Biden diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer

plowboy
Posts
14473
Joined
1/3/2010
Location
Norwich, KS, USA
5/20/2025 3:48pm
It wasn’t long ago political differences didn’t define us, we didn’t hate the other side, we accepted election results, and everything wasn’t a grand conspiracy. Obama...

It wasn’t long ago political differences didn’t define us, we didn’t hate the other side, we accepted election results, and everything wasn’t a grand conspiracy. Obama and Romney respected each other. So did Obama and McCain. Etc. Etc. We are in a different world now. Not going to come back from it for a long time. 

Here's hoping WE can...I have my doubts about the political parties.

4
LOOnatic
Posts
731
Joined
5/20/2019
Location
New Orleans, LA, USA
5/20/2025 3:56pm

Jesus Christ you people are so far gone down the conspiracy rabbit holes it’s insane. We are cooked. 

Good Lordy Engine ICE Dave people like you are the problem you speak of!

 

All the suspicion we had about Biden is now proven true and you want to keep blaming the people who noticed what was going on and not those who kept the Lie going.

 

Uh ok man with the broken brain and  3 face masks on you keep doing you buddy.

18
4
OldPro277
Posts
1875
Joined
11/9/2009
Location
Avonmore, PA, USA
5/20/2025 4:00pm

My own experience with prostate cancer is too extensive because of my dad and my own diagnosis.  30 years ago it was commonplace to just use the PSA testing and that was a disaster for him . By the time they found the cause of Dads lower back pain it was too late. It was that his prostate cancer metastasized to his spine . 90 days later he was dead.   Based on the family history , I got regular testing from the age of 55 on.  2 years ago at 63 ,and although my PSA levels were always  in the “acceptable “ range 2.5 to 3.0 , there was a sudden jump to a 4.0 — now that I race a lot, my urologist says that racing dirt bikes or mountain bike will artificially raise your PSA levels . We waited 60 days after the season was over and retested. Still a hair over 4.0 . So he suggested an intensive MRI and they found areas that needed further investigation. So we did the biopsy “clipping” of 12 sections of my prostate and discovered 7 of the 12 areas had cancer cells . I’m at Gleason scale of 6 and 7 .    If I had just relied on the PSA scores I’d be happy and smiling. But my urologist knows his shit and saved my ass , realizing that even though my numbers were “ within spec” the large jump from the norm and family history warranted a more detailed analysis.  I will say that the biopsy collection up thru my ass  was one of the most uncomfortable things I’ve gone thru, and I’ve had a broken shoulder,torn labrum and 6 pins installed in my left shoulder and a full ACL ,PCL,MCL surgical repair . But it was probably a life saving procedure. 

All that being said, I’m sure as the President of the United States ,he had access to even better Doctors than I do. 

15
plowboy
Posts
14473
Joined
1/3/2010
Location
Norwich, KS, USA
5/20/2025 4:19pm
OldPro277 wrote:
My own experience with prostate cancer is too extensive because of my dad and my own diagnosis.  30 years ago it was commonplace to just use...

My own experience with prostate cancer is too extensive because of my dad and my own diagnosis.  30 years ago it was commonplace to just use the PSA testing and that was a disaster for him . By the time they found the cause of Dads lower back pain it was too late. It was that his prostate cancer metastasized to his spine . 90 days later he was dead.   Based on the family history , I got regular testing from the age of 55 on.  2 years ago at 63 ,and although my PSA levels were always  in the “acceptable “ range 2.5 to 3.0 , there was a sudden jump to a 4.0 — now that I race a lot, my urologist says that racing dirt bikes or mountain bike will artificially raise your PSA levels . We waited 60 days after the season was over and retested. Still a hair over 4.0 . So he suggested an intensive MRI and they found areas that needed further investigation. So we did the biopsy “clipping” of 12 sections of my prostate and discovered 7 of the 12 areas had cancer cells . I’m at Gleason scale of 6 and 7 .    If I had just relied on the PSA scores I’d be happy and smiling. But my urologist knows his shit and saved my ass , realizing that even though my numbers were “ within spec” the large jump from the norm and family history warranted a more detailed analysis.  I will say that the biopsy collection up thru my ass  was one of the most uncomfortable things I’ve gone thru, and I’ve had a broken shoulder,torn labrum and 6 pins installed in my left shoulder and a full ACL ,PCL,MCL surgical repair . But it was probably a life saving procedure. 

