Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Palin Pregnancy


I'm sorry, but I just cannot resist any longer. The fantastical, magical realism surrounding the events of the birth of Sarah Palin's 5th child Trig just have to be reviewed. (Come on, there's a medical slant to the topic, right???)

Please take a moment to listen to or read the transcript of an interview ex-Governor palin gave to a reporter in 2008. To recap:

In April 2008, Sarah Palin was 43 years old and 8 months pregnant with a known Down's Syndrome child. She had had two previous miscarriages. For some reason she flew to Dallas, Texas to give a speech at a national governor's conference. Early in the morning on the day of the speech, Mrs. Palin states that she started to feel some cramps and noticed leakage of some fluid. So she called her OB in Alaska who apparently reassured her that everything was cool (and who now refuses to speak to anyone from the media about the incident). Again, she describes fluid leaking from between her legs, suggesting a possible premature rupture of membranes (i.e her water broke). While 8 months pregnant with a special needs child. At age 43.

Well that was again if, if I must get personal, technical about this at the same time, um, it was one, it was a sign that I knew, um, could lead to uh, labor being uh kind of kicked in there was any kind of, um, amniotic leaking, amniotic fluid leaking, so when, when that happened we decided OK let’s call her.


So Palin delivered her speech. She then elected to skip the post-speech reception (sort of awkward mingling at a cocktail party with amniotic fluid running down your leg, you know), got on a plane and flew to Seattle, Washington. She then took another plane to Anchorage, Alaska. Finally, she drove the 50 or so miles from Anchorage to Wasilla so that her fifth child could be born in his hometown. (Can't have no fishpickers born down there in the Texas!)

Digest that for just a second. A 43 year old woman carrying a child with known Down's Syndrome in her 8th month of pregnancy voluntarily embarked upon a transcontinental adventure to give some dumb speech. Then, after noticing some cramps and the passage of amniotic fluid, she went ahead with her speech and, instead of proceeding directly to the nearest Dallas high risk pregnancy center, boarded a four hour flight to Seattle. Then she hung out in the Seattle airport lounge for a while and took a connecting flight to Alaska. Then she drives to Wasilla. Finally, she decides to seek medical attention at local Wasilla hospital, a facility lacking a NICU and other high risk specialists. That's her story. In her own words.

There are only three explanations for this extraordinary compendium of events:

1) The Andrew Sullivan Answer: In this theory, Palin was never pregnant and Trig is not her child. To me, this is the least valid of all the theories. The odds of a woman giving birth to a child with Down's Syndrome increase with increasing maternal age. Again, she was 43 years old. I just don't buy it. (But a simple confirmatory birth certificate would be nice!)

2) The Mommie Dearest Answer: In this theory, everything that Palin says is true. In other words, Palin willfully and wantonly placed herself and her unborn child in tremendous danger by flying cross country with amniotic fluid running down her legs. This to me is the scariest possibility because by willingly telling the story, she seems to be under the impression that people would be impressed by her "hardiness" and "toughness". (That's the way we do things up here in the Alaska!) And she is completely oblivious of the fact that this story makes her look reckless and selfish and completely insane. What kind of mother would take a risk like that with her child, let alone a high risk, premature one?

3) The Bridge to Nowhere Answer: The other possibility is that she simply lied. She made it all up. She thought it would make her look tough. So her water never broke. She never felt cramps. None of these things actually happened until she was in Alaska. I suppose this one, banal as it is, represents the most likely answer.

Again, this woman is a major political player in the GOP. She could easily win Iowa and New Hampshire in 2012. She's frightening....

89 comments:

Sergiu said...

Was she ever pregnant or was it her 16 year old daughter?!

OHN said...

She scares the hell out of me.

Anonymous said...

Doctor, thank you so much for covering this. No matter what took place, all 3 choices put Palin in a terrible light. Personally, I don't believe she was pg at all. As for it being Bristols, I dont know about that.
No matter what, this woman needs to come clean about the whole story. But she won't. She's on a ROLL now and is not about to slow down. I just pray to God she's kept away from the WH for everybody's sake.
Thanks again.

Floyd M. Orr said...

You and your readers can learn a lot more about Babygate from:

http://palinbabygate.blogspot.com/

http://palinbabygate.blogspot.com/2010/03/babygate-timeline.html

Henry said...

Thanks for your opinion on these events.

Anonymous said...

Finally someone from the medical profession speaking out. I'm a pediaitrc nurse who has been questioning Sarah's pregnancy tale since she was tapped for VP in 08.
Some other facts you need to mention: Per Sarah she has a history of 2 miscarriages, so this "was" her 7th pregnancy. What physician, a family practice physician no less, in her right mind, would deliver a sitting governor's high risk pregnancy at a podunk hospital without a NICU or a pediatric intensivist?? And if Sarah is making up the whole involvement of this Family Practice Physician of the Year
, why doesn't this lauded doctor come forth and clear her name??
Bristol could be the mother of this child.Likely, TRi-G was born earlier than April 08, and April was his reveal date. Do not discount that Tri-G is not Bristol's child. Or that Bristol had a FAS child that was "swapped out" for a Down Syndrome child. All of this is actually within the realm of the possible with this crazy clan.
Also, you do know that Tri-G is an older term for Trisomy 21 or Down Syndrome, right? Do a quick lit search and you'll see it was a common term last century, now largely outdated as is the old term "mongolism". What are the chances of someone naming their child with Down Syndrome another name for Down Syndrome?? It all gets curiouser and curiouser. Keep investigating and welcome down the rabbit hole.

Anonymous said...

My opinion is that she tried to preform a "Fundamentalist abortion." If the baby died, she'd be all the much more the martyr to her followers, and she wouldn't have to raise the baby.

Honesty, I think the kid is hers because he looks so much like hers. It's hard to say whether he looks like her husband, maybe it was immaculate conception, without the caps.

Ennealogic said...

Just my opinion, but Option 1 is quite possible as long as you don't tie it in with who may have actually birthed the DS child -- even though it is tempting to want to tie it all up in a single bundle.

The picture you've used is telling -- this is Sarah, taken on March 26, 2008, 23 days before Trig's announced birth date, or when Sarah would have been 32 weeks pregnant.

Thank you for posting about this important issue, and I hope you continue to look at the research accumulated by others over the last 22 months for whom her wild ride story never made sense.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I think it was her version of the all popular, "I was under fire" in duty to flag and country... you know, in her view of things.
1. You'd think she would want the very best for her child.
2. You'd think she would be aware of the sure end to her career if that baby suffered ill.

But, I am sure she reads all those "baby-type journals" and there was really nothing for us to be concerned about, really!

-SCRN

Anonymous said...

Dr. Parks,

Thanks so much for tackling this strange subject. I've been following it since McCain first nominated her, and she gave an interview for People Magazine in which she stated she found out that she was carrying a DS baby via amniocentesis at 13 weeks gestation.

Huh? As a mom who has had two babies after the age of 35, I know for sure docs. don't do amnio until 16-20 weeks. It's too risky before then.

The business of giving birth at a small community hospital with no NICU also sticks in my craw. It just doesn't ring true. Let's review: 44, known special-needs baby, premature labor, governor of the state. Physician with privileges at top hospital in Anchorage, close to the hospital. But she whizzed by the NICU hospital, in labor and leaking fluid after a long flight, to give birth in the hospital with no NICU? Give me a break.

Dern said...

Thank you for writing about this. I agree! Why do you think the MSM ignores this? It IS important because Sarahs platform/political beliefs are intricately tied to her views about womens rights. I am a retired ob/gyn and I have never believed Sarahs versions (plural because several stories have been told by her). Also even though older women are more likely to give birth to a DS baby, statistically there are many more DS infants from girls Bristols age then older women. From what Ive read , I believe Bristol or another relative is the mother.

