DescentBB

except, of course, you are wrong. Pneumococci are UBIQUITOUS, and take hold when the body provides a good environment. Generally, that is due to congestion from viral infections(then you are contagious, for those), or allergies(my wife had that happen once). Pneumonia is thus FAR more likely, and to an extent far more dangerous to the very young and very old, but can happen to any person at any age. You do NOT catch pneumonia from others, under any circumstances.

meanwhile Eric Trump revealed that the reason Daddy won't release his taxes is that people will spend time studying them, and that mere peons are not up to the task. Smooth!

....and, Donny Junior is talking 'gas chambers', in a hilarious twist of reality:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnbcA1

callmeslick wrote:except, of course, you are wrong. Pneumococci are UBIQUITOUS, and take hold when the body provides a good environment. Generally, that is due to congestion from viral infections(then you are contagious, for those), or allergies(my wife had that happen once). Pneumonia is thus FAR more likely, and to an extent far more dangerous to the very young and very old, but can happen to any person at any age. You do NOT catch pneumonia from others, under any circumstances.

you are going to have to show a link to verify your assertions as everywhere I look, all say there is no such thing

http://www.everydayhealth.com/pneumonia/guide/symptoms/

since you seemingly struggle with reading for comprehension, you only have to slog through the first words, Woody:
"pneumonia is NOT contagious
oh, and this was the first of 50 articles I got in a 8 second search, all of which state the same thing.


Thanks for lying to us all once again. You've found the perfect candidate.

callmeslick wrote:except, of course, you are wrong. Pneumococci are UBIQUITOUS, and take hold when the body provides a good environment. Generally, that is due to congestion from viral infections(then you are contagious, for those), or allergies(my wife had that happen once). Pneumonia is thus FAR more likely, and to an extent far more dangerous to the very young and very old, but can happen to any person at any age. You do NOT catch pneumonia from others, under any circumstances.

You're wrong with your last sentence. Viral versions of pneumonia are the most contagious between people, but bacterial pneumonia can in some cases also be spread between susceptible or immune weakened people via the airborne particles produced when the infected person coughs in the air. Pneumonia caused by chemical fumes, airborne toxins and fungi is not contagious. However, Clinton's doctor said that Hillary has a non-contagious form of bacterial pneumonia and that hers was probably due to the inflammation caused by her allergies coupled with her age and stressful workload. She could have had an infection somewhere else in the body that spread to the lungs too. That's also possible.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1069.aspx?CategoryID=69

http://www.medicinenet.com/is_pneumonia ... rticle.htm

http://www.medicinenet.com/is_pneumonia ... /page2.htm

see the above. She had bacterial pneumonia, and that is NOT contagious. I repeat, the bacteria is everywhere, so by definition is not a point to point contagion. Put in laymans terms, one can literally culture pneumococci from the AIR, with ZERO infected humans around. So any source telling you that the method of contagion is from human to human contact is way off, or referring, perhaps to an extremely rare situation when a cluster of infected individuals are contained with zero air ventilation leading to a slight elevation of background flora. Even then, no reputable scientist would suggest that they can prove exactly that the infecting cocci came directly from a patient. Usually, coughing and sneezing is dandy for spreading viruses(tiny) via aerosol, but not for actual full-fledged organisms, which bacteria are. Explaining the vast difference in viability would be long-winded., and involve both biology and physics to explain. I'm going fishing tomorrow, so I'm not volunteering.

Oh, and Woody, speaking of your many, regular, daily lies: Can you tell me where you got a biology degree from, so we can check their accreditation? No one who EVER took biology would call bacterial pneumonia contagious, at least on the cavalier level you put forth(always?). I am here, publicly, to say you either lied about your education, or didn't get a very good one.

Jesus Christ, woodchip, you really need to learn how to educate yourself. There are several classes of pneumonia, some are non-contagious, others are only contagious for a small window of time once treatment starts.

It's also sad that you are foaming at the mouth because Trump's extremely brief leads in the RCP report, both of which were still inside the margin of error. I guess you have nothing else to hold on to, so I guess we can humor you. "Wow look at how well your guy is doing! He's almost catching up to a woman everyone hates!"

callmeslick wrote:see the above. She had bacterial pneumonia, and that is NOT contagious. I repeat, the bacteria is everywhere, so by definition is not a point to point contagion.

Oh, and Woody, speaking of your many, regular, daily lies: Can you tell me where you got a biology degree from, so we can check their accreditation? No one who EVER took biology would call bacterial pneumonia contagious.

Her particular form was not contagious, I agree. But some forms of bacterial pneumonia CAN be contagious.

not really, no they aren't. Sorry. Unless they've discovered a new strain since I left clinical laboratory work.

tunnelcat wrote:

callmeslick wrote:see the above. She had bacterial pneumonia, and that is NOT contagious. I repeat, the bacteria is everywhere, so by definition is not a point to point contagion.