All that being said, I’m sure as the President of the United States ,he had access to even better Doctors than I do. 

Man that's kinda eye opening.  I was happier when I was Forrest Gumpin' through life instead of becoming aware of all the things that are trying to kill me.  

As far as Biden and his health cover-up, which it obviously was...I can't fathom folks we've elected who would put party or person above duty.  Integrity is in short supply.  I'm talkin' about both sides.

15

The Shop

Sully
Posts
9457
Joined
8/24/2006
Location
JP
5/20/2025 4:52pm

Jesus Christ you people are so far gone down the conspiracy rabbit holes it’s insane. We are cooked. 

Jake Tapper has a book coming out detailing how the Biden admin (along with the press) "covered up" the man's decline, and you want to say we're "conspiracy theorists" for not believing they covered up his cancer diagnosis?

12
Joey Bridges
Posts
9854
Joined
1/19/2022
Location
Kingston, TN, USA
5/20/2025 4:55pm

Jesus Christ you people are so far gone down the conspiracy rabbit holes it’s insane. We are cooked. 

You're an idiot, mesa.

img 1 1729613831720 19.jpg?VersionId=Mczj5rV2Xdcw5kND

 

1
7
ThatOneMXGuy
Posts
1073
Joined
12/28/2023
Location
Somewhere, MO, USA
5/20/2025 7:21pm

Jesus Christ you people are so far gone down the conspiracy rabbit holes it’s insane. We are cooked. 

LOOnatic wrote:
Good Lordy Engine ICE Dave people like you are the problem you speak of! All the suspicion we had about Biden is now proven true and you...

Good Lordy Engine ICE Dave people like you are the problem you speak of!

 

All the suspicion we had about Biden is now proven true and you want to keep blaming the people who noticed what was going on and not those who kept the Lie going.

 

Uh ok man with the broken brain and  3 face masks on you keep doing you buddy.

I have no clue who the fuck Dave is despite you constantly calling me Dave. 

10
vet323
Posts
3608
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD, USA
5/20/2025 9:57pm

Jesus Christ you people are so far gone down the conspiracy rabbit holes it’s insane. We are cooked. 

LOOnatic wrote:
Good Lordy Engine ICE Dave people like you are the problem you speak of! All the suspicion we had about Biden is now proven true and you...

Good Lordy Engine ICE Dave people like you are the problem you speak of!

 

All the suspicion we had about Biden is now proven true and you want to keep blaming the people who noticed what was going on and not those who kept the Lie going.

 

Uh ok man with the broken brain and  3 face masks on you keep doing you buddy.

I have no clue who the fuck Dave is despite you constantly calling me Dave. 

EID was the last guy like you who incorporated projection and passive-aggressive tactics in every single post they made.

He looked just as silly as you do when he was doing it.

4
4
inflammable
Posts
2219
Joined
10/2/2009
Location
Abilene, TX, USA
5/20/2025 11:40pm
LOOnatic wrote:
Good Lordy Engine ICE Dave people like you are the problem you speak of! All the suspicion we had about Biden is now proven true and you...

Good Lordy Engine ICE Dave people like you are the problem you speak of!

 

All the suspicion we had about Biden is now proven true and you want to keep blaming the people who noticed what was going on and not those who kept the Lie going.

 

Uh ok man with the broken brain and  3 face masks on you keep doing you buddy.

I have no clue who the fuck Dave is despite you constantly calling me Dave. 

vet323 wrote:
EID was the last guy like you who incorporated projection and passive-aggressive tactics in every single post they made.He looked just as silly as you do...

EID was the last guy like you who incorporated projection and passive-aggressive tactics in every single post they made.

He looked just as silly as you do when he was doing it.

Except EID wasn't living in his parents basement....

1
2
inflammable
Posts
2219
Joined
10/2/2009
Location
Abilene, TX, USA
5/20/2025 11:42pm
TeamGreen wrote:
You seem to think I’m angry? No. Just amazed that you and folks like you continue to ignore the obvious. it’s as if your cadre cant…won’t…are...

You seem to think I’m angry? No. Just amazed that you and folks like you continue to ignore the obvious. it’s as if your cadre cant…won’t…are never gonna admit you’ve been duped? 
Is that what’s gong on? 
That’s ok. 
You just keep your head in the sand, keep making excuses, tell others to STFU without ever looking in the mirror.

We get it: you’re the smart guy. 

