Down below I do a little speculating on why Biden's cancer wasn't caught sooner and
Posted by TW on May 20, 2025, 9:38 am Valued Poster
I'm served up a heaping helping of scorn for doing so. There was nothing wrong with my speculating on the matter. Something was in fact not proper about Biden's diagnosis. Particularly when we are talking about monitoring the health of the POTUS.
Former Biden medical advisor says he 'probably' had cancer at beginning of presidency
'He did not develop it in the last 100-200 days, he had it while he was president,' former Biden COVID advisor Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel said
Former Biden COVID advisor and Obamacare architect Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel said Monday that former President Joe Biden likely had cancer since the beginning of his presidency, if not before.
Biden's office confirmed in a statement on Sunday that he had been diagnosed with an "aggressive form" of prostate cancer that "was characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone."
Based on the advanced state of the cancer, Emanuel, an oncologist, told MSNBC’s "Morning Joe" that Biden would most likely have had the cancer for "more than several years."
Host Joe Scarborough stopped him to clarify, "So this is not speculation. If you have prostate cancer that has spread to the bone, then most certainly you are saying he had it when he was President of the United States."
"Oh, yeah. He did not develop it in the last 100-200 days," Emanuel said. "He had it while he was president. He probably had it at the start of his presidency in 2021. I don't think there's any disagreement about that."
Scarborough pointed out how some men over the age of 70 choose not to get a prostate exam but added "most men aren’t President of the United States."
Emanuel said that it’s often a discussion between patients and doctors but agreed it’s concerning when it involves a sitting president.
"President Obama had this test. President Bush had this test. It is a little surprising that the doctor didn’t take it. And if he took it and didn’t report it, and it was elevated, that is another case of doctors not being straightforward with us - we’ve had several of them with President Trump, especially around his COVID diagnosis - and if that is true, that would be very troubling," Emanuel said.
He added that it was possible for a test to miss this stage of cancer but called it "unlikely."
"Either they didn’t test for it, or they test for it [and] they didn’t report it. And we didn’t get the information as a public," Emanuel said.
Biden's last PSA test was in 2014, over 10 years ago.
Why is PSA screening no longer recommended in healthy men?
Screening tests aren't foolproof. It's possible for PSA levels to be elevated when cancer isn't present. It's also possible for PSA levels to not be elevated when cancer is present.
Many guidelines suggest stopping PSA screening for men aged 70 and older. This is because the potential benefits of detecting and treating prostate cancer in this age group may be outweighed by the risks of treatment and the overall impact on quality of life.
only that those at high risk should still do those and the manual testing for lumps.
A dear friend/neighbor died 12 years ago of prostate cancer discovered at stage 4 with bone involvement. He chose not to go through the recommended treatment as he was 89 years old and figured that it would be too miserable so he'd just roll with it having lived a long, good life already.
What a MISTAKE! His final year and especially his last 6 months were absolutely horrible! By the time he realized that he'd "bought" a miserably long death-march, it was too late to change his mind because treatment then wouldn't make any difference.
It doesn't matter how old you are, accept some treatment because letting it progress at that stage is just horrific.
In "healthy" men, they are generally not recommended after age 70.
There will always be exceptions to the rule, but in general, they are not recommended for healthy men over the age of 70, for the reasons stated.
We have a friend who had to make a decision on whether to receive treatment or not... but it is not as simple as people would like to think. There are downsides, and the tests and/or treatments are not always reliable. Treatments can have downsides, with no certainty that they are even necessary or effective. For many men, even if their PSAs show an upward trend, that type of cancer is often very slow to progress... so it is not that simple when discussing such a test, diagnosis, treatment, or how effective or desirable a treatment plan may or may not be.
Yes, normally, a man will die of old age prior to dying from advanced prostate cancer, unless
it is an aggressive form, which Biden's cancer is said to be and that Leo (our friend/neighbor) died from. The aggressive type that rapidly spreads to bone and other organs is not at all the same animal as a typical, slow growing prostate cancer that stays where it is. It is incurable and if it is not treated it will radically spread and it will be quite unpleasant, as Leo sadly experienced.
