6 ms·

Except of course this other dig at Biden elsewhere in the article: > “I have the same cancer that Joe Biden has. I also have prostate cancer that has also spre

Except of course this other dig at Biden elsewhere in the article: > “I have the same cancer that Joe Biden has. I also have prostate cancer that has also spread to my bones, but I’ve had it longer than he’s had it – well, longer than he’s admitted having it,” Adams said. The use of the word "admitted" implies that Biden is either lying about how far it has progressed, or that he has known about it longer than he has admitted.

ars 1y ago
> or that he has known about it longer than he has admitted. Which is probably true. And it's fine, he has no obligation to disclose this until he wants to. In contrast his dementia though ....... that's something he should have disclosed earlier. Edit: "Several doctors told Reuters that cancers like this are typically diagnosed before they reach such an advanced stage." from https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bidens-cancer-diagnosis-prompts-new-questions-about-his-health-while-office-2025-05-19/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bidens-cancer-diagnosis-pro...
Invictus0 1y ago
There is a NYT article up right now pondering the same question: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/us/politics/biden-cancer-democrats-2024-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/us/politics/biden-cancer-...
yakshaving_jgt 1y ago
That’s not a dig at Biden. It’s just [almost certainly] true.
conductr 1y ago
I’m no doctor but I know PSA test would have identified its existence long before this stated progression. It’s a blood test that would be routine for any male his age, he’s probably had them at least annually for decades of his life at this point The implied timelines don’t match.
- 7402 1y ago
  Not routine at age 82: "most organizations recommend stopping the screening around age 70" https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/psa-test/in-depth/prostate-cancer/art-20048087 https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/psa-test/in-dept...
  - fwip 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      The guideline to stop screening at 70 has nothing to do with financial cost. It’s that detecting it at that point is useless because you’ll generally be dead of other causes by the time it catches you. Compounding the issue, the rate of false positives rises as you get older which then 1) freaks people out and 2) encourages them to get more invasive tests done which are themselves increasingly hazardous (and less valuable) with each passing day. There are a lot of good reasons not to speculate about others' health decisions on the Internet, and avoiding a spotlight on your own basic ignorance is one of 'em!
      - fwip 1y ago
        Yes, because most men won't live to be 82, so on average it's not worth it. But presidents are not "most men." They're also attended by personal physicians who can keep them from freaking out when informed accurately of their health. I would appreciate less condescension about my supposed ignorance, but I guess that's unrealistic.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        Doctors don't adjust how long they're trying to keep you alive based on your job title. Doctors also don't believe that rich people are somehow immune to the psychological trauma of "you might have cancer → nvm all good → you might have cancer → nvm all good → you might have cancer → nvm all good."
nilram 1y ago
"admitting" could also be in the sense of "disclosing". I wouldn't expect anyone, even an elected leader, to immediately disclose a health issue that requires some amount of understanding and decision-making. There's a segment of the population that thinks he knew while he was running for president but didn't disclose or "admit" the issue to the public. Given that this is an aggressively metastatic cancer, and Biden's campaign ended nearly 10 months ago, I think that's implausible to the point of being ludicrous.
potato3732842 1y ago
>The use of the word "admitted" implies that Biden is either lying about how far it has progressed, or that he has known about it longer than he has admitted. Adams doesn't need to imply it when medical SOP implies it. I understand why Biden would not want to share that info and think that he made the right call for the situation he was in at the time (even before you consider domestic politics it's generally unwise for heads of state to talk about medical problems unless they're imminently stepping down because of them) but every man in this country over 40 knows that this cancer is screened for and someone getting "head of state" level care doesn't just get surprised by this kind of cancer at this stage unless many people were negligent.

ars 1y ago

> or that he has known about it longer than he has admitted. Which is probably true. And it's fine, he has no obligation to disclose this until he wants to. In contrast his dementia though ....... that's something he should have disclosed earlier. Edit: "Several doctors told Reuters that cancers like this are typically diagnosed before they reach such an advanced stage." from https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bidens-cancer-diagnosis-prompts-new-questions-about-his-health-while-office-2025-05-19/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/bidens-cancer-diagnosis-pro...

Invictus0 1y ago

There is a NYT article up right now pondering the same question: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/us/politics/biden-cancer-democrats-2024-election.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/us/politics/biden-cancer-...

yakshaving_jgt 1y ago

That’s not a dig at Biden. It’s just [almost certainly] true.

conductr 1y ago

I’m no doctor but I know PSA test would have identified its existence long before this stated progression. It’s a blood test that would be routine for any male his age, he’s probably had them at least annually for decades of his life at this point The implied timelines don’t match.

7402 1y ago
Not routine at age 82: "most organizations recommend stopping the screening around age 70" https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/psa-test/in-depth/prostate-cancer/art-20048087 https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/psa-test/in-dept...
- fwip 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    The guideline to stop screening at 70 has nothing to do with financial cost. It’s that detecting it at that point is useless because you’ll generally be dead of other causes by the time it catches you. Compounding the issue, the rate of false positives rises as you get older which then 1) freaks people out and 2) encourages them to get more invasive tests done which are themselves increasingly hazardous (and less valuable) with each passing day. There are a lot of good reasons not to speculate about others' health decisions on the Internet, and avoiding a spotlight on your own basic ignorance is one of 'em!
    - fwip 1y ago
      Yes, because most men won't live to be 82, so on average it's not worth it. But presidents are not "most men." They're also attended by personal physicians who can keep them from freaking out when informed accurately of their health. I would appreciate less condescension about my supposed ignorance, but I guess that's unrealistic.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        Doctors don't adjust how long they're trying to keep you alive based on your job title. Doctors also don't believe that rich people are somehow immune to the psychological trauma of "you might have cancer → nvm all good → you might have cancer → nvm all good → you might have cancer → nvm all good."

nilram 1y ago

"admitting" could also be in the sense of "disclosing". I wouldn't expect anyone, even an elected leader, to immediately disclose a health issue that requires some amount of understanding and decision-making. There's a segment of the population that thinks he knew while he was running for president but didn't disclose or "admit" the issue to the public. Given that this is an aggressively metastatic cancer, and Biden's campaign ended nearly 10 months ago, I think that's implausible to the point of being ludicrous.

potato3732842 1y ago

>The use of the word "admitted" implies that Biden is either lying about how far it has progressed, or that he has known about it longer than he has admitted. Adams doesn't need to imply it when medical SOP implies it. I understand why Biden would not want to share that info and think that he made the right call for the situation he was in at the time (even before you consider domestic politics it's generally unwise for heads of state to talk about medical problems unless they're imminently stepping down because of them) but every man in this country over 40 knows that this cancer is screened for and someone getting "head of state" level care doesn't just get surprised by this kind of cancer at this stage unless many people were negligent.