Go ![]() | New ![]() | Find ![]() | Notify ![]() | Tools ![]() | Reply ![]() | ![]() |
Step by step walk the thousand mile road![]() |
No shit. A rubber glove from Harbor Freight, a smear of KY, and use of a doctor's finger costs how much? We spent more on providing tranny comic books in Peru. Nice is overrated "It's every freedom-loving individual's duty to lie to the government." Airsoftguy, June 29, 2018 | |||
|
Member |
I listened to the video and didn't hear them mention cost as a reason, they mentioned testing typically stops at a certain age. But to your point, he is the president shouldn't they still test for something like that? Luckily I'm not old enough to know all that's involved in a prostate exam lol. | |||
|
Member |
I don't believe this for a second. We are talking about the President of the United States. https://justthenews.com/govern..._campaign=newsletter Biden spokesperson says former president was never diagnosed with prostate cancer before last week Biden spokesman Chris Meagher told reporters on Tuesday that the former president had never been diagnosed with prostate cancer before Friday, and said that the last time he was screened for the disease was in 2014. A spokesperson for former President Joe Biden on Tuesday pushed back on speculation that the former president was previously diagnosed with prostate cancer, and that his White House had hidden his condition. Biden was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer on Friday, which had already spread to his bones. The form of cancer, which is characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5), is not untreatable but is incurable. The cancer does appear to be hormone-sensitive, which allows for effective management. Biden spokesman Chris Meagher told reporters on Tuesday that the former president had never been diagnosed with prostate cancer before Friday, and said that the last time he was screened for the disease was in 2014. A well-known antigen test that is used to screen for prostate cancer was not included in Biden's most recent physical. But President Donald Trump is frequently screened for the disease, according to the New York Times, and his most recent medical report came back clear. Health experts do not advise that men over the age of 70 be screened regularly for the disease, even though it is more common for older men. The development comes after skeptics suggested that the former White House hid the diagnosis because of how late the disease was diagnosed. “It can take years to get to this level of danger,” Trump said Monday. “So it’s a — look, it’s a very, very sad situation, and I feel very badly about it, and I think people should try and find out what happened.” Biden and his family are in the process of "reviewing treatment options" with doctors. _________________________ | |||
|
Member |
Not an MD, just a DDS with a lifelong interest in evidence based medicine and statistics. The problem with using PSA as a screening tool is not limited to false positives (which you noted are about 10-30%), but also true positives that detect cancer that would have been of no clinical significance in the patient’s lifetime. One study showed that an individual is approximately 50x more likely to be harmed by an unnecessary biopsy than to be saved from a deadly cancer. In Biden’s case, let’s say he had undergone a PSA test in his mid-70s and this cancer was detected “early”. What would the outcome have been? Very likely prostatectomy and living with the related side effects for the past decade. He’s 82 and suffering from dementia. He will probably live another year or two despite this cancer. Would he have lived a lot longer without the cancer? Unlikely. | |||
|
Member![]() |
I don't either, but it sounds better than saying the doctor was unable to do a prostate exam on Biden because he always filled his diaper during the office visit. . | |||
|
The Unmanned Writer![]() |
Borderline malpractice if true. A jury may very likely find in favor of unca jo Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. "If dogs don't go to Heaven, I want to go where they go" Will Rogers The definition of the words we used, carry a meaning of their own... | |||
|
Peace through superior firepower ![]() |
Sofa king delicious. Stupid asshole. You asked for it with your lying bullshit, and now you're getting it. ![]() ![]() MSNBC's Joe Scarborough confronted on viral 'best Biden ever' clip MSNBC's Joe Scarborough was confronted with a viral clip of him deeming former President Joe Biden the "best Biden ever" in March 2024 on Tuesday, standing by his assessment of the former president, citing his personal interactions with him. Speaking to Mark Halperin during his show, "Next Up with Mark Halperin," Scarborough watched the clip of himself, where he argued that the former president was "far beyond cogent." "I've said it for years now, he's cogent. But I undersold it when I said he was cogent, he's far beyond cogent. In fact, I think he's better than he's ever been, intellectually, analytically, because he's been around for 50 years," Scarborough said during a March 2024 "Morning Joe" broadcast. "Start your tape right now because I’m about to tell you the truth. And f-you if you can’t handle the truth. This version of Biden, intellectually, analytically, is the best Biden ever." After noting that Biden had good days and bad days, Halperin asked Scarbrough, "Looking back at that, do you say, well, it was misleading to say ‘best Biden ever’ without caveating it and saying, except on the days when he’s not the best Biden ever?" Scarborough insisted he never saw the bad days personally. Earlier in the conversation, Scarborough detailed multiple meetings he had with Biden, during which the MSNBC host argued that Biden had a better "analysis" of the situation, related to Ukraine and Russia, than he had heard from most people. Halperin pushed back and told Scarborough, "Well, you did! You did, because you saw him address a dead congresswoman, and you saw him in South Carolina." Halperin argued he could show Scarborough several clips of days when the former president was not the best Biden ever and Scarborough pivoted the conversation to Trump. Scarborough argued, "He stumbled and bumbled around, Mark. I mean, yeah, he certainly did. Donald Trump did, other politicians did, and it’s actually the same case as a lot of times when I’ve gone in and talked to Donald Trump. We go on to Donald Trump, and I’ve heard the media narrative around Donald Trump, and certainly I’ve been very critical of Donald Trump, and when I leave, I have a better understanding, just like Jeffrey Goldberg did a couple of weeks ago, a better understanding of where Donald Trump is mentally, if Donald Trump is losing it, like people have said through the years or not." "And so again, am I going to look at a clip that’s gone viral and pay more attention to that than two and a half, three hours I had with a guy one-on-one going around the world? No, I’m just not going to," the MSNBC host said. "Are some of the clips bad? Yeah, they certainly are bad." "Put into proper context, I'm just not going to freak out and melt down on one or two clips here and there," the "Morning Joe" host added. "And again he bumbled around, and he stumbled around, but he has for quite some time. That didn't seem to me to get in the way of Joe Biden being able to analyze the most important issues." Scarborough went after former Special Counsel Robert Hur in February 2024 for his report on the former president related to the classified documents probe that showed Biden struggling with key memories, including when his son Beau died, when he left the vice presidency and why he was in possession of classified documents he shouldn't have had. "I'm just saying this guy says such random shit!" Scarborough said at the time, demanding that Hur apologize for his report. "Does he hope he gets a judgeship? I think he does. I think he hopes he gets a judgeship if Donald Trump gets elected again because he's trying out, because he humiliated himself with that display," Scarborough added. The audio of the Hur-Biden interview was released on Friday, and CNN's Abby Phillip suggested Hur undersold the extent of Biden's lapses during the interview. | |||
|
delicately calloused![]() |
This may be the best Biden ever…. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier | |||
|
Member![]() |
Here, there and everywhere, fuckface. ![]() Set the controls for the heart of the Sun. | |||
|
Thank you Very little ![]() |
| |||
|
No More Mr. Nice Guy |
Also not an MD, just someone with a strong family history of aggressive prostate cancers. PC took my grandfather within 2 years of diagnosis. He did not have regular PSA screening, and thy took the watchful waiting approach since he was around 80 years old. As a result, my uncle was watching his PSA every 6 months, and at age 59 it started rapidly rising. Even though still a titch below 4, a biopsy showed aggressive cancer. Surgery followed, and he's been cancer free for another 35 years. PSA is imperfect, but when regularly monitored as fitting an individual's situation, it can provide important information. The problem is when a man hasn't had a PSA within years and now has symptoms and gets a PSA which comes in high. Now those general statistics are meaningful, that the test has poor accuracy. Watchful waiting can be a death sentence. But biopsy has real risks, too. For most men over maybe 75 or 80, PC will not be what kills them because it is, generally, slow progressing. But each case is individual, like my grandfather who was mentally sharp and otherwise physically healthy. He would have lived a lot longer had he been doing regular PSA screenings. | |||
|
Member |
I'd say screening makes a tremendous amount of sense in your case. | |||
|
Peace through superior firepower ![]() |
Scott Jennings in that clip. ![]() ![]() | |||
|
Member |
I was very surprised when I read this. I only posted the highlights here. I am 76 and had prostate surgery 8 weeks ago. It was caught very early and, thankfully, it had not spread. They did a "Decipher" genetic test on the biopsy tissue which came back as "High Risk" for spreading. I'm glad my primary care Dr did not give me a choice of taking a PSA test or not. Or I could have very easily be in Biden's position in a few years Is the now-standard approach to prostate cancer too lax? In my case it was. ... Years later I learned the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued definitive guidelines in 2012 not to screen for prostate cancer. It said knowing about prostate cancer led to treatments that didn’t extend life, but harmed men who underwent prostatectomies. They concluded that it was better for doctor and patient alike to not know if any patient had prostate cancer. In part, what drove this conclusion was a 2008-09 Health and Human Services (HHS) study of prostate cancer as a cost driver in medical care. The study concluded that PSA testing leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. That conclusion was fed to the USPSTF, whose guidelines disregarded the fact that 10-20% of men may have an aggressive form of cancer — a cancer that can kill. Those men become collateral damage to a guideline that seeks to protect the other 80-90%. Most men with prostate cancer will indeed not die principally of prostate cancer. However, those with an aggressive form may see their lives shortened by five to seven years or more, and undergo harsher, more costly treatment, assuming their cancer is even caught. In the seven years after the 2012 guidelines were issued, fewer prostate cancers were diagnosed and treated. Yet the rate of aggressive cancers diagnosed rose at the rate of 4-7% a year. Because fewer prostatectomies were done, there were some cost savings. However, those cost savings were offset by the cost of treating aggressive cancers, which can be orders of magnitude greater. Moreover, those with aggressive forms suffer the same or greater quality-of-life issues as men treated surgically, while likely having shortened lives. In 2018, the USPSTF reversed its flawed 2012 guidelines. In what became known as “shared decisionmaking,” the burden of deciding on screening is now put on patients. This sleight-of-hand gives primary-care physicians deniability for any harm to patients. Patients would be the final arbiter of whether to screen, after only a brief discussion in a rushed 15-minute appointment. While the USPSTF asserts its independence, in fact HHS provides research and support to the USPSTF. Moreover, in 2012 there were no urologists on the guidelines panel, although urologists are responsible for treating most cases. In multiple surveys, primary-care physicians, who would typically initiate prostate cancer screening through a PSA blood test, have registered between 65-70% disapproval of prostate cancer screening. Yet in the same surveys, urologists have overwhelmingly supported screening. | |||
|
Bookers Bourbon and a good cigar ![]() |
I am 78, my prostate surgery was 14 years ago. My PSA was never high. My son, at 50 has just had his MRI because his PSA jumped 60% in 9 months. Biopsy scheduled.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Johnny 3eagles, If you're goin' through hell, keep on going. Don't slow down. If you're scared don't show it. You might get out before the devil even knows you're there. NRA ENDOWMENT LIFE MEMBER | |||
|
Member |
My PSA started to climb slowly and so I had multiple bx of the gland. It was pos. for cancer. I went for a radical prostatectomy in 2011. I have been cancer free since with neg. PSA tests. I am a believer in surgery if it is possible. | |||
|
Member![]() |
I've always second-guessed my 2017 prostatectomy but recent developments have me feeling a lot better about it. Set the controls for the heart of the Sun. | |||
|
Get my pies outta the oven! ![]() |
I'm pretty certain that it's this evil bitch Jill Biden who has been behind all this for years. Look at how he slipped here and there when mumbling about "getting in trouble" when making speeches or doing press conferences?
Link | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 740 741 742 743 |
![]() | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|