Tag: cancer

Doctors say it’s ‘inconceivable’ Biden’s cancer went undetected by his medical team — as Trump Jr. questions if diagnosis is ‘cover-up’

Several doctors have said it’s “inconceivable” that former President Joe Biden’s aggressive form of prostate cancer went undetected by his medical team — as first son Don Trump Jr. even questioned whether the health diagnosis was part of a “cover-up.”

The 82-year-old former president was diagnosed Friday after doctors found a “small nodule” on his prostate during a medical exam earlier this month — with the cancer cells having spread to the bone, his spokesman revealed Sunday.

His team said the cancer had been graded a Gleason score of 9, suggesting his form was among the most aggressive.

A handful of medical experts were quick to question how the former president could be diagnosed at such a late stage — especially given that prostate cancer can be detected early with routine bloodwork, which is recommended for men over the age of 50.

“It is inconceivable that this was not being followed before he left the Presidency,” Dr. Howard Formman said in a post on X.

“Gleason grade 9 would have had an elevated PSA level for some time before this diagnosis. And he must have had a PSA test numerous times before. This is odd,” he added. “I wish him well and hope he has an opportunity for maximizing his quality of life.”

Dr. Steven Quay flagged similar concerns, saying Biden’s type of cancer is the easiest to diagnose when it first starts and progresses.

Keep reading

COVER-UP: Urologist Says Joe Biden Likely Knew He Had Prostate Cancer Going Back 5-10 Years

Urologist Dr. Shusterman on Sunday evening said it is “unheard of” for someone with Joe Biden’s Cadillac healthcare to not know he had prostate cancer before it metastasized and spread to his body.

On Sunday, it was reported that 82-year-old Joe Biden was diagnosed with an “aggressive form” of prostate cancer.

According to Biden’s spox, the former president was diagnosed with prostate cancer last Friday with the cancer cells spreading to his bones.

“Last week, President Joe Biden was seen for a new finding of a prostate nodule after experiencing increasing urinary symptoms. On Friday, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone,” the statement said.

“While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management,” the statement said.

Medical professionals are sounding the alarm and saying there is no way Joe Biden was diagnosed with Gleason 9 and metastasis as his initial diagnosis.

Dr. Shusterman appeared on NewsNation on Sunday evening following Biden’s cancer announcement and he said the former president likely knew he had prostate cancer for the last 5-10 years.

Biden likely knew he had cancer while he was running for president in 2020 and lied about his health.

It appears White House physician Dr. O’Connor also repeatedly lied about Joe Biden’s health.

“It’s very unlikely that someone could get annual checkups and not notice,” Dr. Shusterman said.

“He is a former president, had intensive state of the art care.. It’s unusual to hear that someone has prostate cancer when they’re annually being followed up. The fact that we find it at a Gleason 9 is unheard of,” he said.

“Most likely had it for a long time.. Aggressive prostate cancer grows over a long period of time. Five to ten years.. in the most aggressive form,” the doctor said.

“Definitely evidence that he knew about this for a while,” he added.

Keep reading

Biden Slipped Up and Said That He Had Cancer While Telling a Story in 2022

Joe Biden slipped up and blurted out that he had cancer while telling a story back in 2022.

On May 18, it was revealed that Biden has an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has already metastasized to the bone.

While it was released as though the cancer had just been discovered, many are wondering how this could have suddenly appeared at stage nine.

Shortly after the announcement, a clip of him speaking in 2022 with a seeming admission of already being diagnosed with cancer went viral.

Biden was delivering a speech on climate change from the site of the former Brayton Point Power Station in Somerset, Massachusetts. The coal-fired power plant had been demolished and replaced with a renewable energy hub.

“That’s why I and so damn many other people I grew up with have cancer,” Biden says, after discussing oil slicks on his car windshield when he was younger.

As The Gateway Pundit also reported, the former president’s brother, Frank Biden, told CBS News that he wants Biden back to “enjoy whatever time we have left” in 2024 after he dropped out of the presidential race.

The timing of the diagnosis announcement, just days after the release of the Hur tapes, has raised questions about the political motivations behind the health disclosure. It has already raised questions about transparency regarding his health while he was in the White House and running for a second term.

Keep reading

FLASHBACK: Frank Biden Accidentally Blurted Out Joe Biden Was Terminally Ill in July 2024

On Sunday, it was reported that 82-year-old Joe Biden was diagnosed with an “aggressive form” of prostate cancer.

According to Biden’s spox, the former president was diagnosed with prostate cancer last Friday with the cancer cells spreading to his bones.

But how long has Joe Biden actually been terminally ill?

Recall that Joe Biden’s brother, Frank Biden, raised eyebrows after he told CBS News that Biden’s declining health played a considerable role in his decision to drop out of the presidential race.

Joe Biden officially dropped out of the 2024 presidential race on July 21, 2024.

Biden made the announcement on X like a coward. He has been hiding out at his Rehoboth Beach house for four days.

Joe Biden didn’t say why he was dropping out of the race.

*We know Obama was behind the coup.*

There was a ‘funeral-like’ feeling to Frank Biden’s statement to CBS News.

He suggested Joe Biden was terminally ill.

Frank Biden told CBS News that he wants Biden back to “enjoy whatever time we have left.”

“I’m incredibly proud of my brother. Selfishly I will have him back to enjoy whatever time we have left,” Frank Biden told CBS News.

Frank Biden was smeared as an “alcoholic” after he suggested Joe Biden was terminal.

Keep reading

Georgia Governor Signs Bill Granting Immunity for Harms Caused by Pesticides and Fertilizers

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed SB144 into law, which has also been referred to as an immunity bill for agrochemical businesses that sell pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The bill states, “a manufacturer cannot be held liable for failing to warn consumers of health risks above those required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.” The Georgia legislature passed the bill and was awaiting Kemp’s signature, which he finalized on Monday.

Georgia became the second state in the nation to provide manufacturer immunity for harm caused by pesticides after North Dakota signed a similar bill into law last month. Bayer has been handling tens of thousands of lawsuits related to cancer allegedly caused by Roundup, a product that Bayer owns after the agrochemical corporation purchased Monsanto in 2018. In April, The HighWire reported about Bayer’s recent court loss in which the company is required to pay over $2 billion for causing a man’s non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but the high payout amount is expected to be appealed. This case was conducted in a Georgia courtroom.

The EPA is still awaiting a court decision regarding its most recent evaluation of glyphosate’s effect on human health. The EPA currently states, “No risks of concern to human health from current uses of glyphosate.” The EPA website also states, “No evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.”

Meanwhile, the passage of SB144 in Georgia means a farmer cannot sue Bayer for harms allegedly caused by Roundup because the product contains the label required by the EPA. The label states, “Keep Out of Reach of Children CAUTION See [back/ side] [panel/ booklet/ label] for [additional] first aid and precautionary statements. Alternative Text: [See container label for [complete] use directions, first aid and precautionary statements.]”

Bayer issued a statement applauding the Governor for signing the legislation. The statement said, “The signing of SB 144 by Governor Kemp demonstrates that Georgia stands with its farmers, who work tirelessly to produce safe and affordable food for communities throughout the state. We thank Governor Kemp and the legislators, farmers and ag groups that supported this important piece of legislation.”

Keep reading

CT Scans May Account for 5 Percent of US Cancers—Doctors Say the Story Is More Complex

CT scans are essential to modern medicine, quickly diagnosing conditions from strokes to cancer. However, new research suggests that the very tool used to save lives could, in some cases, contribute to future cancer cases.

A University of California–San Francisco study estimates that CT scans performed in 2023 could lead to more than 100,000 future cancer cases—about 5 percent of annual U.S. diagnoses. That level of risk is comparable with other known factors such as alcohol and obesity.

Published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the study concludes that while CT scans remain essential, they should be used more cautiously, especially for children and patients who undergo repeated imaging.

“CT can save lives, but its potential harms are often overlooked,” Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, lead author of the study and UC–San Francisco radiologist, said in a statement. “Reducing the number of scans and reducing doses per scan would save lives.”

Some experts worry that the message lacks balance and may scare patients from necessary care by emphasizing long-term cancer risks without proper context.

“It is frightening to see these numbers,” Dr. Donald Frush, pediatric radiologist at Duke University, told The Epoch Times. “But without putting them in the context of how valuable CT can be, we risk eroding public trust in a tool that saves lives every day.”

Keep reading

Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review

More than ten years ago, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a monograph concluding there was limited evidence in experimental animals for carcinogenicity of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Field (RF EMF).

Objective

The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate the effects of RF EMF exposure on cancer in experimental animals.

Methods

Eligibility criteria: Based on pre-established Populations, Exposures, Comparators, Outcomes, and Study Type (PECOS) criteria, studies in experimental animals of the following study types were included: chronic cancer bioassays, initiation-(co–)promotion studies, and studies with tumor-prone animals.

Information sources: MEDLINE (PubMed), Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science), and the EMF Portal.

Data abstraction and synthesis: Data are publicly available online as interactive visuals with downloadable metadata. We adapted the risk-of-bias (RoB) tool developed by Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) to include considerations pertinent to the evaluation of RF EMF exposure and cancer bioassays. Study sensitivity was assessed with a tool adopted from the Report on Carcinogens (RoC). We synthesized studies using a narrative approach. Effect size was calculated as the 1% Bayesian Average benchmark dose (BMD) of a respective study when dose–response or a trend was identified (see BMDAnalysisSupplementaryMaterial) (Supplement 1).

Evidence Assessment: Certainty of the evidence (CoE) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Developing and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, as refined by OHAT. Evidence from chronic cancer bioassays was considered the most directly applicable to evaluation of carcinogenicity.

Results

We included 52 studies with 20 chronic bioassays No studies were excluded based on risk of bias concerns. Studies were not considered suitable for meta-analysis due to heterogeneity in study design, species, strain, sex, exposure characteristics, and cancer outcome. No or minimal evidence of RF EMF exposure-related cancer outcomes was found in most systems or organs in any study (these included gastrointestinal/digestive, kidney, mammary gland, urinary, endocrine, musculoskeletal, reproductive, and auditory).

For lymphoma (18 studies), with 6 chronic bioassays (1,120 mice, 1,780 rats) inconsistency between two chronic bioassays was not plausibly explainable, and the CoE for lymphoma was rated ‘moderate’.

For brain tumors (20 studies), including 5 chronic bioassays (1,902 mice, 6,011 rats), an increase in glial cell-derived neoplasms was reported in two chronic bioassays in male rats. The CoE for an increased risk in glioma was judged as high. The BMD analysis was statistically significant for only one study and the BMD was 4.25 (95% CI 2.70, 10.24).

For neoplasms of the heart (4 chronic bioassays with 6 experiments), 3 studies were performed in rats (∼2,165 animals), and 1 in mice (∼720 animals). Based on 2 bioassays, statistically significant increases in malignant schwannomas was judged as high CoE for an increase in heart schwannomas in male rats. The BMDs from the two positive studies were 1.92 (95 %CI 0.71, 4.15) and 0.177 (95 %CI 0.125, 0.241), respectively.

Twelve studies reported neoplasms in the adrenal gland (5 chronic bioassays). The CoE for an increased risk in pheochromocytoma was judged as moderate. None of these findings were dose-dependent when compared to the sham controls.

Sixteen studies investigated tumors of the liver with 5 of these being chronic bioassays. The CoE was evaluated as moderate for hepatoblastomas.

For neoplasms of the lung (3 chronic bioassays), 8 studies were conducted in rats (∼1,296 animals) and 23 studies in mice (∼2,800 animals). In one chronic bioassay, a statistically significant positive trend was reported for bronchoalveolar adenoma or carcinoma (combined), which was rated as moderate CoE for an increase in lung neoplasms with some evidence from 2 initiation-(co–)promotion studies.

Keep reading

HHS to reexamine massive $89 billion contract awarded to California nonprofit: Report

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is reportedly reconsidering a massive contract the National Cancer Institute awarded to a California nonprofit in January to operate a cancer research lab in Maryland.

The $89 billion award was given to the Alliance for Advancing Biomedical Research on January 17, just three days before former President Joe Biden left office. The nonprofit is also considered untested because it has not received or spent a penny since its inception in 2022, the Washington Free Beacon reported on Wednesday.

The HHS notified the Government Accountability Office earlier this month that it is reevaluating all the original bids for the contract, which means it could give the money to another company.

The organization is also tied to the University of California system, which Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has accused of using 40% of its federal funding for administrative purposes, and criticized for allegedly being vulnerable to China.

“It’s outrageous Biden’s NIH shoved a nearly $90 billion contract out the door just days before President Trump returned to office,” Grassley told the Free Beacon. “Even worse, the money would have flowed to an organization that can’t clearly protect itself from adversaries like China. 

Keep reading

Medical cannabis shows potential to fight cancer, largest-ever study finds

The largest ever study investigating medical cannabis as a treatment for cancer, published this week in Frontiers in Oncology, found overwhelming scientific support for cannabis’s potential to treat cancer symptoms and potentially fight the course of the disease itself.

The intention of the analysis was to solidify agreement on cannabis’s potential as a cancer treatment, said Ryan Castle, research director at the Whole Health Oncology Institute and lead author of the study. Castle noted that it has been historically difficult to do so because marijuana is still federally considered an illegal Schedule I narcotic.

“Our goal was to determine the scientific consensus on the topic of medical cannabis, a field that has long been dominated by a war between cherrypicked studies,” Castle said.

The study was funded by Cancer Playbook, which works with the Whole House Oncology Institute to collect, analyze and share data on patient-reported outcomes.

While research restrictions on Schedule I substances severely hamper clinical research on cannabis in humans, there is a large body of observational studies on medical cannabis and cancer – as well as lab research – that looks at cannabis’s effect on tumors in test tubes and in animals. The analysis included as many of those studies as possible.

“In order to move beyond bias – conscious or not – it was essential to use a large-scale, radically inclusive methodology based on mathematical reasoning,” Castle said, adding: “We wanted to analyze not just a handful, but nearly every major medical cannabis study to find the actual points of scientific agreement.”

Castle’s study looked at more than 10,000 studies on cannabis and cancer, which he said is “10 times the sample size of the next largest study, which we believe helps make it a more conclusive review of the scientific consensus”.

To analyze the massive quantity of studies, Castle and his team used AI – specifically, the natural language processing technique known as “sentiment analysis”. This technique allowed the researchers to see how many studies had positive, neutral or negative views on cannabis’s ability to treat cancer and its symptoms by, for example, increasing appetite, decreasing inflammation or accelerating “apoptosis”, or the death of cancer cells.

Keep reading

Largest-Ever Analysis Of Medical Marijuana To Treat Cancer Symptoms Shows ‘Overwhelming Scientific Consensus’ On Benefits

Researchers this week published what they described as the “largest meta-analysis ever conducted on medical cannabis and its effects on cancer-related symptoms”, finding “overwhelming scientific consensus” on marijuana’s therapeutic effects.

The study, published in the journal Frontiers in Oncology, analyzed data from 10,641 peer-reviewed studies—what authors say is more than ten times the number in the next-largest review on the topic. Results “indicate a strong and growing consensus within the scientific community regarding the therapeutic benefits of cannabis,” it says, “particularly in the context of cancer.”

Given what the report calls a “scattered and heterogenous” state of research into the therapeutic potential of marijuana, authors aimed to “systematically assess the existing literature on medical cannabis, focusing on its therapeutic potential, safety profiles, and role in cancer treatment.”

“We expected controversy. What we found was overwhelming scientific consensus,” lead author Ryan Castle, head of research at Whole Health Oncology Institute, said in a statement. “This is one of the clearest, most dramatic validations of medical cannabis in cancer care that the scientific community has ever seen.”

The meta-analysis “showed that for every one study that showed cannabis was ineffective, there were three that showed it worked,” the Whole Health Oncology Institute said in press release. “That 3:1 ratio—especially in a field as rigorous as biomedical research—isn’t just unusual, it’s extraordinary.”

The institute added that the “level of consensus found here rivals or exceeds that for many [Food and Drug Administration]-approved medications.”

“The strong consensus supporting the therapeutic use of cannabis, particularly in the context of cancer, suggests that there is a substantial scientific basis for re-evaluating cannabis’ legal status and its classification as a Schedule I substance,” researchers said in the paper.

Keep reading