, but this one particular appears to have been shown to be most effective in handling those movement disorders.
CB: Because, I guess, my question is this - if blue sunglasses are such an odd thing to wear and sort of recognized sign that they might be being used for a medical condition, then you have to wonder, well, why does she wear them to public events, right? You think she'd only put them on if, well, you know, they might not be that common, but some people do wear them and it's not a sign of anything sort of out of the ordinary.
TN: Why wouldn't her team take the same tint that you tint the windows of your car and put the tint across the front of them so that they wouldn't stand out like a neon light?
RW: I don't know if you have seen the pictures Charles, but they are like bright blue! We're not talking about sort of dark sunglasses, some sort of navy blue, I mean...
TN: They’re like search lights!
RW: Yeah, they really are! No, really, it looks like something John Lennon would wear, you know, like on some interview with, you know. It's really bizarre! But I guess, a poll question is that so you are acknowledging though, Dr Noel, that, assuming these sunglasses are for medical purposes, it's not just the Parkinson's, it could be any sort of motor disorder.
TN: Well, there's a whole family of major movement disorders that are called Parkinson Plus and you've got dyskinesia tardive, Shy Drager syndrome, you know, and on and on... I have on one of my notepads, there's a list of about ten of these.
You can even have motor disorders for multiple sclerosis or mad cow disease. So, you know, this is what we call a differential diagnosis - there's a whole basket of these things that are possible, but they all are tightly related in how they manifest and they all have awful outlook for the sufferer.
RW: And Charles, going back to sort of your point, and I understand where you're coming from, you know. I think someone who is skeptical of this theory could say “Come on guys, you're talking about blue sunglasses”. But, you know, the sort of bizarre nature of these blue sunglasses, you combine that with this wealth of video evidence of this totally bizarre behavior, and you can't help, but, you know, connecting a few dots. It just seems so strange!
CB: I agree, I agree. I just wasn't aware of how, you know, out of the ordinary blue sunglasses are. I never go into the sunglasses stores. I don't know what people are wearing. I don't like these different trends come along. I see sometimes people walking around with orange looking lenses or something in their sunglasses. So I don't know, maybe it’s something people choose for fashion reasons.
TN: I wear amber sunglasses on the golf course to enhance contrast.
RW: I just don't consider Hillary Clinton a hipster, so it’s like, why is she wearing these, you know, totally far out, psychedelic sunglasses, I don’t know...
TN: We never talked about dehydration and let me.
RW: Yes, yes, let’s do that!
TN: Dehydration comes from two possibilities: one - you don't drink, two - you lose fluids. That's it. No alternatives. As an anesthesiologist and critical care medicines guy, those were my daily stock in trade. So I speak with firm authority here.
She arrived at the event hydrated. Therefore, in order for her to become dehydrated, she either had to sweat like a pig - which I do on the golf course - hydrate or die. There's no imagery that shows a drop of sweat on her that I know about. She had to bleed, she had to have diarrhea, she had to vomit, or have taken some medicine that gave her a massive dieresis - that is peeing. There's no evidence of any of those things happening. Therefore, categorically, she was not dehydrated.
RW: Very interesting. Well, definitely keep us posted on everything that you do, and we of course are very eager to share it with our readers.
TN: You're most welcome. I’ve enjoyed being with you.
Click here for our commenting guidelines