It amazes me that women are writing Andrew Sullivan and saying a lie like this is not unique. In my experience, that is simply not true, and I have to wonder if those letters are coming from Sarah or her staff. Women do not lie about their pregnancy. Faking a pregnancy is not a normal or ordinary thing!!!!

If she lied, and did not give birth to Trig, all of her supporters have been lied to and this is potentially the biggest political hoax in history!! I was surprised Mr Sullivan posted those fake stories. One woman even wrote that she, too, leaked amniotic fluid for a few days! Nonsense I say!!! That would be a serious medical emergency.

I hope you write Andrew Sullivan and show him your blog so he can see all the responses here.

Texas reader said...

I think it's either that she lied about the series of events or that, as someone has suggested, she chose to risk the baby's health by taking that trip as a passive-aggressive way of reducing the chance he'd live. I'm pro-choice but risky behavior at the end of a special needs pregnancy is disgusting.

HollyP said...

It is telling that mrs. Palin has never released her med records, nor a birth certificate which would put an end to the story. IMO that is possibly because the child was born on another date.

Could you comment on how HIPAA affects Dr. Baldwin-johnson's role in this, and any statements she'd be allowed to make if she did or did not deliver Trig? I've always been curious about that aspect of this story. Apparently Dr. B-J was very active in her community prior to Mrs. Palin's candidacy, but not after the faked pregnancy story started circulating.

Anonymous said...

I have studied the photos and video that were gleaned from the web after the GOP scrubbed all the photos of her from Jan 08 to April. Not only does she not look pg, she shape shifts; from no belly to HUGE and then fluffy scarf belly again...THAT does not happen to any woman.

And why were all the photos scrubbed during the time the legislature is in session, bill signings, photo-ops galore, the thing she LIVES FOR. Why were the Johnston's computers scrubbed as well? What are they hiding? Whose belly was real?

Lidia said...

Thanks for publicizing your skepticism, Doctor. It's about time many others in your profession, and in the journalistic profession, stuck their necks out in the demonstration and defense of same.

What so many people refuse to consider, as you refuse to, is the fact that Sarah Palin is mentally ill. She has some kind of personality disorder. To say categorically that such a person could not or would not fake a pregnancy is the kind of asseveration that has its own issues.

Theory #1 is the MOST, not the least, valid.

It's obvious from Palin's interaction with the child that she considers him a prop: she holds him in a way that telegraphs her disgust. If one chooses to analyse her statements, one finds that she openly states that she was pregnant only for a month, that it was the easiest pregnancy ever, that she was able to "hide it", etc.

She says more than once that when Tri-G (yes that is another way of annotating Down Syndrome) was born, she was anxious to "meet" him (not to hold him, but to meet him, as one would meet a stranger). There are no end of Christian anti-abortion pregnancy clinics that could have given her the fast track to a private adoption for political purposes.

Please also visit the blog "Immoral Minority". This Alaskan blogger has personal connections in Wasilla, and it was on his blog that it was revealed that Mrs. Palin has publicly fobbed off at least TWO DIFFERENT infants as "Tri-G", one with a deformed ear, another with a normal ear.

http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2010/02/tale-of-two-babies-by-sarah-palin.html


The photo evidence he has of this (like the photo evidence of Palin's non-pregnancy, found at www.palingates.com among other places) is incontrovertible.

http://www.palingates.blogspot.com
http://www.box.net/shared/ze1x0eyplo

Anonymous said...

How do you explain the disparity of the "ears" in earlier photos of Trig and those taken at the GOP Convention?

Photos don't lie Sir ~ and as much as Sarah lies, how can one view the photo that you have displayed and conclude that she was carrying a child (in her womb!), allegedly delivered 3 weeks later.

And there are several "officially documented" images of the ex-Gov. taken during that 6-week period which prove that this is one of the greatest fallacies ever perpetrated in U.S. "politics."

Helen said...

It's not unusual for a mother to claim her daughter's baby as her own. It's further not unusual for a couple to adopt a baby with Down Syndrome. What is unusual is someone who adopted a baby with DS potentially making up a fairytale about the child's birth to prove their anti-abortion credentials.

I could care less who birthed Trig Palin, but you have to wonder why NOT ONE of the cabin crew on at least three airline flights claims to have noticed that the passenger was even pregnant, let alone in the process of a troublesome labor ...

Even the gentleman* who wrote to Mrs Palin about seeing her in the airport lounge en route back to AK commented - to her - that he didn't notice that she was heavily pregnant.

* in an email released the State of Alaska

Anonymous said...

Hello Dr.
Nice to see you here giving your professional opinion on this matter. Thank you so much!

(fyi- I was born almost 70 years ago in East Cleveland's Huron Road Hospital.)

KaJo said...

I'm sorry, but this isn't quite true:

"1) The Andrew Sullivan Answer: In this theory, Palin was never pregnant and Trig is not her child. To me, this is the least valid of all the theories. Down's Syndrome increases in frequency with increasing maternal age. Plus, Bristol had her own little loaf in the oven. I don't buy it."

The ODDS increase as a woman gets older; the actual NUMBERS are much greater for younger women -- because there are so many more younger women having babies than there are women over 40 years of age.

So it's entirely possible Bristol Palin had a DS baby.

But the alternative possibility -- after observing the antics of the Palin family for most of the past 2 years -- is that Bristol Palin got pregnant in the summer of 2007, had a FAS baby in early 2008 which was frail, underweight, and premature.

The April 19-20, 2008 pictures often seen of Levi Johnston's sister Mercede holding a ruffly-misshapen-eared newborn infant with Sarah Palin standing in short-shorts (allegedly one day post-delivery) next to her is the "reveal date" of that infant.

A year and a half of study and research of all of Sarah Palin's ethics challenges, illegalities, Big Oil connections and "pallin' around with convicts", as well as "Babygate", is available at http://palingate.blogspot.com/

And six months of research is available at http://palindeception.blogspot.com/ -- a blog that has ceased being active because Sarah Palin's supporter Robert Stacy McCain threatened the blogger with the possibility of publicizing lies about her surgeon husband.

http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/08/palins-deceptions-and-trig-truthers.html (read the comments -- chilling)

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for commenting publicly.This woman needs to be exposed beyond her cheesy-glitzy-homey facade.

There is another site worth your checking, a compelling argument linking her to mind_control. I studied the mc story online over the last couple years: appalling, disgusting, unbelievable (no, not any more). The links made at the following site connect the dots leading to just such a conclusion.. (I have no connection to this blog. I'm just another person who's wondered what's so intriguing about this woman, what's the source of the 'charisma' and power.)
http://intheknow7.wordpress.com/anatomy-of-sarah-l-palin/

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your post.

As someone else noted, April 18th may well have been the 'reveal' date and not the actual birth date. May I suggest that you check videos or pictures of Trig at the time of her announcement as the VP candidate on Friday, August 29th, 2008 wherein Trig would have been 4 months, 11 days old if truly born on April 18th. Also video or pictures of Trig at the Republican Convention on September 3, 2008, the night of her speech wherein Trig would have been 4 mths, 16 days. Remember, he was born 5 weeks premature.

In my opinion, the size of Trig at the VP announcement and convention were that of a baby older than 4 months 11 days/16 days taking into consideration he was 5 weeks premature.

Trig was also born with a hole in his heart and was released from the hospital on the 18th or 19th and taken with Palin when she returned to work 3 days after delivery and introduced to her staff and who knows who else. That too makes it questionable in that the small town hospital had no NICU facility to care for a baby in this condition and adding the fact of him being released so quickly with a hole in his heart and Downs and her taking him to work 3 days after his birth according to her story.

