Biden: prostate cancer diagnosis. Medical EXPERTS say he likely had diagnosis for entire term.

[BillsFanNC]

7 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

He wanted to be president for another four years. Your diagnosis was that he was up for it. Now you have no interest in whether or not the president has cancer because of guidelines? 
 

Must you be a hack?

 

By all accounts, yes.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

There is NO CHANCE that he was not getting a PSA test BEFORE he turned 80

there is EVERY chance.  Read the most respected guidelines.  there's are similar.  from US preventative task force

Men aged 55 to 69 yearsFor men aged 55 to 69 years, the decision to undergo periodic prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer should be an individual one. Before deciding whether to be screened, men should have an opportunity to discuss the potential benefits and harms of screening with their clinician and to incorporate their values and preferences in the decision. Screening offers a small potential benefit of reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer in some men. However, many men will experience potential harms of screening, including false-positive results that require additional testing and possible prostate biopsy; overdiagnosis and overtreatment; and treatment complications, such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the balance of benefits and harms on the basis of family history, race/ethnicity, comorbid medical conditions, patient values about the benefits and harms of screening and treatment-specific outcomes, and other health needs. Clinicians should not screen men who do not express a preference for screening.C

Men 70 years and olderThe USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older.D

[Joe Ferguson forever]

25 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 From personal experience, even when you do not have symptoms, your PSA is still elevated.

a study of 1.!

 

Sensitivity= true positives/true positives +false negative.

for psa it's 20% at the widely used threshold on 4ng/ml

 

so, even if a  psa done, there's an 80% chance a cancer will be missed within a population, at least in the study I posted.

It's a crappy test.  Always has been.

[Doc Brown]

3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

a study of 1.!

 

Sensitivity= true positives/true positives +false negative.

for psa it's 20% at the widely used threshold on 4ng/ml

 

so, even if a  psa done, there's an 80% chance a cancer will be missed within a population, at least in the study I posted.

It's a crappy test.  Always has been.

How do they not have better testing than that?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

9 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

How do they not have better testing than that?

they can lower the threshold for a "positive"{ test but that lowers the specificity (more false positives)  which would lead to many unnecessary biopsies (I just had 13 donefor an extremely low grade cancer that5 will likely never be of any problem.  but it's the trend of psa that is most useful.  I'm ordered every 6 month psa's for the rest of my life.

Edited 5 hours ago by Joe Ferguson forever

[4th&long]

51 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

You know, Joe is worth millions, he could have paid for his own physical.

 

I'm willing to bet that that never even occurred to them.

 

 

 

 

No.

 

 From personal experience, even when you do not have symptoms, your PSA is still elevated.

 

Thus ANY doctor would know of the presence of cancer.

 

 

. 

Psa can be elevated from protein or physical activity in men over 70 that is why it is not tested for in them. Do some research. 

Edited 5 hours ago by 4th&long

[Big Blitz]

 

[Doc Brown]

2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

they can lower the threshold for a "positive"{ test but that lowers the specificity (more false positives)  which would lead to many unnecessary biopsies (I just had 13 donefor an extremely low grade cancer that5 will likely never be of any problem

I appreciate the insight.  Cancer sucks.  I know you're not a doctor but you seem to have a better grasp on this than I do.  Let's for hypothetical sake they did hide the cancer problem and detected it early, is the treatment usually effective to the point where it would ever reach Stage 9 and metastasize to the bone?

[4th&long]

21 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

there is EVERY chance.  Read the most respected guidelines.  there's are similar.  from US preventative task force

Men aged 55 to 69 yearsFor men aged 55 to 69 years, the decision to undergo periodic prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer should be an individual one. Before deciding whether to be screened, men should have an opportunity to discuss the potential benefits and harms of screening with their clinician and to incorporate their values and preferences in the decision. Screening offers a small potential benefit of reducing the chance of death from prostate cancer in some men. However, many men will experience potential harms of screening, including false-positive results that require additional testing and possible prostate biopsy; overdiagnosis and overtreatment; and treatment complications, such as incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In determining whether this service is appropriate in individual cases, patients and clinicians should consider the balance of benefits and harms on the basis of family history, race/ethnicity, comorbid medical conditions, patient values about the benefits and harms of screening and treatment-specific outcomes, and other health needs. Clinicians should not screen men who do not express a preference for screening.C

Men 70 years and olderThe USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older.D

Don't fight with these Maga white trash they are not worth it. They would rather make up a lie and believe it lit their hero trump. 

 

These idiots can't figure out that if he was tested and diagnosed years ago it would not be aggressive and spread to the bone. 