Oh, and Woody, speaking of your many, regular, daily lies: Can you tell me where you got a biology degree from, so we can check their accreditation? No one who EVER took biology would call bacterial pneumonia contagious.

Her particular form was not contagious, I agree. But some forms of bacterial pneumonia CAN be contagious.

callmeslick wrote:not really, no they aren't. Sorry. Unless they've discovered a new strain since I left clinical laboratory work.

How do you know this, you her personal physician?
It reminds me of the typical American thinking in style "The fact that hackers published the documents on the US doping athletes, undermines the credibility of Russia", said the CEO of WADA

sigma wrote:How do you know this, you her personal physician?

no, sigma. I have a Bachelors Degree in Biochemistry, a Masters Degree in biochem and cell biology, and retired after 31 years in the medical laboratory field, from bench level to management.

It reminds me of the typical American thinking in style "The fact that hackers published the documents on the US doping athletes, undermines the credibility of Russia", said the CEO of WADA

and this reminds me, and indeed all of us, that you enjoy interjecting unrelated gibberish into any thread that strikes you. It's sort of annoying.

Sigma, that's what her doctor said to the press and since most bacterial pneumonia is not contagious between people, that's probably the truth. In fact, most people get pneumonia from their own nasal bacteria. In other words, they infect themselves most of the time.

Slick, what about Mycoplasma pneumonia, or "Walking Pneumonia" in young people and Tuberculosis? Both of those are classified as pneumonia and as contagious between people. And yes, it's highly unlikely Hillary Clinton has either of those beasties.

http://answers.webmd.com/answers/119802 ... contagious

It has always been my understanding that pneumonia was enabled by an event that lowers your immune system.

But, I can also see how it could be transmitted by someone whose body is literally producing billions of the little buggers. But I have never heard of a case with anybody I knew.

I was limiting it to actual pneumococci, whreas mycoplasa(not even a true bacteria, nother long explain) and Tuberculosis are 'true' pneumonias, in the way they are referred to professionally. Frankly, when I saw her symptoms and pace leading up to them, I thought of her suffering from walking pneumonia, as I've seen that exact thing a few times in people(active as hell, suddenly drop). I'll take her doctor's word, I'm sure he has the lab results by now to be truly conclusive.

Spidey wrote:It has always been my understanding that pneumonia was enabled by an event that lowers your immune system.

very insightful. In fact, I'd guesstimate that nearly 95% of all pathogens require at least a window of vulnerability in your immune defenses. The rest are items you either haven't developed defenses against or cannot(Bubonic Plague, AIDs). Now, it takes suprisingly little for those of us over, say, 45 years old, to weaken our immune system. Stress and overwork/low rest are probably the two leading causes in adults for temporary suppression of immune response. Now, I don't know about you, but I'd find the pace of running for POTUS as both stressful and exhausting.

callmeslick wrote:http://www.everydayhealth.com/pneumonia/guide/symptoms/

since you seemingly struggle with reading for comprehension, you only have to slog through the first words, Woody:
"pneumonia is NOT contagious
oh, and this was the first of 50 articles I got in a 8 second search, all of which state the same thing.


Thanks for lying to us all once again. You've found the perfect candidate.

Lying? From your link:

Pneumonia is not contagious, but the germs that cause it can spread from person to person

What a priceless comment. No wonder you libs are confused.

and, as a degreed biologist, you'd understand that what they are saying is that the germ can spread through a population(think of a nursing home setting), but it isn't transmitted by the individuals. Right?

Just what do you think "spread by person to person" means?

if you read the article, they will detail it a bit. TCs links go deeper. In can move among groups of people(person to person),but since they already stated it wasn't a contagious organism(direct transmission without intermediary processes), it means merely that groups of infected individuals can raise the environmental bacterial load.

callmeslick wrote:

sigma wrote:How do you know this, you her personal physician?

no, sigma. I have a Bachelors Degree in Biochemistry, a Masters Degree in biochem and cell biology, and retired after 31 years in the medical laboratory field, from bench level to management.

WOW, Slick. So, most likely you know what you are talking about.

sigma wrote:WOW, Slick. So, most likely you know what you are talking about.

oh, let's not get carried away!

callmeslick wrote:

sigma wrote:

It reminds me of the typical American thinking in style "The fact that hackers published the documents on the US doping athletes, undermines the credibility of Russia", said the CEO of WADA

and this reminds me, and indeed all of us, that you enjoy interjecting unrelated gibberish into any thread that strikes you. It's sort of annoying.

I understand. That it requires a separate topic, but as it turned out, it's not gibberish, even if Vladimir Putin expressed his opinion about it.
https://www.rt.com/news/359566-putin-wa ... questions/

Besides, for my part, I would like to wish that there were not too many separate topics in the same threads, as rightly observed Tunnelcat. Even if she is confused in them, can you imagine how difficult it is to me? So I just can not watch everything and I apologize if I did not respond to someone just for that reason.

P.S. By the way, TC, I don't understand what prevents you to change your nickname if you want. You will in any case remain the same beautiful intelligent woman that we know.

well, now that we've seen it play out:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

And Hillary Clintons disjointed eye movements show even more why she has neurological brain issues:

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Hil ... &FORM=VIRE

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/h ... lth-issues

on to the desperate propaganda from the Breitbart camp. Tabloid fodder, but nothing a real citizen takes seriously.

What a robotic joke you are . The Hill is not Breitbart nor is the video of Hillaries eyes. I suggest you actually read the Hill article instead of trying to hide your champions health condition.:

Hillary Clinton exhibited abnormal eye movements during her recent speech in Philadelphia and they were not photoshopped.

Her eyes did not always move in the same direction at the same time. It appears that she has a problem with her left sixth cranial nerve. That nerve serves only one function and that is to make the lateral rectus muscle contract. That muscle turns the eye in the direction away from the midline.

While you worked in a lab, you do not have the letters MD by your name as the author of The Hill article is. Of course you don't care if a brain damage person or even a drooling idiot gets elected to the Office of President...just as long as they have a D by their name.

lets just wait and see who seems most clearheaded on Monday evening.

I think we can both agree it will be a much watched and interesting debate.

woodchip wrote:I think we can both agree it will be a much watched and interesting debate.

uh-huh, I think it will, football notwithstanding. Heck, I won't even be distracted now that my beloved Pats took care of business last night!

What in the hell is nuclear warming?

woodchip wrote:Of course you don't care if a brain damage person or even a drooling idiot gets elected to the Office of President.

Considering you seem to be stumping pretty goddamn hard for a batshit insane raving lunatic...

Except Hillary is demonstrably brain damaged. I'm sure she will do as well as she did during the Benghazi killings when she is president.

given as how all truly involved, as well as Ambassador Stevens' family say she did a great job in a tough situation, I'm ok with that. I'm also ok with the threat of continuing Obamas economic policies. Given that my portfolio has tripled and we never had a complete financial collapse, that is a great jumping off point as far as I'm concerned.

callmeslick wrote:given as how all truly involved, as well as Ambassador Stevens' family say she did a great job in a tough situation, I'm ok with that.

Not all his family:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04 ... -requests/

callmeslick wrote:I'm also ok with the threat of continuing Obamas economic policies. Given that my portfolio has tripled and we never had a complete financial collapse, that is a great jumping off point as far as I'm concerned.

If your "portfolio was cashed out just prior to the crash (no doubt due to inside info) and you bought in just after the collapse, then yeah I can see how your stocks tripled

callmeslick wrote:given as how all truly involved, as well as Ambassador Stevens' family say she did a great job in a tough situation, I'm ok with that. I'm also ok with the threat of continuing Obamas economic policies. Given that my portfolio has tripled and we never had a complete financial collapse, that is a great jumping off point as far as I'm concerned.

So exactly which economic policies that you are referring to, didn’t start under Bush?

I can think of one, but the ones you are always touting as saving the economy certainly did.

Spidey wrote:

callmeslick wrote:given as how all truly involved, as well as Ambassador Stevens' family say she did a great job in a tough situation, I'm ok with that. I'm also ok with the threat of continuing Obamas economic policies. Given that my portfolio has tripled and we never had a complete financial collapse, that is a great jumping off point as far as I'm concerned.

So exactly which economic policies that you are referring to, didn’t start under Bush?

the stimulus was avoided by Bush, and punted to Obama before swearing in. The decisions by which we shored up the financial sector facing a 48 hour window to avoid liquidity crash was more of a one-off, but still essential. Otherwise, Obama has managed to keep a reasonable, centrist energy policy in place which has stimulated some aspects of the economy, and one cannot overestimate the benefit of a more wide reaching auto bailout than what was proposed by Bush et al. Now, if we could muster the national will to push the minimum wage up(not to $15, but, say 12), tweak the tax code to FINALLY benefit workers as opposed to investors, and map out and budget for some major energy and communication infrastructure along with physical(roads, bridges) upgrades, we'd be in a position to sail through the transition period the whole world in currently going through. What you DO NOT wish to do is isolate the US markets, start trade wars and ESPECIALLY do anything to lessen full faith of global investors in our bonds or currency.

bull★■◆●…Bush signed a stimulus package in 2008.

You have a seriously flawed memory, because Bush also signed the first auto bailout. (not simply proposed)

Funny you can't actually recite the regulations that passed under Obama.

Spidey wrote:bull★■◆●…Bush signed a stimulus package in 2008.

You have a seriously flawed memory, because Bush also signed the first auto bailout. (not simply proposed)

Funny you can't actually recite the regulations that passed under Obama.

his regulations have nothing to do with steering the economy.

So the regulations signed into law by Obama, having to do with full disclosure on credit card statements and other banking and lending institution regulations have nothing to do with the economy?

I personally believe that bill had some stabilizing affect and helped to loosen the credit market.

But in the end, Obama has done nothing extraordinary or anything any other president wouldn’t have done in regards to the economy, as you keep suggesting.