With this information, it makes it much more believable of Andrew Sullivan's article.

Also know Bristol was removed from school for a period of 5 months because of 'mono'. Mono - 5 months????? She returned to the family residence approximately Christmas '07 to January '08. If Trig was born early if Bristol's, this was sufficent time to attempt to cover for 'showing' & birthing.

Anonymous said...

Yes Bristol was pregnant at some point. But Trig looked awful big for a premie when he was presented to the world. If Palin is to be believed--the Mat-Su hospital released a premie special needs baby with JAUNDICE and a HOLE IN HIS HEART out after 2 days. That seems unbelievable to me that the hospital would risk that. I think Trigs real birthday was much earlier and Sarah faked a few weeks of preg. when they they found out Bristols first child Trig would live. Many woman have had babies 9 or 10 months apart so that is logical. All age groups can have DS children-teens are the second highest age class for DS babies. This could all be cleared up with a release of medical records--why would ANY mother allow this to go on? Only one reason--she can't prove she gave birth.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting. This will come out - sooner or later.

Polly said...

I truly appreciate your insights on the wild ride story that Sarah has told. What she did makes no sense whatsoever. When MSNBC received her 3,000 emails that were finally released months ago, there was one email from someone she met on the plane, thanking her for speaking with him. What I find unusual, was that he didn't mention anything like: "Hope you an the baby are fine." AND, the flight attendants on that flight back to Alaska told reporters they didn't notice that Sarah was pregnant.

Anonymous said...

I say option number 1 only because it seems like a huge coincidence that she hid her pregnancy for all those months, then has such a "wild ride" when the child is supposedly born and to top it all off had her baby delivered by a GP. I agree with the Anonymous nurse. No way would a woman in her situation go to a GP or no way a GP would risk handling such a case. If that's true and the advice the GP gave her was true she should no longer be practicing medicine.

As crazy and unpredictable as Palin is she has shown a whole lot of stability when it comes to being selfish. So, no matter whether you believe that she didn't care for the well being of her child would have cared about her own health and well being. Either she is not the mother of that child or she needs some serious psychological help.

SoCalWolfGal said...

Thank you so much for making a comment on this incredible lie that Sarah Palin has managed to get away with for two years now. If she was not a political force, with real influence in this country, quite frankly it would not matter to me or anyone else about the truth of Trig's birth. But that is not the case. Palin's lies of Trig's birth are important because she is on the national political stage. The truth of Trig's birth could so easily be settled, but Palin has refused. WHY?

Forever Anonymous said...

Ok. Let's go with # 3, she lied only about labor and 3 days later, she takes her premature newborn, born with Down syndrome, a hole in his heart and was jaundiced, to her office and introduced the baby to the press....and any kind of germs.

The name of the pediatrician has never been known.

Palin's made multiple plane trips throughout her high risk pregnancy.

Palin's youngest daughter was born when palin was Mayor of Wasilla,
there has been no questioning of that pregnancy and delivery nor was there any criticism about having a baby while holding public office, an excuse she gives for having waited 7 months to tell her constituency and family about her latest pregnancy.

Even if Trig is hers, she staged a pregnancy and labor.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for speaking up.

I go with #3. She is a pathological liar as exhibited by her many obvious and not so obvious lies.

I am a life long Alaskan married to a Bucknut errr, I mean Buckeye and she is exasperated by HER too. GO BUCKS!

AK Sandhills said...

Thank you for posting about this issue. The "wild ride" story never made sense to many in Alaska at the time, so it is great that there are more people willing to look into it.
I remember when the Anchorage Daily News printed their article on the "story" of Trig's birth and in the following days there were many, many letters to the editor. Most were highly critical of her lack of judgment and complete recklessness regarding both her baby's welfare and the welfare of the other passengers on the flight.
If anyone wants to know more about this issue, go to http://palingates.blogspot.com/
There are a team of reserchers who have been analyzing photos and collecting eyewitness accounts & other data on this topic since 2008. Please check it out - on the main page they have even compiled a document that contains most of the pertinent info regarding Babygate.

~AKSandhills

Lolo said...

In her book 'Going Rogue', she mentioned that she was having contractions while giving the speech in Dallas. That makes her flight back to Alaska even more insane.

Good blog post.

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for speaking out.

If I accept either (#2) that Sarah Palin is reckless, selfish and possibly insane or (#3) that she lies eagerly and easily, then nothing else is necessary to convince me that she is capable of (#1) faking a pregnancy. Did she? I don’t know. I think it's the most likely answer considering the weight of other factors, photos being one of them.

Is there any medical explanation for the progression from the flat belly in the Mar. 26 photo above to the large pregnant belly shown in a photo taken 17 days later?

(click on the photo to enlarge)
http://www.ktva.com/iteam/ci_11437597

I hope the possibility is considered and questions asked without the need to identify the birth mother,

Cheers!

Anonymous said...

80% of down syndrome children are born to mothers under 35. While maternal age increases the risk it also reduces fertility and makes it less likely for the mother to conceive at all.

Publius said...

It's really pretty simple.

Sarah Palin was never pregnant in 2008 and is not the birth mother of Trig.

Palin cannot prove something that never happened - that's why she hasn't done so already.

The burden of proof is on Palin - not the other way around. She is a confirmed liar and has no credibility.

Liars need to prove that what they say is true until proven otherwise.

Celia Harrison said...

Wow, nice to hear from a physician on this subject. There have been a couple OB nurses so far. However as a critical care nurse who always says, "I don't know nothin bout birthin no babies", even I knew something was seriously wrong with her story. What if after Sarah's wild ride the baby she was carrying died and they quickly found a DS baby to adopt to cover up something that would put her in a very negative light?

Anonymous said...

No woman in her right mind would ever chance having to spread her legs in an airplane to give birth. Anyone who has given birth knows for a fact it is primal, painful and messy. Not to even mention the possible complications that could put both their lives in danger. She was never pregnant!

Sergiu said...

Buckeye, I don't know where everyone is getting their data (google?). Down syndrome (Trisomy 21) incidence is increasing with advancing maternal age and not decreasing.
(However, 80% of children with Down syndrome are born to women under 35 years of age). That's because there are more women under 35 who give birth than those over 35. It is the law of nature.
The incidence of Down syndrome is estimated at 1 per 800 to 1,000 births, and it is statistically much more common with older mothers. At maternal age 20 to 24, the probability is one in 1562; at age 35 to 39 the probability is one in 214, and above age 45 the probability is one in 19. So everyone who's saying here that Down syndrome is common for younger mothers, check your sources! Or go to med school!
I did. hehe

P.S. That sounded like a Frank Drakman's post.:) Sorry Frank.

Maria said...

Bravo, Buckeye Surgeon. Would that more of your colleagues would comment on this important issue.

As a non-American living on the other side of the world. I'm horrified that Sarah Palin has managed to hoodwink so many people. If she were not on the public stage I wouldn't care a hoot, but she has a fanatical following and influential backers that allow her to spew her lies without consequence.

If Sarah gets anywhere near the White House again, I'm going to move off planet!

I re-iterate the advice of other commenters - visit the following blog for more info about Sarah Palin and particularly 'Babygate':

http://palingates.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Her story is not credible on its own, but in the context of a) photos showing her not pregnant weeks and even days before the purported birth and b) the evidence that her daughter, Bristol, was pregnant in late 2007, it is clear that she was never pregnant and her story is a hoax.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for bringing this subject up. I paid very little attention to Palin during the 08 campaign, figuring that I wasn't going to vote McCain anyway, but when I heard this story I immediately said, "This woman is a liar." Then I started reading about her.

I would urge readers to go to www.palingates.blogspot.com, as another reader suggested, and read through the "babygate" material. The most likely explanation is that Sarah Palin was not pregnant with Trig. I think the most logical candidate for the honor is Bristol, because my impression of Sarah is that she is way too selfish to inconvenience herself for anyone else but her own family.

With all Sarah's bluster and threats of lawsuits in the past, she has never issued such threats against anyone who says Trig is not hers. She has publicly lied and said her medical records were released. The whole Sarah Palin phenomenon is confusing: the more you read about her, the more you realize this is a seriously disturbed woman and a dysfunctional family.

Ivyfree

Frank Drackman said...

Jeeeeeee-Zus Buckeye, and I thought I was creepy...
Sara was in my town Tuesday night, and she's a Stunner, TV doesn't do her justice, just like Elen Kagan...
There's a great Review on MY website BTW.
She was Pregnant for Jehova's sake!, Preggers!, With Child!, in the Family Way!
Knocked Up.
Pregnant women do all sorts of Crazy Insane Things, which is why I sceduled my Military deployments to coincide with the 2d and 3rd trimesters.
And Why I buy Depo-Provera in the Industrial Strength Family Economy Size pack...
Frank

ProChoiceGrandma said...

The biggest smokescreen to the entire babygate drama is the fake “birth” date of 4-18-08. I always refer to it as his “staged presentation date”.

Sarah used Bristol’s second pregnancy with Tripp, born on 12-27-08, as “proof” that Bristol could not be his mother since Tri-G was “4 months old” at the same time that Bristol was “about 5 months pregnant” at the RNC.

Sarah even disclosed in Going Rogue that she herself would have had 2 babies within a year if “Tad” had not been Wited-out, i.e. aborted. Page 55 of Going Rogue: “I loved the fact we had planned so well and that events were falling neatly into place in our well-ordered lives. Our babies would be a year apart, right on schedule.”

Once people begin to realize that Tri-G was born much earlier, as in January 2008, that smokescreen begins to rapidly dissipate. Just do the granny finger counting from Bristol’s Myspace entry of 5-14-07 that says her mother thinks Bristol is pregnant and look at the progression here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32527116@N06/3515668781/in/set-72157617829708238/

Naming that baby Tri-G is deplorable. But it could be worse - she could have named him Mongo Lloyd Palin. What if her parents had named her Sarah Lazyeye Heath? How’s that dopey namey thing workin’ out for ya’ now, Sarah?

Nin said...

Any of em. All of em. Wink!

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16uf12lmMcg

Watch this video of an interview Sarah did with Elan Frank. Att he 30 second mark, Sarah states she could hide her pregnancy because her "Abs were Tight."
Now please, as an MD, is that not delusional?? Is that not physiologically impossible doctor???
Also, Sarah seems to be high or impaired in this video. Note her eyes and slow speech.
Also note her thumping the swuare pillow belly.
This is documentation of a crzy woman, who wants to be president. Who has a following who wants her to be president.
Thanks again for speaking out.

Frank Drackman said...

Hey as long as she doesn't smoke tobacco while telling me not to, raise my taxes, and fellate every Tin-Pot Dictator who says "Boo" she's got my Vote.
I mean, she can rupture her membranes on my Living Room Rug if she wants.
It's just Amnionic Fluid, basically Water with some yucky stuff added, thats why Jehova makes it smell Funky.
Its Natural, like Cancer or Petroleum.
and there's lots of Women who's pregnancys don't show, Elen Kagan for example.
Oh sorry, she's not Pregnant.
I mean, not a Woman.

Frank

Anonymous said...

i was one of the original trig-truthers -- i have actually spoken to the hospital under the guise of choosing them to deliver my baby -- i specifically asked them about handling high risk pregnancies and birth and their response was: NO WAY NO HOW! they said they do not handle high risk deliveries and would recommend i go to the hospital in anchorage.

i know sarah was lying...for what purpose, i do not know any more, but she's a liar about trig no matter how it occurred

Ferry Fey said...

Note that if Trig was adopted, Sarah would be listed as his mother on the birth certificate. She's very careful with the language she chooses when talking about the birth, and never says that she gave birth to him, stressing instead that she is his mother. Many of us conjecture that the reason a birth certificate was not produced for an instant stop to the questions about Trig's birth is that the date does not match her stories or the photos.

Note when looking at photos of the alleged pregnancy that Sarah is pretty tiny, only 5'2". You need to factor that in to understand how much a pregnancy bump would have to be showing.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for posting on this subject.

It is important for people with the appropriate training and education to analyze and participate in the discussion of this issue of the lies concerning this birth.

As to whether these lies are accidental, incidental, or maybe it is that these lies help form the basis of her "pro fambLIE" campaign to rescue the country from the muslims and get rich quick too.

Thanks again for posting your thoughts on this issue.

I thought this was a ridiculous rumor until I started reading and looking at the pictures. The only thing that I'm convinced of is she lies all the time,(see bowling in highschool!)and that birth did not happen like she said ( not any of the ways she said).

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why everyone cares so much. Sure she may have made some medically stupid decisions (or this is all a conspiracy as many here are saying), which HIPAA prevents us from knowing the facts. And so what if it is her daughter's baby, she is raising him, right? I cannot blame her for wanting to keep her private life private.

Anonymous said...

She is lying about something, and that something is her child, whether biological or adopted.

And she uses that child as prop to earn points on the political trail.

Disgusting.

AKRNC said...

Frank Drackman, while women may do some "crazy" things during pregnancy in your world, the women I've worked with, as a Pediatric Nurse Practitioner, put the health of their unborn child first, especially when they are over 40, considered high risk, are carrying a child who has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome and a cardiac defect and have had two previous miscarriages. Your stating that she was acting strange because she was in her last stages of pregnancy is your opinion, however, how do you reconcile that with the negligent behavior of her physician? Was she also acting crazy, maybe it's because she is female, hmm? Or was it because Sarah was lying about the entire situation as I don't know any physician in their right mind who wouldn't have told her to get to the hospital to be evaluated to see how far or if her labor was progressing considering she was leaking amniotic fluid. Not a single physician I've spoken to would advise her that it was OK to fly home. Then there is that part where the flight attendants who did not notice her as pregnant?!? If she looked as she did in the Gusty photo, and was truly pregnant, she could not have possibly sat still for both portions of the almost 12 hour flight. She'd need to use the restroom at least two to three times during the flight. A pregnant woman of her alleged size would have stood out because most people know that women are not supposed to fly at that stage of pregnancy.

I found it quite surprising that when her husband contacted her office staff via email, including Meg Stapleton, that he didn't mention they had changed flights due to the onset of labor. All he did was contact them to let them know the speech went well. Why not have an ambulance ready and waiting to take her to the nearest well-equipped hospital rather than driving to one that will not even allow the delivery of twins?!?

By the way, are you really trying to say in your blog that your young daughter may have to give you an epidural injection? Yet, she's not a physician? Risky procedure for anyone to do if not experienced in doing it, let alone someone who is not a physician. I really hope I misunderstood that one. They are painful enough when done by an experienced physician, not to mention that they often don't do a damn thing to help with the LS pain. After 3 back surgeries, unfortunately, I'm far too familiar with these problems. Hope it's soon feeling much better and there are no permanent effects.

I'll never understand the behavior of some men who can't think logically because they see a woman who they think is hot and has CFM pumps on. Your dreams of her reaching the White House are just that, dreams. Thankfully, there are 70% of the population who disagrees with you. Thank God for the intelligent among us who can listen to her and know she is far from being qualified. If she was truly pregnant, which is doubtful, then I'd be even more concerned about her poor judgment and even more thankful that she no longer holds political office.

