.jpeg)
Upon hearing the news that former President Joe Biden has an aggressive form of prostate cancer that was incurable as it had spread to his bones, my first thought was "Hmmm. I thought most forms of prostate cancer were slow growing and/or responded well to treatment?" Lo and behold, I open my social media page and see this. It's an opinion from a urologist claiming there's no way he didn't know he was sick long before now. To quote:
“This is what I typically would see in a VA hospital, where a patient hasn’t had medical attention in 10 years, presents to an emergency room with bone pain, and then they find that it’s metastatic prostate cancer,” Shusterman told “NewsNation Prime” on Sunday.
As you know, our politicians receive top-of-the-line healthcare so there's no way he was only diagnosed on May 18th, 2025. So who's orchestrating this coverup? Who knew before now in addition to Biden himself?
Red Blankets, "Pavilion Patients" & Inequality in Healthcare
RBG's cancer history reads like a grocery list for the Grim Reaper. ☠
Red Blankets, "Pavilion Patients" & Inequality in Healthcare
RBG's cancer history reads like a grocery list for the Grim Reaper. ☠
As I've often lamented, politicians in the House, Senate and Executive branch receive taxpayer-funded healthcare--the same socialized medicine they deny US--at the best hospitals including Walter Reed. This same healthcare allowed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to survive a miraculous NINE YEARS after a pancreatic cancer diagnosis, to say nothing of her bowel or lung cancer and other health problems. For reference, the average survival time after diagnosis with exocrine pancreatic cancer is 6-12 months. This deadliest of cancers has an abysmal 5-year survival rate of around 5%. That's because it's rarely diagnosed early enough to cure. Except in RBG's case. Hers was discovered in 2009 during "a routine checkup" before it even caused any symptoms. Are internal imaging tests part of YOUR "routine checkups"? Or maybe the imaging tests were to check up on her other two forms of generally deadly cancer (lung, bowel).
Why should one woman's (predictable) death throw the entire U.S. political system into a tailspin?
Why should one woman's (predictable) death throw the entire U.S. political system into a tailspin?
Indeed, RBG's history of surviving deadly cancers and living to the ripe old age of 87 defies not only the medical odds, it beggars belief. What oh WHAT could've enabled her to beat the odds and continue her high-profile, demanding career in the Supreme Court until damn near the day she died? Could it be her TAXPAYER-FUNDED SOCIALIZED MEDICINE? More worryingly, are doctors trying harder and paying closer attention to the health of politicians & the rich due to the nature of their jobs & their potential donor status? Could it be that their lives are valued much higher than ours even in medical institutions where everyone's supposed to be on equal footing?
Yes, and here's proof: The so-called "red blanket patients" at certain hospitals who receive VIP service and special care. That's according to a doctor who worked at one & treated several of these high-status patients himself. "Patient Relations gave them (red blankets) to some CEOs, celebrities & trustees' friends... the blanket spoke for itself: "This patient is important". Most of us were completely unaware that such "luxury" options existed at places that consider Jell-O a delicacy. Gee, IDK about you but when I hear that someone is "important," that automatically implies that they're MORE important than someone else and maybe the ONLY important person in the equation. Otherwise there would be no need for relative indicators of importance. Like color-coded blankets.
According to the article linked in the last paragraph, 10 of the country's 15 most prestigious hospitals offer special luxury options to red blanket or "pavilion patients" as they're often called. Among the VIP services on offer to them are private hotel-like rooms on the top floor, fluffy bath robes, gourmet food and other amenities. Because doctors and nurses are responsible for caring for multiple patients at once, logic dictates that certain LESS POWERFUL patients--particularly women, racial minorities or indigent and disabled folks--will receive the shit end of the stick. It's a sort of 'triage by income' or donor status system, and it's fucking repugnant. From longer wait times in ERs to recovery rooms without a view, which have been linked to slower healing times with certain types of surgery & other negative outcomes, it's safe to assume that non-elite patients are getting the shaft. This goes beyond mere convenience or comfort issues because, as you know, hospitals are places where lives depend on timely, quality service.
But back to Biden's cancer.
What Doctors Had To Say About Biden's Cancer
What Doctors Had To Say About Biden's Cancer
All the outlets repeating the lie.
Dr. David Shusterman states: “The fact that we just find it at a Gleason nine is just pretty much unheard of in this day and age of medicine. This is what I typically would see in a VA hospital, where a patient hasn’t had medical attention in 10 years, presents to an emergency room with bone pain, and then they find that it’s metastatic prostate cancer.”