And if anyone in this country is going to listen to CDC recommendations I'm sure it would be a man who has served for 50 years as a lib. No shock. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

9 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I appreciate the insight.  Cancer sucks.  I know you're not a doctor but you seem to have a better grasp on this than I do.  Let's for hypothetical sake they did hide the cancer problem and detected it early, is the treatment usually effective to the point where it would ever reach Stage 9 and metastasize to the bone?

I am an MD but not a urologist.  I've educated myself on it recently when my psa came back high.  MRI is the follow up test.  Then a bx if mai is positive.  This is the up to date protocol  And screening (all psa tests are screening in patients without known cancer) is not recommended in men over 70 by any of the organizations that make recs.  Because the very real risk of overtreatin g and especially over biopsying.  same reason for the high threshold for psa positivity...

 

Re catching it early, obviously that gives a better prognosis but at 82 with this extremely aggressive grade (not stage- there are 4 stages, the forth being distant metastasis), my  feeling is his prognosis is poor.  I read 5 year survival is about 40% (mine is over 99% to0 show you the difference in grade and gleason scores)  There are 9 grades based on cellular microscopic exam of biopsy tissue by a pathologist.

Edited 5 hours ago by Joe Ferguson forever

[Doc Brown]

6 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

I am an MD but not a urologist.  I've educated myself on it recently when my psa came back high.  MRI is the follow up test.  Then a bx if mai is positive.  This is the up to date protocol  And screening (all psa tests are screening in patients without known cancer) is not recommended in men over 70 by any of the organizations that make recs.  Because the very real risk of overtreatin g and especially over biopsying.  same reason for the high threshold for psa positivity...

Great information.  Thanks.  It's wild to me that they don't have a better screening test for possible prostrate cancer with men over 70.

[4th&long]

5 hours ago, JDHillFan said:

Biden and his supporters wanted us to believe he was good for another four years. People that think like you, actually carried him to victory in the primaries. Do you believe it’s the proper thing for the president of the United States to not be tested for cancer because of his age? Seems like an exception should be made for this particular job. 

I think it is proper for anybody, President to handle their health how they choose and in private. That is why we have a second and third in line for the oval office right now. 

 

Your over 60 I'm guessing, I'm sure you know some old timers that don't go to the doctor because they don't want to know. My father was like that, never went to the doctor. He got taken out of work at 60 on a stretcher. Health was so bad he never worked again and died at 66. My uncle said it was an old Italian thing. If he didn't go to the doctor nothing was wrong with him. Not the way I am and I'm sure Biden is not that way but he might not wanted to have the test and I don't blame him. 

 

People should deal with their health how they want to. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Great information.  Thanks.  It's wild to me that they don't have a better screening test for possible prostrate cancer with men over 70.

I think it would be reasonable to raise the threshold for positive psa in the older population if they desired to be tested.  The attending doc can also offer serial psa's  No one will stop you from getting the test over 70 but your doc willl almost certainly rec against it.

Edited 5 hours ago by Joe Ferguson forever

[4th&long]

16 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

I am an MD but not a urologist.  I've educated myself on it recently when my psa came back high.  MRI is the follow up test.  Then a bx if mai is positive.  This is the up to date protocol  And screening (all psa tests are screening in patients without known cancer) is not recommended in men over 70 by any of the organizations that make recs.  Because the very real risk of overtreatin g and especially over biopsying.  same reason for the high threshold for psa positivity...

 

Re catching it early, obviously that gives a better prognosis but at 82 with this extremely aggressive grade (not stage- there are 4 stages, the forth being distant metastasis), my  feeling is his prognosis is poor.  I read 5 year survival is about 40% (mine is over 99% to0 show you the difference in grade and gleason scores)  There are 9 grades based on cellular microscopic exam of biopsy tissue by a pathologist.

Not to knock you but this is all simple stuff found on Google. I found it and read about it in 5 minutes yesterday. This tells me that these Maga don't want to know, they want to make up and believe a lie and their condolences or concerns for the ex pres are bull sh it. 

[njbuff]

5 minutes ago, 4th&long said:

Not to knock you but this is all simple stuff found on Google. I found it and read about it in 5 minutes yesterday. This tells me that these Maga don't want to know, they want to make up and believe a lie and their condolences or concerns for the ex pres are bull sh it. 

Man, you are one dumb hateful little p@ssy prick.