Frank Drackman said...

Seriously Buckeye, this is even more tasteless than the "Ted Kennedy Glioma Countdown Clock" I ran on my blog last year...
Whats Next? a Dick Chaney Over/Under???, lets see, will he make it till the World Series or the Superbowl???
I'm bettin he'll still be alive the next time the Indians make the playoffs....
Well maybe not that long.
If the rest of Cleveland's like you no wonder Labron's leavin...

ZING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank

Anonymous said...

Sarah Palin did not give birth to Trig until proven otherwise, it's as simple as that

Anonymous said...

I'm inclined to believe scenario #3 - I suppose - as (A) SP has proven to be a serial exaggerator / liar ... and (B) It is almost impossible for me to believe anyone could be as sick and deranged as the woman described in scenarios 1 and 2.

The bottomline is that I believe a heavy majority of voters will harbor at least enough doubt in their heart and mind to turn away from this woman should she ever run for even PTA president.

She will always have the 20-percenters, the rabid fundee cult followers, but she will never be viable in any general or primary election.

and NO, I do not believe anyone in tne MSM will ever really question her on this or any other lie.

Imagine for a moment if the MSM refused to question Bill Clinton or John Edwards or Ensign or Craig or Sanford.

Anonymous said...

Two quick points:

a) MSNBC released email messages received via FOIA and one is from a man who saw the Palins in the Alaska Airlines VIP lounge in Seattle. He makes no comment about her being in labor at that time; only that she was peacefully reading a book during the layover. Methinks she was NOT in labor.

b) The photo of the hours-old baby presented by Mrs. Palin's parents at the podunk hospital show an infant that was certainly not a preemie. Seems there have been substitute babies used in Palin's weird continuing lie.

palinoscopy said...

Number 1 isn't less plausible because older women have more down syndrome babies. She's not the only 40-something woman on the planet. And a higher statistical probability for women over 40, doesn't actually prove that the real mother was over 40. It just makes it more likely.

You also need to look at the pictures of her taken in the weeks before the baby was born. She only looked pregnant every once in a while. The rest of the time there was no baby in evidence. I've had kids. You can't just take them out and stow them somewhere for safe keeping whenever you want. Yet that's how her pregnancy worked.

Komal said...

Finally - from a medical professional! Thanks and Kudos! And please stay safe from the swarming Palinbots that seem to show up on blogs whenever their version of truth is challenged.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Parks, thank you for commenting on the Palin / Trig situation. From the moment that I read Palin's "Wild Ride" story, there were three choices: she lied and was never pregnant; or, if she is the mother, then she was reckless and uncaring beyond belief; or she was attempting a "Fundee Abortion" - hoping the baby didn't survive. Take your choice - she's despicable.

One other lie that is comparatively insignificant but adds to my thoughts that "Palin will lie about anything": Palin maintained that she gave birth "the next morning in Wasilla" (over 24 hours after her water supposedly began leaking) yet when she appeared on-stage at Texas Gov. Rick Perry's rally earlier this year, the video showed her saying that she "gave birth later that night" (after leaving the Texas Governor's conference and completing the Wild Ride). No mother forgets whether or not she gave birth "that night" or "the next morning". It's one or the other.

Anonymous said...

While pregnant with my daughter, my labor was induced since I was two weeks overdue. After a few hours of labor being induced,I begin leaking amniotic fluid, even though I wasn't dilating as anticipated. My OB Gyn explained that a c-section was absolutely necessary due to the risk of infection once amniotic fluid starts to leak. He immediately scheduled a c-section.

My OB Gyn may have been more cautious than others, but there seemed to be real concern once the fluid started leaking.If this is the case, why in the world is Sarah traveling around the country with amniotic fluid leaking down her leg?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your professional opinion.

As the mother of 4, I can't imagine doing what Palin did with any of my normal pregnancies, let alone with the extra risks that she had. I can't imagine any mother in their right mind would do what she did.

If the story is true, and she put her infant and herself in danger, in addition to not caring about possibly disrupting flights with emergency landings, she is not the type of person who should be making decisions that would affect anyone but herself, let alone a country! She showed foolish and reckless behavior. Certainly not traits I want in any leader.

Frank Drackman said...

C'mon,
she already knew the kid was gonna be a loid, not like he was gonna be the next Steven Hawkins or anything..
And if she'd aborted him she'd be y'alls hero.
I agree,her story is a little shady, I personally suspect Dick Chaney's the father, he was sorta lyin low the Summer of 07'.
But hey Buckeye, I collected some of Trig's drool from Sara's Atlanta appearance tuesday, its all yours if you wanta do some DNA testing...

Frank

Anonymous said...

I don't know whether or not Trig is Sarah's by birth, but if he is I think the bigger issue is to ask why she concealed her pregnancy for so long and looks to have wrapped up her abdomen so tightly all those weeks prior to the birth; and to ask why she put him at such great risk while traveling home from Texas leaking amniotic fluid. It makes me think that she wanted to miscarry or to have him be stillborn. Now that he is here (and I must add "cute as a button"), why does she leave him so often to go flying all over the country giving speeches with the same talking points over and over. Why does she not give details on his progress and what therapies he is receiving? Why isn't she at home being a strong advocate to increase the quality of life for kids with disabilities in her state? I think she uses him for her own gain when she needs to, but that she was not overly concerned for him before he was born.

Anonymous said...

I don't see anyone mentioning that she gave her speech at the Gaylord Texan Resort - only a few minutes drive from Baylor Medical Center - and their world class neo-natal ICU.

Instead, she hops on not one, but two airplanes, and upon arrival in Anchorage drives another hour to a bare-bones hospital that does not even handle delivering twins.

I am a "Daily Dish" reader, and all anyone has asked for is a statement by the attending physician.

When a local paper went to interview her to put this rumor down, she met the reporter with a lawyer at her side and pled the fifth.

Something very fishy is going on.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Palin hooked up with Janet Reno or Elena Kagan and had Trig. By the looks of it I think that's the most plausible explanation. Trig looks a lot like his father.

Anonymous said...

It makes the most sense that she sent Bristol away with "mono" in the fourth month (mono never lasts five months) to await an adoption. Routine ultrasound later revealed evidence of Downs which was confirmed by other tests. Adoption falls through. Sarah fears the political fallout from her daughter's pregnancy, especially since she made such a big deal of abstinence-only education and all her feigned virtues. So she develops a bump overnight (a bump which shifts from photo to photo). And suddenly reveals to her friends and family a secret that no woman could keep until the third trimester. It matters because if she lied about this, she's an even bigger fraud than most people know.

Anonymous said...

Hello Dr.

What proved it for me was back in Aug. '08, when the McCain camp was scrubbing websites at break-neck speed. Then, there was the medical "note" Palin issued at the 11 1/2 hour, just before the polls opened on Nov. 4th.

There was one media outlet that was brave enough to at least report the "story":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvZeL-jFpF0&NR=1

Anonymous said...

All of it is strange for me, but this is another detail I'm not sure anyone has mentioned.

Palin was in active labor during her speech, at least according to Palin's own account in Going Rogue. Later that day Palin sat in the Seattle airport waiting for the plane to Anchorage. In and out of "active labor" I'd assume. Instead she was observed sitting CALMLY reading a book and did not appear in labor. Now, I've been in labor and even the moments that I was in between contractions, I was not calmly sitting anywhere. I was breathing and waiting for that next moment. Anyone could tell I was in the middle of something and it wasn't the plot of a book! Especially 12 hours after my water broke.

This account was written by one of her supporters who sent Todd an email after hearing about the birth. He congratulated them and referenced having seen them at the airport. It can be verified by any skeptics. It is included in one of the emails that was released by MSNBC from their FOIA request. You can Google this directly or look in the archives of Mudflats, Palingate, or TheImmoralMinority whose posts link right to the PDF document.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for commenting, Doctor.

I'm another one who has been observing this hoax from the beginning: the photos show SP was not pregnant. That she lied initially, lied repeatedly, and continues to lie. And far more important, others are letting her lie to perpetuate her hoax: the MaCain campaign staff, starting with McCain himself (where does the buck stop these days, anyway?), the MSM, the MD whose fake letter was issued right before the election; the GOP leadership. Eventually it will all come out, but I am truly shocked that it's taking so long. I guess Edwards and Clinton took a long time too. No one wants to believe these things, but we need to have the truth prevail re our leaders, and those who aspire to be our leaders, unless we want to be led by liars.

Thank you for your courage to speak out on an obviously unpopular, yet important, topic.

--Amy1

Anonymous said...

I think she did not release her medical records because she probably had her tubes tied after Piper was born.

Anonymous said...

Fun topic, but what a truck load of conspiracy theories!
Just read the transcript. Does say "amniotic fluid leaking" but does not say "running down her legs". Does say that she consulted her doctor pre-flight and on arriving at hospital was told, correctly, that it could be "tonight or in the morning", no crisis. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
And how much worse could it be than 42's "I did not have sex with that woman"?

Buckeye Surgeon said...

Thanks for all the comments. I guess I don't get what's "courageous" about writing this up. Is there a secret Palinista Mob out there that will track me down and make me an offer I can't refuse? I don't get it. You all have me nervous now.

Anonymous said...

The puzzling lack of MSM coverage of any part of babygate suggests some kind of collusion to keep it undiscussed. IMHO.

Yes, it could be lack of interest. But lack of interest in the hoax of the decade? The hoax of the last election? Lack of interest by the same MSM that covered Edwards' issues way past the point when he was politically of any consequence? I doubt it.

Other people claim lack of interest because they are sure SP will self-destruct. The well educated take this view. Plenty of reason to think so, but look how successful she's been for the past year. She's doing just great, in spite of everything. People said the same about Hitler in his early stage, that he was a fool who would soon be gone.

I think it's more a matter of some top-down guidance at MSM: "don't cover this." By the fat cats who are using Palin, much as Hitler was supported by powerful background folks in the early part of his rise, who have an interest in keeping Palin viable as an energizer of a certain part of the electorate.

How else to explain the lack of coverage in this hoax?

I say "hoax" based on this info:

http//i40.tinypic.com/oaci2h.jpg

So "courage": yes, anyone who makes this obvious point -- that she hoaxed us all -- is saying something that some powerful people would rather remain unsaid.

Remember when Woodward and Bernstein were trying to get the Washington Post to go with the Watergate story? And editor Ben Bradlee would not let them? At one point, Bradlee thought they should print it, and he went to Katherine Graham, who had the courage to say GO. The NYT had the story too but did not proceed with it until after the Washington Post had broken it and made it safe. What if Katherine Graham had been a wimp and said "NO, Mitchell won't like it, and my advertisers won't like it. No." (Remember, when Atty Gen Mitchell heard what was about to be printed he threatened Graham with the "Katie will have her tit in a wringer" [if she prints it] comment, but to no avail: she went ahead anyway, risking the wrath and denial of Mitchell).

So something has to happen to break through this wall of noncoverage. Good to have an MD on record about it, so thank you! Is there reason to be intimidated? Not sure, but PalinDeception stopped due to a threat, as I understand it.

Anonymous said...

So "courage": yes, anyone who makes this obvious point -- that she hoaxed us all -- is saying something that some powerful people would rather remain unsaid.

Remember when Woodward and Bernstein were trying to get the Washington Post to go with the Watergate story? And editor Ben Bradlee would not let them? At one point, Bradlee thought they should print it, and he went to Katherine Graham, who had the courage to say GO. The NYT had the story too but did not proceed with it until after the Washington Post had broken it and made it safe. What if Katherine Graham had been a wimp and said "NO, Mitchell won't like it, and my advertisers won't like it. No." (Remember, when Atty Gen Mitchell heard what was about to be printed he threatened Graham with the "Katie will have her tit in a wringer" [if she prints it] comment, but to no avail: she went ahead anyway, risking the wrath and denial of Mitchell).

So something has to happen to break through this wall of noncoverage. Good to have an MD on record about it, so thank you! Is there reason to be intimidated? Not sure, but PalinDeception stopped due to a threat, as I understand it.

Anonymous said...

But you say, Dr Buckeye, that you think a hoax is the least likely scenario, that she was probably PG. I beg to differ. She was not PG with Trig.

I want to repeat a hilarious (to me) quote from Palin Deception: Audrey, the writer of that blog, described in all its messy detail what would happen if a woman were to deliver on a plane: lying on the floor; no meds for pain; lots of blood and fluids, pretty hideous; cabin pressure an add'l risk, esp for baby; risk of death for both baby and Mom. And she asked "why was SP not worried about any of this as she boarded her long flights to AK [if her water had in fact broken]?" Answering, "for the same reason I am not worried about such consequences when I board a plane -- because I know I am not pregnant."

The airplane staff did not notice a pregnant SP, did not see someone run to the restroom multiple times, did not have to offer a bigger seat belt -- because SP's pregnancy was in her luggage, not on her body. (Imagine going through Security with your Gusty-photo giant-fake-belly on, and being stopped and searched. No, it must surely have been small-belly-plus-scarf time for the flight.)

The Wild Ride was wild only in retrospect, a story she seems to be making up on the fly in that interview/recording, resulting from some comment she must have made to her father, who repeated "amniotic fluid" to the press, to the woman who interviewed SP.

Anonymous said...

The point, anon 11:51, isn't that, ultimately Trig was born without complication. The point is that, disaster could have struck at any point and Sarah and Todd took that risk with the life of their precious unborn baby.

Sarah has reported that she gave the speech while having "big" contractions and that she was leaking amniotic fluid.

Any sane woman would have hightailed it to the nearest hospital to get checked out.

Sarah Palin is not a sane woman, it's true, but I think her insanity in this case runs along the line of lying about being pregnant in the first place.

In the end, however, any way you slice the situation, you have a person who is unfit to hold office...maybe unfit to even be a parent, given other evidence.

Anonymous said...

Nowhere in the article is SP reported as saying she had big contractions, rather that there were signs but not active labour. Been there, done that, I know what she means.
But what a clever GOP stategy it would be, to keep otherwise intelligent people pre-occupied with proving such theories.

Anonymous said...

First, a couple of corrections:

Sarah Palin's personal physicin, Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, is not an OB-Gyn. It is unclear whether she is even qualified to handle a multiple high-risk pregnancy -- as in a 40+ yer-old woman with multiple miscarriages in her medical history carrying a DS infant. That alone makes it likely that all this never happened. I doubt any doctor in good standing would take on such a patient circumstance without the requisite expertise.

Second, the DS child ratio for older woman is ridiculous cart-before-the-horse reasoning. I'd expect better from a doctor. My wife is over 40. Does that make her Trig's mother if she claimed to be? Just because a child has DS doesn't make it any more likely that the mother was over 40. Most DS baby are born to younger women because younger women have more babies than women over 40. So ANY child born is probably born to a woman under 40. Trig's DS has none, zero, probative value a to the age (or identity) of his mother. Only fools use such an argument.

Since we are talking about medicine here, let's consider ALL the medical evidence, including the Sarah Palin's incredible ability to hide her "pregnancy" for months and months, even though she is surrounded by people all the time. For some incredible reason, she showed no outward signs at all into her self-proclaimed 7th month. All indications after that in public are neatly camouflaged behind big scarves, big coats, etc.

This evidence, combined with the wild ride story, makes it incredibly implausible that she was ever actually pregnant, much less with a high-risk pregnancy and given her physique. The evidence is COMPLETELY consistent with a faked pregnancy, however. And nobody can offer an a shread of confirmable evidence that she was ever pregnant. No medical records, nobody who saw her leaving her doctor after a pre-natal visit. No technician who did Trig's amnio. Zip. I'm no fool. In this case, lack of affirmative evidence should be enough proof.

Fortunately, however, we have affirmative medical proof that Sarah Palin has presented two different infants as Trig. You can find the photographic evidence -- i.e., Trig's ear -- on multiple sites. She holds one baby with an major ear deformity on the cover of People magazine in May of 2008, and at the RNC in November, Trig' ear has no deformity. Case closed. All any defender can do is argue -- without proof again -- that the ear might have fixed itself or "babies" ears are folded. What a bunch of nonsense.

Sarah Palin lied about being pregnant. Who Trig's real mother is may have been her motive or maybe not. The mother might have been one of her daughters, or maybe not. It's not incumbent on us to prove who the real mother was to answer the question of whether it was Sarah Palin or not. She was not. That's not a theory. It's a reasonable (and correct) conclusion based on the evidence.

I (and others, including Andrew Sulliven) care not whether we are called names or thought crazy by those who close their eyes to logic and the truth. Worse yet are those who have rationalized that somehow the search for truth is wrong for one reason or another. MSM has decided that.

I expect a mea culpa from everyone who doubted us when the truth finally comes out and is incontrovertible.

Dangerous

Anonymous said...

First, a couple of corrections:

Sarah Palin's personal physicin, Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, is not an OB-Gyn. It is unclear whether she is even qualified to handle a multiple high-risk pregnancy -- as in a 40+ yer-old woman with multiple miscarriages in her medical history carrying a DS infant. That alone makes it likely that all this never happened. I doubt any doctor in good standing would take on such a patient circumstance without the requisite expertise.

Second, the DS child ratio for older woman is ridiculous cart-before-the-horse reasoning. I'd expect better from a doctor. My wife is over 40. Does that make her Trig's mother if she claimed to be? Just because a child has DS doesn't make it any more likely that the mother was over 40. Most DS baby are born to younger women because younger women have more babies than women over 40. So ANY child born is probably born to a woman under 40. Trig's DS has none, zero, probative value a to the age (or identity) of his mother. Only fools use such an argument.

Since we are talking about medicine here, let's consider ALL the medical evidence, including the Sarah Palin's incredible ability to hide her "pregnancy" for months and months, even though she is surrounded by people all the time. For some incredible reason, she showed no outward signs at all into her self-proclaimed 7th month. All indications after that in public are neatly camouflaged behind big scarves, big coats, etc.

This evidence, combined with the wild ride story, makes it incredibly implausible that she was ever actually pregnant, much less with a high-risk pregnancy and given her physique. The evidence is COMPLETELY consistent with a faked pregnancy, however. And nobody can offer an a shread of confirmable evidence that she was ever pregnant. No medical records, nobody who saw her leaving her doctor after a pre-natal visit. No technician who did Trig's amnio. Zip. I'm no fool. In this case, lack of affirmative evidence should be enough proof.

Fortunately, however, we have affirmative medical proof that Sarah Palin has presented two different infants as Trig. You can find the photographic evidence -- i.e., Trig's ear -- on multiple sites. She holds one baby with an major ear deformity on the cover of People magazine in May of 2008, and at the RNC in November, Trig' ear has no deformity. Case closed. All any defender can do is argue -- without proof again -- that the ear might have fixed itself or "babies" ears are folded. What a bunch of nonsense.

Sarah Palin lied about being pregnant. Who Trig's real mother is may have been her motive or maybe not. The mother might have been one of her daughters, or maybe not. It's not incumbent on us to prove who the real mother was to answer the question of whether it was Sarah Palin or not. She was not. That's not a theory. It's a reasonable (and correct) conclusion based on the evidence.

I (and others, including Andrew Sulliven) care not whether we are called names or thought crazy by those who close their eyes to logic and the truth. Worse yet are those who have rationalized that somehow the search for truth is wrong for one reason or another. MSM has decided that.

I expect a mea culpa from everyone who doubted us when the truth finally comes out and is incontrovertible.

Dangerous

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:17, or are you Dangerous? I get the impression that you take offense. This strikes me funny in light of all. There's always someone who somehow gets a little too detached or is it too attached?!

Just love the part about being disappointed in Buckeye. FYI, just that one line pretty much discredits you, eh, were you needing credit?

-SCRN

Anonymous said...

In "Going Rogue," she described her state during the Texas speech as "Big laughs. More contractions."

Leaking amniotic fluid (whether or not it could be described as "running down her legs), having early and multiple incidences of what she (a woman who knows, since she gave birth to four previous children) described as "contractions," carrying a special needs child, and Sarah Palin doesn't go to a hospital to get checked out?

She also doesn't accept Gov. Perry's offer of his private plane, which would have allowed her to avoid long waits at the airport, public scrutiny, and possible embarrassment(labor and delivery is loud and messy) and which could be rerouted to the closest hospital if necessary.

She's lying, either about the amniotic fluid and the contractions or about being pregnant in the first place.

Sarah Palin is supremely narcissistic. There is no way she would put herself in the possible position of lying in the aisle of a plane with her skirt hiked up and her legs in the air.

Lidia said...

Another reason to disbelieve her is that the hospital did not list the birth (as it usually does) on its website. Why not, if the child were really born there? It's the governor's child, and "privacy" can hardly be an issue, especially since the Palins summoned KTUU to the hospital that same day to document the hallway "presentation". Someone even had the presence of mind to block out time for "Bristol interview"...!

http://palingates.blogspot.com/2009/09/levi-johnston-lori-tipton-and-their.html

>>Sarah Palin's official schedule from the 18th April, 2008, ... was obtained through a FOIA request, and this page can be viewed here:

http://tinyurl.com/luab5z

On the top of the schedule for the 18th April 2008 it says:

“Bristol: Interview Assistance Set Up w/KTUU (Wasilla)
GOV: Interview w/KTVA and ADN (ANC)
Todd: Interview w/KBYR (Wasilla)
Trig's Birth
WASILLA”

What does "Interview Assistance" with Bristol and KTUU mean? And I have never ever seen interviews by Sarah Palin or Todd Palin which were conducted on that day!

When were these appointments which are mentioned in the schedule set up? How did people know that the premature DS-baby would have been "fit" to be presented to the public at the day of his birth?<<

------------------
All the Palins needed to fake this birth were scarves, cushions, the hospital hallway for a few moments, and a handful of collaborators motivated by fear of crossing Sarah? greed?? shame? power? religion?

Whatever is behind it.. the Trigs were born elsewhere at different times, neither on April 18 at the Mat-Su hospital.

Immaculate Deception said...

Hello Dr.

If you're still intrigued by the Greatest (for lack of a better term) Political Hoax ever perpetrated in the history of the world, check out this interview with Bree Palin. Hard facts are hard to deny or explain away:

http://palinbabygate.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-bree-palin.html

Chet said...

The odds of a woman giving birth to a child with Down's Syndrome increase with increasing maternal age. Again, she was 43 years old.

