Is Biden's doctor covering up the president's last physical?
O'Connor's lack of response only raises more doubts about Biden's health and his administration's cover-up of it.
According to a statement from O'Connor's legal team, 'On the advice of his legal counsel, Dr. O'Connor refused to answer questions that invaded the well-established legal privilege that protects confidential matters between physicians and their patients.'
While the expectation of privacy in the doctor-patient relationship is fundamental and sacrosanct, that expectation is greatly reduced when we're talking about the president, who lives in a glass White House. Many issues that are normally nobody's business become everybody's business when it comes to the president — and that includes medical issues.
On Feb. 28, 2024, O'Connor released to the public the results of Biden's most recent (and last) presidential physical. Although it has apparently been taken down from the White House website, it is still available at the National Archives. It is a public document. If nothing else, O'Connor could have restricted his comments to what is revealed in the summary of the physical.
The document highlights the medical conditions Biden was being treated for at the time: obstructive sleep apnea, non-valvular fibrillation, low lipid levels, reflux, his 'stiffened gait,' and several other conditions. No mental health assessment was made because O'Connor thought it wasn't necessary. Or maybe it just wasn't prudent.
In the summary, O'Connor asserts the 2024 'Physical exam is essentially unchanged from baseline,' which presumably is referring to his first presidential exam in 2021. And he added at the release that Biden is a 'healthy, active, robust 81-year-old.' But that conclusion is questionable, given Biden's performance in the presidential debate just four months later.
While it would be totally inappropriate for a doctor to publicly release the results of your or my physical exam, the American people have come to expect presidents to produce a summary of their annual physical. President Trump's physician, Dr. Sean P. Barbabella, released a summary of Trump's physical on April 13. And the White House just revealed Trump's chronic vein problem, even though it doesn't affect his job performance.
People want to know if the person holding the most important job in the world is healthy and capable of doing the job. When a president goes under anesthesia for some medical procedure, reporters inform the public. If the president contracts COVID-19, as both Trump and Biden did, the news reports it.
Note that Trump's physical included a PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test, which can indicate prostate cancer. The result was normal. Biden's released results did not include a PSA test, and we recently discovered he has an aggressive form of prostate cancer. Even former presidents may not have much of an expectation of privacy on medical issues.
While Biden's medical conditions can no longer affect presidential duties, it's important to know whether there was a medical cover up so that, if there was, steps can be taken to prevent it in the future.
So, what can Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, do about O'Connor's stonewalling?
First, the simplest solution is for Comer to send Biden an official letter requesting him to allow O'Connor to discuss results of Biden's physicals. If Biden gives his consent — which I doubt he will — O'Connor can quit hiding behind doctor-patient confidentiality.
If Biden refuses to give his consent, Comer should invite O'Connor back to discuss Biden's last two physical exams. They are public information, so O'Connor shouldn't have any problem discussing the results that have been made public.
If O'Connor refuses, Comer has another option. When O'Connor initially released the results of the president's physical, he claimed that doctors in several specialties, without naming names, reviewed and signed off on O'Connor's report.
Comer could ask for a list of the doctors who reviewed the data and ask them to testify as to whether they had reviewed and confirmed the physical's results.
Although such hearings would no doubt be partisan, there is a broader policy issue at stake. The public needs to be able to trust information about a president's medical condition. Given what we've seen from the Biden administration, that's not the case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New Tariffs Threaten American Battery Production
Trump-era clean energy policies are slamming the breaks on the United States' battery war with China. While lithium-ion batteries were invented in the United States, China has been outpacing the nation in terms of both battery manufacturing and technological innovations. But while U.S. companies have been scrambling to keep up, gutted clean energy incentives and tariffs on critical materials have made a U.S. victory all but impossible. The domestic battery industry had been gaining considerable ground under the Biden administration thanks to major incentives including the sweeping Inflation Reduction Act. Tax credits, in particular, 'helped close the price gap between U.S.-made batteries and those made in China, the world's main supplier of lithium-ion battery modules, cells, and materials,' according to Canary Media. Realizing that the Trump administration would bring a less encouraging policy environment for clean energy technologies, makers of lithium-ion batteries promised the federal government that they would collectively spend a cumulative $100 billion by 2030 to build up an independent and totally domestic grid battery industry. In exchange, they asked for continued political support. So far, that plea seems to be falling flat. Just this month, the Trump administration accused Chinese suppliers of dumping graphite into U.S. markets – meaning that they are selling graphite more cheaply abroad than in their own markets. As a result, the United States has imposed a formidable 93.5 percent tariff on Chinese graphite. This could have immediate and serious consequences for United States batterymakers, as almost all refined graphite in the world comes from China. In fact, this tariff alone could 'easily add $1,000 or more to the price of a battery' according to the New York Times. As a result, the nation's once-thriving 'battery belt' is faltering. 'Projects are being paused, cancelled, and closed at a rate 6 times more than during the same period in 2024,' reports 'The Big Green Machine,' a site affiliated with Wellesley College that tracks domestic clean energy investments. And this biggest projects are the ones suffering most. Politico reports that 'prospects dimmed for 34 projects that are worth more than $31 billion and were expected to create almost 28,000 jobs.' This includes projects that are either paused, canceled, delayed by at least six faced by a slash in funding, or scaled down. But the overall impact of recent political shifts are still unclear, and overall the domestic clean energy sector is still growing. Related: 'The policies Republicans have passed are so recent that they may not have worked their way through the economy,' reports Politico. 'In the last three months, Congress has passed and President Donald Trump has signed bills that removed key tax credits, taken the teeth out of fuel-economy rules and neutered California's ability to force automakers to sell EVs.' Taken together, all of these compounding policy measures create an uncertain policy and investment environment at minimum. More likely, it will cause an extreme contraction of the domestic battery sector at a time when Beijing was already pulling away. "Unquestionably, the Chinese are ahead in manufacturing technology," Bob Galyen, a retired executive who worked with both GM and the Chinese battery giant CATL, told NPR. He says that Chinese battery research and development is receiving major influxes of cash at a time when U.S. manufacturers are struggling for funding. "Clearly, the U.S. is lagging behind,' he finished. Ironically, these measures are hitting Republican districts the hardest. The so-called 'battery belt' is mostly comprised of red states. As a result, according to Politico, 'GOP districts saw 60 percent of the funding decline, while Democratic districts saw 39 percent.' By Haley Zaremba for More Top Reads From this article on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.' ___