Yes, the slow growing, "polite" variation is where there are choices to be made because the "cure" can be worse than the disease and quite unnecessary to treat in many cases.
In the aggressive form, the disease is most definitely FAR worse than the cure.
..that an earlier diagnosis of the disease was worse, because it was more likely to be fast-growing. At 70-80, there’s less concern (my dad had it for years and died of heart problems) than at 50-60. They were worries I had a faster version and so decided to operate and eradicate it.
So far, so good..but I’m sorry this happened to Joe.-greenman
Yes, I've heard that too. However, like everything else, there are exceptions like Leo & Biden
Posted by Sia on May 21, 2025, 10:47 am, in reply to "I was told" ADMIN
where the cancer didn't follow the normal "rules".
Just like breast cancer is not a "young woman's disease", sometimes it is. My son in law's sister is 25 and a new mother. She has been given less than 6 months to lived from advanced breast cancer, stage 4, that has now spread to her bones, liver, brain, and kidneys. It is so aggressive that when they diagnosed it 3 months ago, it wasn't found anywhere else. She may not get the last 3 months predicted.
We are burying my brother in law this Saturday. He died of advanced colon cancer 5 months after it was discovered.
Cancer SUCKS!
So, you were smart. You survived it and may get to live a long life because of your decision, difficult as it likely was.
That's not entirely true. The grief you got was for a specific comment made
I've never liked Biden but was sad to hear of his situation. I have to wonder...
Posted by TWUser icon on May 19, 2025, 8:45 am, in reply to "Biden diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer already metastasized to"
Was this not detected because he was kept away from the types of examinations that would have revealed the cancer? Reason being, to keep more people in the dark as to his declining mental situation.
It was the DIG at him. A prostate test or exam has NOTHING to do with testing someone's mental fitness so it came off as nothing but another opportunity to trash him.
As to WHY it was not detected earlier... There are certainly MANY reasons to question why such simple tests weren't done. Did HE refuse? Were doctors neglectful? I can't imagine doctors hiding it from him or his family and somehow NOT seeking out treatment if it had been found earlier, especially given his well known position on cancer.
EDIT: If he did know about it but chose to hide it from the public, then WHY would he not have sought out the hormone treatment to prevent it progressing? It's not like such information would be legal to reveal without his consent.
I'm inclined to wonder if he simply didn't want to do the tests for some reason until he experienced symptoms recently?
I just proposed a possibility of why it may not have been detected.
And it is possible, and it may come to light, that Biden did not find out about his prostate cancer due to the fact that some people wanted to keep his exposure at a minimum to those outside the trusted circle. I'm not saying those people were necessarily trying to keep him from receiving adequate care, either. They just never considered something such as prostate cancer to be much of a possibility. At least I would be initially inclined to believe that.
Other than skin cancer, prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the United States. A PSA test only requires drawing blood. They draw blood routinely for to check all sorts of things. You'd of thought they would have routinely ran a PSA as a normal part of a physical for the POTUS. They were already drawing blood for a physical. At least, you'd sure hope they were. That's a very basic part of a physical exam to check on someone's health.
A higher PSA doesn't always mean you have cancer and a lower one doesn't necessarily mean you're clear either. If Biden didn't want to suffer the indignities of a digital rectal exam, a DRO to those of us "in the know", I'd imagine they would have been willing to run the prostate MRI on him, which would have been highly accurate. That said, even the fickle finger of fate doesn't necessarily reveal a problem.
My urologist still believes them to be an important part of detecting potential cancer. Since the basic PSA test isn't even close to being moderately accurate. It's just another useful tool. In fact, many men have suffered unnecessary treatments because of high PSAs. Such as unnecessary testing and biopsies due to the false-positives. All cost plenty of time and money, and the biopsy has some serious associated risks due to what that type of procedure entails.