That's not any sort of evidence that Sarah Palin was the 40-year-old woman who gave birth to Trig.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe Palin's birth story. I am a mother of two children. Both were born after I was in my mid-thirties. I was offered amniocentesis because of my age and I declined - and I am pro-choice, not a self-proclaimed pro-lifer like Sarah Palin. I chose to take no risks, no matter how small with my pregnancies, and it just doesn't make sense that PAlin had an amniocentesis done, (at 12 weeks?). She kept the pregnancy hidden so it was not done for the benefit of preparing her family for a Down syndrome child. Her whole story just makes no sense. I cannot believe the people of Alaska let her get away with such a colossal fraud.

Andrew Ryan said...

Wait a second --aren't you all pro--choice? Her body, her choice, right? So you are horrified there wasn't a NICU available for the birth but don't bat an eye at 90% of these fetuses being aborted? At least Trig is alive! So tearing apart Downs Syndrome fetuses limb from limb in the womb--good. Taking a flight that might lead to labor complications--most evil women on earth. Does the fetus matter or not? Please make up your mind.

Lidia said...

Andrew, you have completely lost the plot.

Palin said (in her book) "the worst thing in the world would be that I would lose him".

If that's the case (as it would be for any pregnant woman who's CHOSEN to carry to term) then when your water breaks, you GO TO THE DOCTOR or hospital or midwife or back to your hotel bathroom, even.

You prepare for the child to arrive at any minute, because once you start having contractions AND fluid leaking, birth could come AT ANY TIME.

You don't spend the day in meetings and then get on two airplanes for a cross-country trip. Sarah Palin is the only 8-months-pregnant, amniotic-fluid-leaking woman in history to do so.

Find me another amniotic-fluid-leaking woman who's casually gotten on an airplane, even for a trip of an hour. Just one. You can't!

Men, especially, seem to have a hard time understanding this, and it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with being pro-choice or anti-abortion.

Sarah's story makes no sense no matter which way you look at it.

Lidia said...

Audrey at Palin's Deceptions:
"I do not believe that Sarah Palin, under any circumstances, would have risked giving birth on an airplane. ... More to the point, I do not believe she DID take this risk. She was absolutely positive she would not have a baby on the airplane. And how could she be positive? The same way I am positive every time I fly that I will not have a baby on an airplane. I am not pregnant.

We are "working" this story knowing how it ends. We know that Sarah Palin did NOT have a child on an airplane on April 17th 2008. But at 2 PM that afternoon, when Sarah Palin would have been walking down that jetway, she could NOT have known what the next ten hours would hold. If Sarah Palin was 35 weeks pregnant on April 17th, given her obstetric history, not only was it possible she would give birth within ten hours of her membranes rupturing, it was probable.

... I can accept - and always have - that someone in Palin's position might try to give the speech. MIGHT, though the image of an amniotic fluid "leak" turning into a full-fledged rupture while on stage certainly would have dissuaded me personally. (If you wonder what I'm talking about, dump approximately one and a half quarts of yellowish pinkish kinda funky smelling liquid between YOUR legs all at once. Now picture this happening WHILE giving a speech to other governors. Hmmm. Sort of wrecks the professional aura, doesn't it?)

But no one will ever convince me - ever! - that the image-conscious governor of Alaska risked having to lie down in public, spread her legs, and grunting and panting in a messy puddle of amniotic fluid, mucous, blood, urine and possibly either the baby's excrement, her own, or both, push her baby out on the carpet in the aisle. Risked her own health and her baby's. … And taken this chance not once, but twice, on two separate four hour flights.

… And consider this: If you are going to put this forward - that Sarah Palin recklessly endangered the life of her child - you're going to have to be able to offer some plausible explanation for why she did it. That has never happened. Sarah Palin has NEVER offered any credible or even remotely believable explanation as to WHY. WHAT was her utterly compelling reason for getting on the airplane? WHY did she chance this medically risky and humiliating scenario?

So that her child could be born in Alaska.

This is the only reason she has ever offered. So that her child could be born in Alaska. (Or to quote the succinct Todd, "You can't have a fish picker [commercial fisherman] from Texas.") This makes no sense. It is in fact one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

..If the events of April 17, 2008 occurred as described, at 2 PM on that day when she got an airplane to return to Alaska, she could not know what would happen during the next eight hours. This is the risk the Sarah Palin would not take. This is the risk she did not take."

http://www.palindeception.com/blog/2009/06/pulling-palin-my-response-to.html

And Andrew, the point is not merely whether Trig survived (of course he did, because he was never on any airplane the day before being born).

The point is that Sarah Palin is an evil liar who cannot be trusted. That is the cold reality of the situation.

Lidia said...

Audrey at Palin's Deceptions:
"I do not believe that Sarah Palin, under any circumstances, would have risked giving birth on an airplane. ... More to the point, I do not believe she DID take this risk. She was absolutely positive she would not have a baby on the airplane. And how could she be positive? The same way I am positive every time I fly that I will not have a baby on an airplane. I am not pregnant.

We are "working" this story knowing how it ends. We know that Sarah Palin did NOT have a child on an airplane on April 17th 2008. But at 2 PM that afternoon, when Sarah Palin would have been walking down that jetway, she could NOT have known what the next ten hours would hold. If Sarah Palin was 35 weeks pregnant on April 17th, given her obstetric history, not only was it possible she would give birth within ten hours of her membranes rupturing, it was probable.

... I can accept - and always have - that someone in Palin's position might try to give the speech. MIGHT, though the image of an amniotic fluid "leak" turning into a full-fledged rupture while on stage certainly would have dissuaded me personally. (If you wonder what I'm talking about, dump approximately one and a half quarts of yellowish pinkish kinda funky smelling liquid between YOUR legs all at once. Now picture this happening WHILE giving a speech to other governors. Hmmm. Sort of wrecks the professional aura, doesn't it?)

But no one will ever convince me - ever! - that the image-conscious governor of Alaska risked having to lie down in public, spread her legs, and grunting and panting in a messy puddle of amniotic fluid, mucous, blood, urine and possibly either the baby's excrement, her own, or both, push her baby out on the carpet in the aisle. Risked her own health and her baby's. … And taken this chance not once, but twice, on two separate four hour flights.

… And consider this: If you are going to put this forward - that Sarah Palin recklessly endangered the life of her child - you're going to have to be able to offer some plausible explanation for why she did it. That has never happened. Sarah Palin has NEVER offered any credible or even remotely believable explanation as to WHY. WHAT was her utterly compelling reason for getting on the airplane? WHY did she chance this medically risky and humiliating scenario?

So that her child could be born in Alaska.

This is the only reason she has ever offered. So that her child could be born in Alaska. (Or to quote the succinct Todd, "You can't have a fish picker [commercial fisherman] from Texas.") This makes no sense. It is in fact one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

..If the events of April 17, 2008 occurred as described, at 2 PM on that day when she got an airplane to return to Alaska, she could not know what would happen during the next eight hours. This is the risk the Sarah Palin would not take. This is the risk she did not take."

http://www.palindeception.com/blog/2009/06/pulling-palin-my-response-to.html

And. Mr. Andrew Ryan, the point is not merely whether Trig survived (of course he did, because he was never on any airplane the day before being born).

The point is that Sarah Palin is an evil liar who cannot be trusted. That is the cold reality of the situation.

mikroenjeksiyon said...

Was a beautiful page. Thanks to the designers and managers.

Anonymous said...

is the pressure on one of her kids to give palin an infant so she can cart it around to all those election speeches? the crowds loved the baby angle and she worked it to the max. so i am willing to bet that the planing is already in play and i am certain she needs to be seen with an infant at all political events.