GD article on Sebonac

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Nugent.

Let me see if I understand you correctly.
Over a time frame of several years JFK continuously took antibiotics for a urinary infection.  Or, did he take antibiotics for a brief and routine 7-10 days until it cleared up  ?

What was the frequency, timing and dosage of the medications you claim he was taking ?

I'm sure JFK's physicians were aware of any contrindications in the medications they were prescribing, hence your theory of a debilitating cocktail is far fetched.

Procaine, commonly known as Novacaine was routinely injected for dental and medical procedures.  This is a disengenuous attempt on your part to demonize a drug that enjoyed widespread use and has few if any side affects.

The same can be said for salt tablets.

If you could provide the details relating to the frequency, timing and dosage of the drugs you allege he took, under the supervision of physicians, it would bring credibility to your argument.  Absent the facts your argument holds no merit.

Let me see if I understand this. "According to the NYT's Biographers have pieced together details of other illnesses..."

Which biographers ?
Which Illnesses,
And with access to which specific medical records ?

I was under the impression that JFK's medical records were not available to the public, and that the only outside physician allowed access was Dr Lattimore (sp?) of ColPres, a pediatric urologist, now deceased I believe.

How do you know what drugs, if any Kennedy was taking prior to his election ?

You disengenuously state that he was taking 12 drugs at once, when you don't know what drugs he might have been taking, when he was taking them and in what dosages.

If you have any specific FACTS regarding this issue, especially the names of the drugs, the time frames that he took them in, the frequency in which he took them and the dosage of the drugs it would be helpful to your argument.

Absent the facts, you like everyone else, sees what you want to see in speculation.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

As to many of these revelations that've been coming out in recent times about JFK and more recently Nixon it seems to me the reasons for this is what's called "Declassification". In other words, after 30-35 years much of previously classified material by law can become "declassified" and available to the public for the first time. Some of these writers and reporters are obviously taking advantage of that fact.

JFK was a pretty long time ago although it may be hard for old guys like us to recognize that. Seems like some on here are intimating that JFK was hugely dangerous for the safety and well-being of this country. I say the country has muddled along just fine with him lasting as long as he did but what if Kennedy was taken out sooner? What if that day on North County Blvd I'd been looking left and hadn't noticed him right in front of me in time? At 50+mph I would've slammed directly into him and there'd have been little chance of him surviving or me either. Maybe that would've changed the world but the real tragedy would've been you never would've gotten to know me! And of  course that means you would now know next to nothing about golf course architecture.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The advantage of being old, like me, or really old, like you, is that we lived through those times.

We were current with what was going on at the time and don't need to read snippets 40 years removed to know what was going on at the time.

I'm familiar with declassification.

JFK assembled a terrific team around him, a brain trust, as have other Presidents.  The decisions that affected our country weren't made with a ouija board or between the sheets.

Given the choice of Marilyn Monroe or Monica lewinski, I'll take MM.

[Chris Munoz]

Guys should we change the subject to this discussion, to "JFK and bunch of BS"....Because I am gettin tired of reading about this stuff and other people on this site as well, if I had to take a guess.

Chris