2 hours ago
It's Trump's economy now. The latest financial numbers offer some warning signs
WASHINGTON -- For all of President Donald Trump's promises of an economic 'golden age,' a spate of weak indicators this week told a potentially worrisome story as the impacts of his policies are coming into focus. Job gains are dwindling. Inflation is ticking upward. Growth has slowed compared to last year. More than six months into his term, Trump's blitz of tariff hikes and his new tax and spending bill have remodeled America's trading, manufacturing, energy and tax systems to his own liking. He's eager to take credit for any wins that might occur and is hunting for someone else to blame if the financial situation starts to totter. But as of now, this is not the boom the Republican president promised, and his ability to blame his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, for any economic challenges has faded as the world economy hangs on his every word and social media post. When Friday's jobs report turned out to be decidedly bleak, Trump ignored the warnings in the data and fired the head of the agency that produces the monthly jobs figures. 'Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes,' Trump said on Truth Social, without offering evidence for his claim. 'The Economy is BOOMING.' It's possible that the disappointing numbers are growing pains from the rapid transformation caused by Trump and that stronger growth will return — or they may be a preview of even more disruption to come. Trump's aggressive use of tariffs, executive actions, spending cuts and tax code changes carries significant political risk if he is unable to deliver middle-class prosperity. The effects of his new tariffs are still several months away from rippling through the economy, right as many Trump allies in Congress will be campaigning in the midterm elections. 'Considering how early we are in his term, Trump's had an unusually big impact on the economy already,' said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist at Firehouse Strategies. 'The full inflationary impact of the tariffs won't be felt until 2026. Unfortunately for Republicans, that's also an election year.' The White House portrayed the blitz of trade frameworks leading up to Thursday's tariff announcement as proof of his negotiating prowess. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and other nations that the White House declined to name agreed that the U.S. could increase its tariffs on their goods without doing the same to American products. Trump simply set rates on other countries that lacked settlements. The costs of those tariffs — taxes paid on imports to the U.S. — will be most felt by many Americans in the form of higher prices, but to what extent remains uncertain. 'For the White House and their allies, a key part of managing the expectations and politics of the Trump economy is maintaining vigilance when it comes to public perceptions,' said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist. Just 38% of adults approve of Trump's handling of the economy, according to a July poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. That's down from the end of Trump's first term when half of adults approved of his economic leadership. The White House paints a rosier image, seeing the economy emerging from a period of uncertainty after Trump's restructuring and repeating the economic gains seen in his first term before the pandemic struck. 'President Trump is implementing the very same policy mix of deregulation, fairer trade, and pro-growth tax cuts at an even bigger scale – as these policies take effect, the best is yet to come,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said. The economic numbers over the past week show the difficulties that Trump might face if the numbers continue on their current path: — Friday's jobs report showed that U.S. employers have shed 37,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump's tariff launch in April, undermining prior White House claims of a factory revival. — Net hiring has plummeted over the past three months with job gains of just 73,000 in July, 14,000 in June and 19,000 in May — a combined 258,000 jobs lower than previously indicated. On average last year, the economy added 168,000 jobs a month. — A Thursday inflation report showed that prices have risen 2.6% over the year that ended in June, an increase in the personal consumption expenditures price index from 2.2% in April. Prices of heavily imported items, such as appliances, furniture, and toys and games, jumped from May to June. — On Wednesday, a report on gross domestic product — the broadest measure of the U.S. economy — showed that it grew at an annual rate of less than 1.3% during the first half of the year, down sharply from 2.8% growth last year. 'The economy's just kind of slogging forward,' said Guy Berger, senior fellow at the Burning Glass Institute, which studies employment trends. 'Yes, the unemployment rate's not going up, but we're adding very few jobs. The economy's been growing very slowly. It just looks like a 'meh' economy is continuing.' Trump has sought to pin the blame for any economic troubles on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, saying the Fed should cut its benchmark interest rates even though doing so could generate more inflation. Trump has publicly backed two Fed governors, Christoper Waller and Michelle Bowman, for voting for rate cuts at Wednesday's meeting. But their logic is not what the president wants to hear: They were worried, in part, about a slowing job market. But this is a major economic gamble being undertaken by Trump and those pushing for lower rates under the belief that mortgages will also become more affordable as a result and boost homebuying activity. His tariff policy has changed repeatedly over the last six months, with the latest import tax numbers serving as a substitute for what the president announced in April, which provoked a stock market sell-off. It might not be a simple one-time adjustment as some Fed board members and Trump administration officials argue. Of course, Trump can't say no one warned him about the possible consequences of his economic policies. Biden, then the outgoing president, did just that in a speech last December at the Brookings Institution, saying the cost of the tariffs would eventually hit American workers and businesses. 'He seems determined to impose steep, universal tariffs on all imported goods brought into this country on the mistaken belief that foreign countries will bear the cost of those tariffs rather than the American consumer,' Biden said. 'I believe this approach is a major mistake.'
