There’s something about Hillary’s eyes
Power Line - Friday September 23, 2016
by Scott Johnson
Yesterday Tom Lifson took note of Hillary’s wandering eyes. Several physicians have written us to observe that they are consistent with a left abducens nerve (CN6) palsy, residual from her cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. Now Dr. John Coppedge elaborates on this thesis in a post at The Hill that he calls “Clinton’s eyes — a window into her health issues.” Dr. Coppedge explains:
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.
It comes out of the base of the brain and runs along the floor of the skull, immediately beneath the brain before coursing upward to the eye. Dysfunction of that muscle causes the striking picture of the eyes not aiming in the same direction and causes the patient to suffer double vision.
Like all things medical, there is a long list of potential causes but in my opinion the most likely one, based on Clinton’s known medical history is an intermittent lateral rectus palsy caused by damage to or pressure on her sixth cranial nerve.
Dr. Coppedge relates his thesis to Clinton’s 9/11 collapse:
If, as is statistically likely, Clinton’s transverse sinus is still blocked, she would still have increased pressure and swelling and decreased blood flow to her brain. That swelling would place pressure on the exposed portion of the sixth cranial nerve at the base of her brain, explaining the apparent lateral rectus palsy. And such a deficit can be partial and/or intermittent.
Additionally, when patients who have decreased intracranial blood flow becoming volume depleted (dehydrated) or have a drop in blood pressure loss of consciousness can occur. That could explain her witnessed collapse in New York City on 9/11.
Dr. Coppedge concedes that he has sketched out an “admittedly speculative scenario” but argues that it “is an attempt to understand and rationally explain what is going on, based on known facts and the observable signs exhibited by Clinton.” His call for an independent examination is guaranteed not to occur but his post is nevertheless worth a look.
Read More Here
No comments:
Post a Comment