Hear that? A VA hospital patient that hasn't had healthcare in 10 years! The former president didn't "slip through the cracks" with his top-of-the-line healthcare. He HAD to have known prior to the date the media claims he found out (May 18th). Yet the BBC, People Magazine, NBC News, The New York Times and other major media outlets are repeating the claim dutifully without question, simply taking his "team's" press release at face value. Here's what other doctors had to say:
Hear that? A VA hospital patient that hasn't had healthcare in 10 years! The former president didn't "slip through the cracks" with his top-of-the-line healthcare. He HAD to have known prior to the date the media claims he found out (May 18th). Yet the BBC, People Magazine, NBC News, The New York Times and other major media outlets are repeating the claim dutifully without question, simply taking his "team's" press release at face value. Here's what other doctors had to say:
“The PSA blood test shows the rate of cancer cell growth. For even with the most aggressive form, it is a 5-7 year journey without treatment before it becomes metastatic,” he [Dr. Steven Quay] said. “Meaning, it would be malpractice for this patient to show up and be first diagnosed with metastatic disease in May 2025,” he continued.
Dr. Howard Formman stated: “It is inconceivable that this was not being followed before he left the Presidency.”
Emphasis mine. There you have it, from the mouths of actual medical doctors. All you "follow the science/trust the experts" people need to do just that in this case.
Emphasis mine. There you have it, from the mouths of actual medical doctors. All you "follow the science/trust the experts" people need to do just that in this case.
Our Geriatric Electorate
The issue of geriatric lawmakers and politicians is a serious one that often signals the downfall of nations (see: Soviet Union at the time of their collapse). It's called gerontocracy and we're currently plagued with it, with 2025's crop of not-so-fresh-faced representatives being the third oldest in the nation's history. (The only years that surpassed it being 2017 and 2021--both within the last decade). Some of the most "famous" (gag) politicians are over 80: Mitch McConnell (83), Bernie Sanders (82), Nancy Pelosi (83), Diane Feinstein (90) and Chuck Grassley, clocking in at a youthful 91. Meanwhile, Trump is the oldest president ever at time of inauguration: 78.
The issue of geriatric lawmakers and politicians is a serious one that often signals the downfall of nations (see: Soviet Union at the time of their collapse). It's called gerontocracy and we're currently plagued with it, with 2025's crop of not-so-fresh-faced representatives being the third oldest in the nation's history. (The only years that surpassed it being 2017 and 2021--both within the last decade). Some of the most "famous" (gag) politicians are over 80: Mitch McConnell (83), Bernie Sanders (82), Nancy Pelosi (83), Diane Feinstein (90) and Chuck Grassley, clocking in at a youthful 91. Meanwhile, Trump is the oldest president ever at time of inauguration: 78.
What the actual fuck is going on here?
Why do we allow career politicians who have a vested interest in NOT solving problems lest they lose their jobs run our lives and receive prime benefits for the privilege? Doddering old dinosaurs at that, often with withering neurons and reduced cognitive capacity? Furthermore, why is Biden's cancer considered "aggressive" when it responds to hormone therapy? Is it really that the cancer is an aggressive type, or did he just fail to treat it for 5-10 years? Did he choose to forego treatment because he was in office and receiving chemo or radiation--which cause tell-tale physical signs--would've led people to demand that he step down? Was he pressured by others in his circle to ignore the cancer to save face? The issue of elder abuse arises if so...
By all means, it's up to the individual whether and how they choose to deal with their cancer, but when we're talking about the leader of the free world, it'd be nice for the public to get a heads-up since he, you know, controls our lives. It's beyond time to start making 3rd party administered cognitive tests and basic routine health screenings part of the deal for all incoming presidents. ESPECIALLY if they're over 55. And the results must be made public immediately, not covered up. We have a right to know this stuff, just as we have a right to know anything else about a politician's past or present. These are public figures with immense power, not private citizens who have the right to keep their health issues quiet. It's one of the things they forego when they take over the most powerful offices in the land. And it's incredibly relevant to their ability to lead.
And as long as drug tests are going to be on the table for the rest of us, politicians should have to take them too. As if it's not enough of a perk to get the free VIP healthcare, fat salary & all the rest, they also get a free pass on all things health. Clearly it's time that stops. Requiring our House, Senate & President to be drug-free and in good health is a low bar & should be the bare minimum to run for office, let alone claim the title. But will this happen? No. Of course it won't. Pundits will debate whether these old codgers should submit to these tests, as they've done for ages, yet it'll never become law. Because nobody will demand it of "their guy" like they already don't. We've accepted at least 2 presidents with credible rape accusations to hold the office, and a felon with 34 fucking charges currently holds it.
