Just wanted to underscore this. When my PSA spiked 16+ years ago (age 61), my PCP had me take two courses of antibiotics in order to rule out an infection. It wasn’t until the PSA continued to rise that he referred me to a urologist, who ordered an MRI and then performed a biopsy (one of the more fun experiences of my life) which confirmed the cancer. At the time my options were chemo, radiation and surgery; I chose the last.
I forget my Gleason score, but post-op pathology indicated that I would not have been in the “with but not of” majority: first outward symptom would have been intense and intractable back pain when the cancer metastasized to my spine, and downhill from there.
It must have been memorable, if you have underscored the experience in the same paragraph with prostate surgery. My strongest memory of mine is the feeling of an apparently infinitely long needle sliding into my prostate two or maybe three times to deliver the local anesthetic, so that the process of taking 24 samples would not hurt. The most intimate pain I think I have ever experienced. The doctor was not sympathetic.
I’m glad to see you have recovered and survived all those experiences.
Many people (including people on this board) strongly believe that Biden has been in cognitive decline for years, based on their layman observations of video of Biden, and in particular, his performance in the debate against Trump last summer. They point to that as “proof” (when what it is, is “possible evidence”), and blithely throw around statements like “he has Alzheimer’s” and “he has dementia” as though they were statements of fact.
At best, all of the above is speculation; it may be accurate, but it may not be, too. No, there is no publicly-known “proof,” no “definitive” public statement from Biden, his family, or his doctors stating this.
I haven’t read Original Sin, the Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson book on Biden’s alleged cognitive decline, but I did read a “review” of it in the NYT which wasn’t really a review at all but just a good synopsis. I thought the book was a pretty sleazy way to make a few bucks. I don’t know who the hell Thompson is but Tapper, who has never been high in my estimation, has fallen even lower.
“Cognitive decline” is a medical term. There’s no evidence for it. What there is evidence for is that Biden is old. This is not the same as judgments about Trump, where “fucking moron” is not a medical term, and “petty and dangerously vindictive would-be tyrant” are simply objective observations.
I think it’s factual at this point that there were examples of cognitive decline that happened before the debate that were not made public. How one characterizes those incidents is a subjective matter. But it’s enough to say that they had information about Biden’s health that was of material interest to the public that they nevertheless kept private.
Although not a cancer - JFK was diagnosed with Addison’s disease many years before being elected President in 1960. It was kept secret and/or denied by the family. It’s not clear if he could have made it through to 1964 - not to mention a second term.
Speaking as an old person, i think all old people experience some degree of cognitive decline. And most also have more wisdom than they did when they were younger and smarter. There’s no question in my mind that Biden exhibited some degree of cognitive decline. The questions are whether it was so severe that it interfered materially with his functioning as president, despite his massive accumulation of wisdom. And whether it would become problematic during an additional term in office.
I think none of us here know the answer to the first, and the second is now moot. In part because the cancer would have been a problem were he still the president.
There’s no such thing as this Platonic ideal of “factual” that you’re asking for, especially for events of this nature. There are only degrees of confidence. But I made a fairly weak claim (that some examples of cognitive decline were known before the debate), and even accounting for some bias or misinterpretation, at this point it rises to the level of “things that are almost certainly true” IMO.
Sure, there is. The person in question, or his family, could come out and say, “yes, I have been dealing with dementia” (or whatever).
What we have now is a hypothesis, with a fair amount of evidence which supports it. It is still not factual.
What you said was:
IMO, that’s a bit more than “a fairly weak claim,” and comes across, at least to me, as though not just that you believe that not Biden was in cognitive decline, and that there was a large, orchestrated cover-up, but that these are facts.
As I also said, how one characterizes those incidents is subjective. Coverup? Conspiracy? Or just political staffers doing what they normally do and putting their guy in the best light?
That’s up to you, and immaterial to my point. Information was not make public about Biden’s cognitive health. And so I don’t consider it unreasonable in and of itself that other health information would not have been made public.
I saw on multiple news sites that his last PSA test was in 2014. If that’s true, wouldn’t that be irresponsible of his medical team? I’m not near his age, but I certainly have mine checked more than once a decade.
As noted by several people upthread, the general consensus on PSA testing among medical experts is that it’s not recommended for patients ages 70+. That would actually line up reasonably well with Biden’s age (72ish) the last time he had the test performed.
Would it, though? Depending on the type of cancer. The fast-moving kind they’re talking about, yes, I’d agree there.
As far as cognitive decline, yeah, I’ll back that idea. It’s the rare person who doesn’t lose a step or two as they age, and in a high-stress job like President that would happen even faster. I don’t buy the conspiracy, though, or the asinine idea that the cancer news has been dropped to head off the book announcement.
Ordinarily I’d agree with this, but Biden was the President and the PSA test is simple blood work. I’d think the White House doctors would at least run the test, and let Biden decide whether to follow up with the more invasive biopsy.
Of course, saying this creates a lot more questions.