SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Joe Biden on the campaign trail: "If you like your health care plan, ..." // biden is out !
Page 1 ... 740 741 742 743
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Joe Biden on the campaign trail: "If you like your health care plan, ..." // biden is out ! Login/Join 
Step by step walk the thousand mile road
Picture of Sig2340
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
^^^^^^^
I don’t believe it.


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
 
Posts: 32957 | Location: Loudoun County, Virginia | Registered: May 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sig2340:
quote:
Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
^^^^^^^
I don’t believe it.


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.


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.
 
Posts: 6 | Registered: May 11, 2025Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.


_________________________
 
Posts: 13863 | Registered: January 17, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
So what say the medicos here about the PSA test ?


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.
 
Posts: 9192 | Location: The Red part of Minnesota | Registered: October 06, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of TigerDore
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
^^^^^^^
I don’t believe it.

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.


.
 
Posts: 9611 | Registered: September 26, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Unmanned Writer
Picture of LS1 GTO
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by wcb6092:
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


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...



 
Posts: 14421 | Location: It was Lat: 33.xxxx Lon: 44.xxxx now it's CA :( | Registered: March 22, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
Sofa king delicious.

Stupid asshole. You asked for it with your lying bullshit, and now you're getting it. Big Grin Lying about your lying won't help you, Joe, but it's all you've got, and it's delightful watching you eat the shit you went out of your way to tell us. Big Grin

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.
 
Posts: 111617 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
delicately calloused
Picture of darthfuster
posted Hide Post
This may be the best Biden ever….



You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier
 
Posts: 30390 | Location: Norris Lake, TN | Registered: May 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Ripley
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
..one or two clips here and there," the "Morning Joe" host added...


Here, there and everywhere, fuckface. Roll Eyes




Set the controls for the heart of the Sun.
 
Posts: 8788 | Location: Flown-over country | Registered: December 25, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Thank you
Very little
Picture of HRK
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 25576 | Location: Gunshine State | Registered: November 07, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
No More
Mr. Nice Guy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by MNSIG:

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.


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.
 
Posts: 10151 | Location: On the mountain off the grid | Registered: February 25, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
Also not an MD, just someone with a strong family history of aggressive prostate cancers.


I'd say screening makes a tremendous amount of sense in your case.
 
Posts: 9192 | Location: The Red part of Minnesota | Registered: October 06, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
Scott Jennings in that clip. Big Grin

 
Posts: 111617 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 661 | Registered: September 30, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Bookers Bourbon
and a good cigar
Picture of Johnny 3eagles
posted Hide Post
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
 
Posts: 7658 | Location: Arkansas  | Registered: November 06, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 6874 | Location: Az | Registered: May 27, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Ripley
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 8788 | Location: Flown-over country | Registered: December 25, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Get my pies
outta the oven!

Picture of PASig
posted Hide Post
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?

quote:

I’m a geriatric MD — Joe Biden’s plight shows telltale signs of elder abuse

By Elaine Healy
Published May 21, 2025, 7:01 p.m. ET
NY Post

As a geriatric medical specialist, I am all too familiar with the telltale signs of elder abuse, which is disturbingly common among American seniors.

So as an alarmed citizen, I have referred former President Joe Biden to the Adult Protective Services Division of Delaware’s Department of Health and Social Services as a likely elder-abuse victim — naming Jill Biden, Dr. Kevin O’Connor and former Biden chief of staff Jeffrey Zients as possible perpetrators.

The news of Biden’s advanced prostate cancer diagnosis, the release of audio from special counsel Robert Hur’s 2023 interview and the revelations of Biden’s cognitive decline from the new book “Original Sin” make it clear to me that we’re seeing something even more malevolent than a political and media cover-up: The former president was, and likely still is, being victimized.

Elder abuse is an intentional act or failure to act by a caregiver or another trusted person that causes or creates a risk of harm to an older adult.

As this case tragically demonstrates, it can happen to anyone, committed by anyone.

Visible bruising and other injuries from physical violence are obvious forms of abuse.

Non-violent actions — like deprivation of food, causing weight loss, or intimidation, causing social withdrawal and personality changes — are also defined as abusive behavior.

A more sinister type of elder abuse, however, involves the exploitation of an elderly individual for the abuser’s financial, personal or — in this case — political gain.

It seems apparent that those closest to Joe Biden, people upon whom he was and remains dependent, usurped the power and authority of his office for their own benefit, while professionals who had a duty to protect him failed to do so.

Who can forget Jill Biden’s gushing praise of her husband’s humiliating performance during the presidential debate?

What was behind her insistence that he run for office when she, above all others, had to be aware of his failing cognitive capacities and declining physical health?

Is she a loving spouse or a master manipulator, using his dependency on her to control his decision-making? If the latter, she is engaged in elder abuse.

What kind of medical professional could fail to recognize the profound deterioration of the president’s physical and intellectual capabilities?

How could a physician issue a clean bill of health for someone so obviously suffering from dementia, condoning the pursuit of another four-year stint in the most cognitively challenging job on the planet?

How could any clinician fail to diagnose prostate cancer when it was still in an early, potentially curable stage?

Either O’Connor failed to practice medicine at the professional standard of care, or he has actively participated in a cover-up — in which case, he too was involved in elder abuse.

The case against him is even more egregious since O’Connor, above all others, had a professional duty to protect his patient.

Which person — or indeed, how many people — on the president’s staff used his autopen to sign official documents, including the dozens of presidential pardons in his final days?

Surely they recognized the same limitations that Hur saw when he de facto acknowledged Biden’s lack of cognitive capacity.

But even if they blinded themselves to the truth, the Justice Department’s website specifically defines as elder abuse the use of a senior’s signature to execute monetary and other transactions the individual doesn’t understand.

Shame on Jeffrey Zients and all other staff members who literally stole the authority of a compromised, vulnerable old man for their own purposes.

The referral I filed to the state of Delaware did not recommend Hur for investigation, but I find his actions both questionable and concerning.

He declined to press criminal charges against Biden for illegally retaining classified documents, because he found the president to be “a sympathetic, well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.”

As a trained attorney, however, Hur must have been aware that the American Bar Association recognizes the legal concept of “undue influence” as it relates to elder abuse: the intentional use of social influence, deception and manipulation to gain control of the decision-making of another.

Hur came to his conclusions regarding Biden’s lack of capacity in October 2023, but failed to sound the alarm — despite being fully aware that the complex orders and documents being issued in the president’s name exceeded his cognitive capabilities.

Didn’t he have a duty to do so, under his profession’s stated standards?

In our system, the final determination of whether an elder has been the victim of abuse is made by a state’s Adult Protective Services agency, following its investigation of a credible allegation.

We can only hope that the state of Delaware will function as it should — and give the former president the attention and scrutiny his tragic situation deserves.

Elaine Healy, MD, FACP is a practicing geriatric physician and certified nursing home medical director.


Link


 
Posts: 35884 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: November 12, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 740 741 742 743 
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Joe Biden on the campaign trail: "If you like your health care plan, ..." // biden is out !

© SIGforum 2025