Now the NY Times says Hillary’s being treated for pneumonia.
www.nytimes.com/...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The story uses the word “pneumonia” once in the text and once in the headline. But it’s so short of details I consider it journalistic incompetence. The first two paragraphs seem to be grafted onto the beginning of a story I read earlier today.
What could this mean? Have they done a chest x-ray and seen an infiltrate? I’m an internal medicine doctor, like the doc who wrote a letter about Hillary’s health July of 2015. I wouldn’t use the word “pneumonia” without a chest x-ray showing an infiltrate — an area of lung that looks whiter than it should. I might tell someone they could have what’s called “walking pneumonia” without an x-ray, and start the patient on an oral antibiotic. You can get that after a viral infection, and it will give you a cough. Mrs. Clinton had what they thought was a bad allergy attack recently; that could have been a viral infection as well or in stead, and the timing is reasonable to suspect a mycoplasma pneumonia, the medical term for “walking pneumonia”. It’s almost always a nuisance-level illness.
On the other hand, there are much more serious types of pneumonia. Those usually get treated in the hospital. Is Hillary on the way to the hospital?
For the “Newspaper of Record” to print such a headline with NO details is irresponsible at best.