Besides that, Biden's mental decline is a well-known fact. It's now understood even by those that refused to see what was obvious to most of us. Those that lied about it, can no longer lie about it. The fact that I mentioned it was not therefore significant. It was only significant from the standpoint that it provided a weak opening for people to hammer me. There have been numerous revelations and now books discussing what lengths people went to in order to hide his mental declination. The fact that I wondered if that had something to do with the seemingly late cancer diagnosis is no big deal.
You know, I used to get hammered for speaking of Biden's (to me and many others) obvious mental as well as physical decline. Many on the left refused to see it and bought into or at least fervently supported the "deep fakes" narrative. Of course, when your information and news sources are all in the tank for Biden, you wouldn't see near as much of Biden making public screwups. Still...I was hammered for, IMHO, stating the obvious. Now, I don't expect to receive apologies for those hammerings. But I'd like to think some people became a bit embarrassed for condemning my accurate observations. That they apparently missed!
As an AI public service anouncement, I submit the following as I experienced some of what is stated below. I did not receive unnecessary treatments, but there was a lot of stress and anxiety for both me and my family. The specific type of prostate effective MRI was new and not available when I had a high PSA, and that subjected me to the biopsy. Which ultimately resulted in no cancer being detected. Which still didn't mean I was 100% clear either. After them using my prostate as a biopsy pin cushion. I do think this information might be of value to someone here on the board. If not now, maybe in the future.
From a Google search:
A high PSA (Prostate-Specific Antigen) level can sometimes lead to unnecessary testing and procedures, such as biopsies, due to the false-positive results it can yield. While PSA is a valuable tool for assessing prostate cancer risk, its sensitivity and specificity are not perfect. Here's a more detailed explanation:
• PSA is not definitive: PSA levels can be elevated for reasons other than cancer, including prostate enlargement, inflammation, or infection.
• False-positive results: PSA testing can produce false-positive results, meaning a high PSA level is detected even when cancer is not present.
• False-negative results: Conversely, PSA testing can also produce false-negative results, meaning a normal PSA level is detected despite the presence of cancer.
• Unnecessary biopsies: False-positive results can lead to unnecessary biopsies, which can be uncomfortable, painful, and carry the risk of infection or bleeding.
• Anxiety and stress: False-positive results can cause unnecessary anxiety and distress for the patient and their family.
• Overtreatment: Diagnosing prostate cancer based solely on a high PSA level can lead to overtreatment, where patients receive treatments (surgery or radiation) that may not be necessary.
• Side effects of treatment: Overtreatment can expose individuals to potential side effects like erectile dysfunction, incontinence, or bowel problems.
I don't think that you're understanding what I was saying. When offering sympathy and concern for someone, most don't add a dig directly afterwards towards the person who is suffering an awful medical diagnosis.
Everything you said up to the bolded comment (ie: about him not getting tested to possibly hide his mental decline) was FINE. But adding the dig about his claimed mental decline being the reason why his people somehow prevented him getting adequate medical care was not.
It was mean spirited speculation with zero evidence to support that he didn't have the exams because his staff prevented him having them to somehow "protect him" from "exposure as unfit to lead" AND it suggests that he wasn't capable of making such decisions for himself. I rather doubt both suggestions. Whatever his issues might be, I absolutely do not believe that he's completely lost his marbles as those things suggest.
Plus, it made it seem as if you'd offered sympathy ONLY to add the insult for Biden.
..and your complaining, I agree that he didn’t develop it recently. Either he wasn’t tested, or he was, and they knew about it. Which would have made the decision to let him run again even more problematic. Much more so than a ‘slow’ performance in a debate.
I continue to say it’s the DNC’s fault. This stuff should’ve been worked out by early ‘23, IMO.-greenman
on May 20, 2025, 9:38 am
I do think this information might be of value to someone here on the board. If not now, maybe in the future. 