But, hey, Joe’s merely a previous cancer survivor and I’m sure you’re more knowledgeable that Dr. Emanuel…right?

bonseff wrote:
I can admit that the DNC is retarded and had no strategy. His first debate with Trump was tragic enough by proving to the world he...

I can admit that the DNC is retarded and had no strategy. His first debate with Trump was tragic enough by proving to the world he was not all there, but also now knowing he was sick with cancer for lord knows how long seems diabolical. His ego, the folks who is surrounding him, the whole deal is just f#cked. 

Was it Joe's ego, or Jill's ego? I'm thinking mostly the latter. 

Agree with you that it was a diabolical thing for the Democrat powers to do. 

Joey Bridges
Posts
9854
Joined
1/19/2022
Location
Kingston, TN, USA
5/21/2025 2:40am

Watched a compilation of MSM talking points.

They were pushing the over 70 bullshit. 

 

GrXriO7XAAAfEAx.jpeg?VersionId=yUrauc
9
2
Joey Bridges
Posts
9854
Joined
1/19/2022
Location
Kingston, TN, USA
5/21/2025 2:44am
vet323 wrote:
EID was the last guy like you who incorporated projection and passive-aggressive tactics in every single post they made.He looked just as silly as you do...

EID was the last guy like you who incorporated projection and passive-aggressive tactics in every single post they made.

He looked just as silly as you do when he was doing it.

Manifestoboy is going to go to his grave infused with the spoonfed TDS coursing through his veins.

 

Nothing will change that.

All we can do is sit back and laugh at his idiocy. 

1
3
burn1986
Posts
12246
Joined
4/16/2010
Location
bossier city, LA, USA
5/21/2025 7:49am
Sully wrote:
Jake Tapper has a book coming out detailing how the Biden admin (along with the press) "covered up" the man's decline, and you want to say...

Jake Tapper has a book coming out detailing how the Biden admin (along with the press) "covered up" the man's decline, and you want to say we're "conspiracy theorists" for not believing they covered up his cancer diagnosis?

Well you know eventually it’s gonna lead back to “Yeah, he was the perfect candidate for us to get in to the WH, so we could run things. It took a little maneuvering and extra votes but we did it, and had the entire country at our disposal. We made a killing. Oh yeah, too bad about the old guy.”

2
2
TeamGreen
Posts
37303
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
5/21/2025 9:29am
TeamGreen wrote:
You seem to think I’m angry? No. Just amazed that you and folks like you continue to ignore the obvious. it’s as if your cadre cant…won’t…are...

You seem to think I’m angry? No. Just amazed that you and folks like you continue to ignore the obvious. it’s as if your cadre cant…won’t…are never gonna admit you’ve been duped? 
Is that what’s gong on? 
That’s ok. 
You just keep your head in the sand, keep making excuses, tell others to STFU without ever looking in the mirror.

We get it: you’re the smart guy. 

But, hey, Joe’s merely a previous cancer survivor and I’m sure you’re more knowledgeable that Dr. Emanuel…right?

bonseff wrote:
I can admit that the DNC is retarded and had no strategy. His first debate with Trump was tragic enough by proving to the world he...

I can admit that the DNC is retarded and had no strategy. His first debate with Trump was tragic enough by proving to the world he was not all there, but also now knowing he was sick with cancer for lord knows how long seems diabolical. His ego, the folks who is surrounding him, the whole deal is just f#cked. 

A very sad and angering realization.

Isn’t it?

“WHO?!” Who, exactly, was Praeses Verus?

I’m gonna go with what we saw…for 4 years we had…”A Star Chamber of American Globalists” that we’re on a mission. 

From Open Borders to a “War by Design” with Russia to this “Trans-Insanity”…it’s an agenda they’ve shown…openly…for decades…and they executed that agenda…unencumbered. For 4 years.

But, let others tell us to ignore what we’ve witnessed. 

8
1
5/21/2025 12:37pm
It wasn’t long ago political differences didn’t define us, we didn’t hate the other side, we accepted election results, and everything wasn’t a grand conspiracy. Obama...

It wasn’t long ago political differences didn’t define us, we didn’t hate the other side, we accepted election results, and everything wasn’t a grand conspiracy. Obama and Romney respected each other. So did Obama and McCain. Etc. Etc. We are in a different world now. Not going to come back from it for a long time. 

plowboy wrote:

Here's hoping WE can...I have my doubts about the political parties.

You guys watch a different campaign  than the rest of us. I guess its ok for Obama to take a bunch of cheap shots at everyone Hillary and Biden included. To be fair all said something I'm sure as well. Do you remember him calling Sarah Palin names including his Lil innuendo. That's what makes them upset about trump being brash so funny to so many.

Lil history lesson on how bad the dem party is for talent and repeatability of there moves. The 08 dem primaries Biden ran against obama. He got less than 1% of the vote and was seen as old crazy uncle Joe for the things he would say. Somehow thay guy became their party guy and president even with all of his warts and guess who he picked. The person who got less than 1% of the vote and dropped out the same why he did. They did it once bet they thought they could do it twice with kamala.

3
4
Jarid332
Posts
5360
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Somewhere north of Toronto, CA
Fantasy
5/21/2025 12:55pm

Cancer sucks. Both my parents have gone through it. Wouldn’t wish that shit upon anyone. 

7
LOOnatic
Posts
731
Joined
5/20/2019
Location
New Orleans, LA, USA
5/21/2025 1:52pm

I have no clue who the fuck Dave is despite you constantly calling me Dave. 

Ok Dave we all know it's you.

You know its you.

Winky guy knows it's you.

Even Trump knows it's you.

 

Quit playing behind your new user name .

 

Sincerely,

Everyone on the internet

4
2
MPJC
Posts
2083
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
5/21/2025 5:15pm Edited Date/Time 5/21/2025 5:35pm
TeamGreen wrote:
You seem to think I’m angry? No. Just amazed that you and folks like you continue to ignore the obvious. it’s as if your cadre cant…won’t…are...

You seem to think I’m angry? No. Just amazed that you and folks like you continue to ignore the obvious. it’s as if your cadre cant…won’t…are never gonna admit you’ve been duped? 
Is that what’s gong on? 
That’s ok. 
You just keep your head in the sand, keep making excuses, tell others to STFU without ever looking in the mirror.

We get it: you’re the smart guy. 

But, hey, Joe’s merely a previous cancer survivor and I’m sure you’re more knowledgeable that Dr. Emanuel…right?

bonseff wrote:
I can admit that the DNC is retarded and had no strategy. His first debate with Trump was tragic enough by proving to the world he...

I can admit that the DNC is retarded and had no strategy. His first debate with Trump was tragic enough by proving to the world he was not all there, but also now knowing he was sick with cancer for lord knows how long seems diabolical. His ego, the folks who is surrounding him, the whole deal is just f#cked. 

TeamGreen wrote:
A very sad and angering realization.Isn’t it?“WHO?!” Who, exactly, was Praeses Verus?I’m gonna go with what we saw…for 4 years we had…”A Star Chamber of American...

A very sad and angering realization.

Isn’t it?

“WHO?!” Who, exactly, was Praeses Verus?

I’m gonna go with what we saw…for 4 years we had…”A Star Chamber of American Globalists” that we’re on a mission. 

From Open Borders to a “War by Design” with Russia to this “Trans-Insanity”…it’s an agenda they’ve shown…openly…for decades…and they executed that agenda…unencumbered. For 4 years.

But, let others tell us to ignore what we’ve witnessed. 

I’m trying to understand your argument but I’m pretty sure I’m missing something. How do you get from “he was a terrible President” to “he’s had cancer for a long time and it’s been covered up”? Is that what you’re intending to imply? That just seems like a non sequitur. 

I’m not a medical doctor but it seems quite plausible that these two things can both be true: 1. Biden has had cognitive impairment that’s been covered up for several years and 2. Doctors just discovered metastatic cancer - either because it’s new or because It was previously undiagnosed. We can be pretty sure about 1. To have a high degree of confidence about 2 either way, as far as I can see, is unwarranted. It may be a new diagnosis. But it’s also entirely possible that his doctors have been managing it for years. I’m not sure what would motivate any of us to go beyond what can be known and claim knowledge of the matter. The soundness or lack thereof of his political decisions can be connected to 1 but is completely irrelevant to 2. He could have been the worst president imaginable, impaired by dementia and a physical wreck in more ways than we can count and have had a recent prostate cancer diagnosis.

Piston Slap
Posts
1992
Joined
7/2/2013
Location
Stillwater, OK, USA
5/21/2025 8:05pm

Biden cancer is reported to be hormone responsive.... that's good news.

A cancer is not know to be hormone responsive unless it has been treated for a period of time.