[Wacka]

If a doctor tells me to get a test, I will ask him "How soon?". Had too go through almost 6 moths of testing before I was put on the trahsplant list, Went through EKG, CAT scan ,  any dental work I needed, x-rays, echocardiogram, angiogram, at least 80 vials of blood drawn (when I lost count), and probably other tests that I forgot about.  This was just to get on the list.  Afterward, I  had a biopsy of the transplanted  I have monthly blood draws and urine tests. They also have had me get another echo this year, a pulmonary test to make sure my lungs are OK, a visit to a dermatologist and coming up ,a colonoscopy (which I am scheduled for this year). This is because taking the ant-rejection meds can cause a slight increase in the  chance of cancer.  Glad they are on top of everything. I will do whatever they say ado it to the letter.They are also making sure I go to the dentist for cleanings (which is Thursday). All data is shared between my primary care MD, my cardiologist, my nephrologist and the transplant center at ECMC. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Wacka

[Pokebball]

1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

What is not true?  Specifically?  I quoted experts from Dana Farber, Stanford and Johns Hopkins?  And you know better because you have prostate issue?  Here's another nice tidbit.  Please support your contention and specify what I wrote that was incorrect.

from arch Urology

In this article we explain findings from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) concerning the operating characteristics of PSA for biopsy-detectable prostate cancer, with special emphasis on a subpopulation of men with PSA less than 4 ng/ml, what is often regarded as the "normal" level of PSA in healthy men. The PCPT enrolled 18,882 healthy men 55 years of age or older, with a PSA value less than 3 ng/mL and a normal digital rectal exam (DRE); 9,459 of these men were randomized to the placebo arm and 9,423 to the finasteride arm In this report we summarize the operating characteristics of PSA only for the placebo arm of the PCPT; operating characteristics of PSA on the finasteride arm are more complicated to assess since finasteride approximately halves the PSA value and will be reported only briefly. In our first analysis, we focused on a group of 2,950 men on the placebo arm who had had an end-of-study biopsy and a normal DRE and PSA < 4 ng/mL for all 7 years of the study. For prostate cancer, the standard PSA cut-off of 4 ng/mL has low sensitivity: with this cut-off only 20.5% of the prostate cancer cases test positive-nearly 80% of prostate cancer cases are missed. The specificity at this cut-off is high (93.6%) meaning only 6.2% of men who do not have prostate cancer falsely test positive. Lowering the PSA threshold for screening increases detection of aggressive cancer at an earlier stage, but has the unavoidable tradeoff of increased detection of the biologically irrelevant cancers.

 

You have to believe that the health care regime for the President of the United States is the same as it is for the average American man. I don't

[Joe Ferguson forever]

17 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

You have to believe that the health care regime for the President of the United States is the same as it is for the average American man. I don't

Maybe.  Maybe not if the white house doc appropriately feels a psa in an 82yo  has more risks than benefits..  Either way, there's a decent chance it wasn't picked up by the test if it was done. again, sensitivity is low.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, 4th&amp;long said:

I think it is proper for anybody, President to handle their health how they choose and in private. That is why we have a second and third in line for the oval office right now. 

 

Your over 60 I'm guessing, I'm sure you know some old timers that don't go to the doctor because they don't want to know. My father was like that, never went to the doctor. He got taken out of work at 60 on a stretcher. Health was so bad he never worked again and died at 66. My uncle said it was an old Italian thing. If he didn't go to the doctor nothing was wrong with him. Not the way I am and I'm sure Biden is not that way but he might not wanted to have the test and I don't blame him. 

 

People should deal with their health how they want to. 

But pretending a fantasy is reality isn’t the answer here, and it never is.  This is the world of politics, where every advantage is exploited, and the people who play in that space move in and out of hypocritical behavior without a thought about it.  Biden the person has every right to maintaining his secrecy, Biden the former prez and face of the modern Dem party does not. 
 

The reason it’s a major issue is because it will be made a major issue.  Individually, no one cares your opinion or mine for that matter. 
 

However, as a political cudgel it holds great promise to sway voters whose minds are not made up next time around.  An effective political campaign uses the tools in the tool belt and lays out the danger of trusting the party with an increasingly  long laundry list of hiding/manipulating/defrauding/weaponizing the system.  Add to that the narrative of waste, fraud and abuse  that goes against the best interests of taxpayers, and the portrayal of dems partnering with gang members and it’s a winning formula.

 

In the end, it doesn’t really matter whether Biden knew or didn’t, the goal is to flush out the truth if possible, but hammer the credibility and link it to the Hur tapes. 
 

The Dems will have their own version, of course, so it really boils down to sentiment at the time the race plays out.  

[BillsFanNC]

Quack with the appeal to authority. Funny how that didn't work for him when experts from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford told us that the covid lockdowns were doing more harm than good.

 

In regard to PSA tests and the literature he's cited, Quack as usual has no idea what he's talking about in terms of sensitivity and specificity of biological immunoassays.