This is where "lesser evilism" gets us. When your reasons for supporting a candidate include "Well at least he's not as bad as THEIR guy!" you end up at the bottom of the barrel with the quickness. Just like every other major political scandal from JFK's assassination to the Epstein list, our leaders' health status will remain sealed to the public because fuck us, that's why. As long as we don't demand and require things like this of our leaders, they won't be granted to us. Why would they? Just "vote blue" a little harder, that's sure to work... 😒
If we'd had a robust and healthy Democratic candidate who could make it through the presidential debate without throwing it so badly he was replaced with a whole different candidate, maybe Trump wouldn't be in office now. There's no way to know that, but it's crystal clear that continuing down this path of requiring nothing from our leaders is leading nowhere good. They should at least be held to the same standards as the rest of us regarding job fitness, drug testing & other considerations, if not higher standards. Because they make decisions that affect us all, sometimes for generations (looking at you, RBG).
I wish Biden the best with his cancer battle, but he would've had a much better chance of beating the disease had he treated it when it was first diagnosed, which was definitely NOT May 18th, 2025. Somebody knows when the real diagnosis date is, but they're not talking. Because we're not making them talk. And that hurts all of us.
Why do we allow career politicians who have a vested interest in NOT solving problems lest they lose their jobs run our lives and receive prime benefits for the privilege? Doddering old dinosaurs at that, often with withering neurons and reduced cognitive capacity? Furthermore, why is Biden's cancer considered "aggressive" when it responds to hormone therapy? Is it really that the cancer is an aggressive type, or did he just fail to treat it for 5-10 years? Did he choose to forego treatment because he was in office and receiving chemo or radiation--which cause tell-tale physical signs--would've led people to demand that he step down? Was he pressured by others in his circle to ignore the cancer to save face? The issue of elder abuse arises if so...
By all means, it's up to the individual whether and how they choose to deal with their cancer, but when we're talking about the leader of the free world, it'd be nice for the public to get a heads-up since he, you know, controls our lives. It's beyond time to start making 3rd party administered cognitive tests and basic routine health screenings part of the deal for all incoming presidents. ESPECIALLY if they're over 55. And the results must be made public immediately, not covered up. We have a right to know this stuff, just as we have a right to know anything else about a politician's past or present. These are public figures with immense power, not private citizens who have the right to keep their health issues quiet. It's one of the things they forego when they take over the most powerful offices in the land. And it's incredibly relevant to their ability to lead.
And as long as drug tests are going to be on the table for the rest of us, politicians should have to take them too. As if it's not enough of a perk to get the free VIP healthcare, fat salary & all the rest, they also get a free pass on all things health. Clearly it's time that stops. Requiring our House, Senate & President to be drug-free and in good health is a low bar & should be the bare minimum to run for office, let alone claim the title. But will this happen? No. Of course it won't. Pundits will debate whether these old codgers should submit to these tests, as they've done for ages, yet it'll never become law. Because nobody will demand it of "their guy" like they already don't. We've accepted at least 2 presidents with credible rape accusations to hold the office, and a felon with 34 fucking charges currently holds it.
This is where "lesser evilism" gets us. When your reasons for supporting a candidate include "Well at least he's not as bad as THEIR guy!" you end up at the bottom of the barrel with the quickness. Just like every other major political scandal from JFK's assassination to the Epstein list, our leaders' health status will remain sealed to the public because fuck us, that's why. As long as we don't demand and require things like this of our leaders, they won't be granted to us. Why would they? Just "vote blue" a little harder, that's sure to work... 😒
If we'd had a robust and healthy Democratic candidate who could make it through the presidential debate without throwing it so badly he was replaced with a whole different candidate, maybe Trump wouldn't be in office now. There's no way to know that, but it's crystal clear that continuing down this path of requiring nothing from our leaders is leading nowhere good. They should at least be held to the same standards as the rest of us regarding job fitness, drug testing & other considerations, if not higher standards. Because they make decisions that affect us all, sometimes for generations (looking at you, RBG).
I wish Biden the best with his cancer battle, but he would've had a much better chance of beating the disease had he treated it when it was first diagnosed, which was definitely NOT May 18th, 2025. Somebody knows when the real diagnosis date is, but they're not talking. Because we're not making them talk. And that hurts all of us.
Hey readers! 📚 🤓 If you enjoy this blog, consider donating anonymously via one of the Bitcoin accounts below. Google Adsense is not an option due to the content of this blog (boo!) & I don't want to have to go the paywall route via Patreon or something, so this is my only reasonable option. Anything helps, no amount too small. Thanks! 🙏🏼
BITCOIN:
18cwb3qFkGghVqqzNSX59EFypzzF8Dd7Vg
BITCOIN CASH:
qz84t4ua2achx90a7yk8efelvufggflhu5tzalry7l
18cwb3qFkGghVqqzNSX59EFypzzF8Dd7Vg
BITCOIN CASH:
qz84t4ua2achx90a7yk8efelvufggflhu5tzalry7l
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment