President Joe Biden - Kamala Harris Administration

#60,402
#60,402
Persian Vol said:
For men over 70, PSA screening usually isn’t recommended based on USPSTF guidelines. It’s not a hard rule, but more of a general recommendation based on the risks and benefits. If anyone wants to know why, I’m happy to explain.

It’s very likely that President Biden didn’t get a PSA test—which is completely normal for someone his age. He probably started having symptoms from the cancer spreading to his bones, which led doctors to investigate and eventually discover the metastatic prostate cancer.

It doesn’t really make sense to think he knew he had prostate cancer and chose not to treat it, letting it spread. If he had ever had an elevated PSA, it would’ve been worked up and likely treated long before it got to this point.
Click to expand...
I know I am oversimplifying here, but there is absolutely no risk to a PSA test beyond the normal risk associated with a blood draw. Biden's PSA, as progressed as his cancer is, would have been extremely, even alarmingly high for a long time.

The primary risk, as I understand it, is from an overreaction to the diagnosis, and a rush to treatment protocols (ADT, radiation, even chemo) that have adverse effects when perhaps those protocols weren't immediately necessary and where a "watchful waiting" period (until treatment is necessary) may have been the least adverse medical treatment. As you have stated, risk/benefit analysis.

I have a hard time believing the President of the United States doesn't have a blood draw at his physical, even if it were for other diagnostic purposes than PSA. I have a harder time believing they wouldn't run a $79 PSA screen on the already collected blood for the President of the US.

The President already knows about our warehousing of Aliens, about the asteroid that will hit us in the next decade, and about SPECTRE's next plot to seize world control, I am pretty sure he can manage his elevated PSAs without overreacting.

I also find some of Biden's behavior (physically and congnitively) over the last few years to be consistent with side effects of some of the treatment protocols for prostate cancer. That, coupled with the lack of a conclusive statement as to the timing of the actual initial diagnosis, leads me to believe the former President has known about this diagnosis, and very likely received treatment for it, before or during his presidency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, Vol8188, Orangeslice13 and 1 other person
#60,404
#60,404
hog88 said:
Wife is dealing with it surprisingly well.
Click to expand...
My mid-80s in-laws are coming in today from Boston, Georgia. Glad to see them and this may be the last time they come this way. Six+ hour drives are tough. They have decently good health, but at their age, you never know how much longer you have with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and LouderVol
#60,406
#60,406
EasternVol said:
I've known several like her. Her words and actions as reported give insight into her personality, just like DJT's words and actions give insight into his. Based on those words and actions, my opinion is that she's a narcissistic gold digging manipulative social climber. Otherwise she seems like a nice lady.
Click to expand...
I'd lean with @BowlBrother85 on him declining significantly towards the end, although as mentioned, he did have his girlfriend with him in Warm Springs when he passed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#60,407
#60,407
GroverCleveland said:
My mid-80s in-laws are coming in today from Boston, Georgia. Glad to see them and this may be the last time they come this way. Six+ hour drives are tough. They have decently good health, but at their age, you never know how much longer you have with them.
Click to expand...

Very true, my dad turns 79 this July and it's sobering. Hopefully now that they aren't milking anymore him and mom can come down more, they have a great granddaughter they have never seen in person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT, StarRaider, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#60,409
#60,409
Persian Vol said:
Prostate cancer tends to grow really slowly. Someone could develop it at 77 and not show any symptoms until they’re 90. That’s why you often hear the saying, “Most people die with prostate cancer, not from it.”

The thing is, treating prostate cancer isn’t always harmless. The biopsy and treatments like surgery or radiation can lead to side effects—especially urinary issues like incontinence. For men over 70, the thinking is that even if you do have prostate cancer, you’re more likely to die of something else before the cancer ever becomes a problem. So why put someone through all the tests and possible side effects if it’s not going to help them live longer with a greater quality of life. The risks often outweigh the benefits as you get older.
Click to expand...
That’s a good explanation.
Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and Persian Vol
#60,410
#60,410
hog88 said:
My FIL is 81 or 82 and was just diagnosed, I don't know how bad his score was (I'm pretty sure it was fairly low) but since he has Parkinson's they decided it wasn't worth the pain of treating it.
Click to expand...
my dad was diagnosed with throat cancer at age 85 or so... asked the family if we thought he should get treated or not... we were all like "we think you should do want... but we don't want to not be able to eat what you enjoy because of the treatment"... he did not get treated and died with it and not from it at 93.

Sorry to hear about your FIL...
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#60,411
#60,411
BowlBrother85 said:
No, I'm simply saying that when used as a verb, the number "86" becomes a slang term, and has multiple meanings. As a mob term, it can refer to an act of violence, but it's most common usage as slang, is "to remove" or "to discard." It does not have to involve an act of violence. The people, such as yourself, who are saying that James Comey should be charged with a crime over that picture of sea shells are being idiots.
Click to expand...
first, I agree there should be no charges based on a picture.
second, if you are 86'ing a person, you are killing them. you are only removing or discarding an object.
3. this is as bad of a stretch as the republicans who tried to defend those pictures of Hillary and Obama with a crosshair on them. trying to make it out just to be the "focus" is on them, not that its a gun pointed at them to kill/hurt/threaten.
 
#60,414
#60,414
LouderVol said:
first, I agree there should be no charges based on a picture.
second, if you are 86'ing a person, you are killing them. you are only removing or discarding an object.
3. this is as bad of a stretch as the republicans who tried to defend those pictures of Hillary and Obama with a crosshair on them. trying to make it out just to be the "focus" is on them, not that its a gun pointed at them to kill/hurt/threaten.
Click to expand...
LOL.

There are no rules for how a slang term with multiple meanings should be interpreted. That is silly. When used as a verb, "86" does not have to refer to an act of violence, even when applied to a person.
 
#60,415
#60,415
BowlBrother85 said:
LOL.

There are no rules for how a slang term with multiple meanings should be interpreted. That is silly. When used as a verb, "86" does not have to refer to an act of violence, even when applied to a person.
Click to expand...
that is not how most people are going to take it when the subject is a person. especially one as divisive as Trump.

the two attempts on his life already should be enough justification where 86'ing should be seen as violent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT and Smallvol#1
#60,420
#60,420
Dems logic...get mad at someone pointing out the largest scandal in political history regarding POTUS....but doesn't get upset that the people they voted for are the one to lied and are involves in the scandal.. now I understand why additicion and mental illness are so rampant in the Dem voting base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Majors, UT_Dutchman, TNVOLNAVY and 2 others
#60,422
#60,422
LouderVol said:
first, I agree there should be no charges based on a picture.
second, if you are 86'ing a person, you are killing them. you are only removing or discarding an object.
3. this is as bad of a stretch as the republicans who tried to defend those pictures of Hillary and Obama with a crosshair on them. trying to make it out just to be the "focus" is on them, not that its a gun pointed at them to kill/hurt/threaten.
Click to expand...
Carefully planned word, imo. Just bad enough to get you in the news cycle ( Just before your book release ), but not bad enough that any actual repercussions come from it.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top