🤔

3
1
MPJC
Posts
2083
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
5/21/2025 8:41pm Edited Date/Time 5/21/2025 8:43pm
Biden cancer is reported to be hormone responsive.... that's good news.A cancer is not know to be hormone responsive unless it has been treated for a...

Biden cancer is reported to be hormone responsive.... that's good news.

A cancer is not know to be hormone responsive unless it has been treated for a period of time.

🤔

Some kinds of cancers are reliant on hormones to grow so treatment works by blocking the hormone (testosterone in this case) that stimulates cancer growth.  Hormone responsive doesn’t mean that the disease responds to hormones the way that a poison responds to an antidote. It means that the cancer cells have hormone receptors so the cancer cells respond to the hormone by growing when the hormone binds to the receptors. This has nothing to do with treatment history and is a product of the type of cancer cells. 

1
inflammable
Posts
2219
Joined
10/2/2009
Location
Abilene, TX, USA
5/21/2025 8:45pm

I believe this is the Dr Ezekiel Emanuel that TeamGreen mentioned earlier in this thread

1
MPJC
Posts
2083
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
5/21/2025 9:47pm Edited Date/Time 5/21/2025 9:53pm

I believe this is the Dr Ezekiel Emanuel that TeamGreen mentioned earlier in this thread

To the claim in this video that no doctor believes that this cancer is a recent development, from the New York Times: Dr. Otis Brawley of Johns Hopkins University tells me he has treated about half a dozen men in the last year who had routine P.S.A. results — and then suddenly found metastatic prostate cancer. “How the hell did I get metastatic disease?” he said they ask him. “Whose fault is this?” Some cancers go from nonexistent to metastatic in the year between screening tests. Others don’t even show up on a P.S.A. test.

So at least one doctor disagrees. You may not like the NYT and that’s fine, but to anyone who says “do you know better than Dr Emanuel” someone can say “do you know better than Dr Brawley”. The answer is likely “no” in both cases, so that gets you nowhere. 

The problem that I’m seeing is the guy in the video is putting together a narrative - a compelling one, once you see how the pieces all fit together, about a sick President and a cover up that allows the illegitimate wielding of power. It’s like looking at one of those pictures with the dots and if you stare long enough and see the picture, you don’t know how anyone could miss it. But if you buy it wholesale and wholeheartedly, facts that fit will seem more likely to be true by virtue of their coherence with the web of beliefs of which they are a part. This will skew your assessments of probability and make you feel confident in conclusions that are not, in fact, well supported by the totality of the evidence. Whether or not something fits the narrative actually becomes the main criterion for acceptance. Skepticism is not just being skeptical of mainstream narratives; rather, it’s being sceptical of all narratives. A narrative can be completely coherent but wrong. That’s why the scientific method aims not to confirm hypotheses, but to falsify them. Look for evidence that falsifies your beliefs as well as supporting evidence. There’s a logical asymmetry between confirmation and falsification - no matter how many x you observe that are y, you make a logical leap when you conclude “all x is y”. But observing a single x that is not y falsifies “all x is y”. All doctors agree? Not so - I’ve found one that doesn’t. That doesn’t tell me what is true, but it does tell me what is false. 

I’ve grown comfortable saying “I don’t know”. I don’t know how long Biden has had cancer. I don’t know what his doctors knew. I know that it’s possible that it’s new. I know that the guy in this video is selectively choosing evidence to sell you on a narrative, so I wouldn’t base much on what he says. I wouldn’t discount completely what Dr Emanuel say but his isn’t the only expert opinion and not being an expert myself, I don’t have the tools to adjudicate who’s right. So I say “I don’t know” and if I want to know more I need to educate myself (I won’t - I have only so much mental energy). 

I’ve been told on occasion that I can come across as a pretentious ass. I apologize if that’s the case here. I’m a poor judge of such things. 

2
inflammable
Posts
2219
Joined
10/2/2009
Location
Abilene, TX, USA
5/21/2025 10:10pm

I believe this is the Dr Ezekiel Emanuel that TeamGreen mentioned earlier in this thread

MPJC wrote:
To the claim in this video that no doctor believes that this cancer is a recent development, from the New York Times: Dr. Otis Brawley of...

To the claim in this video that no doctor believes that this cancer is a recent development, from the New York Times: Dr. Otis Brawley of Johns Hopkins University tells me he has treated about half a dozen men in the last year who had routine P.S.A. results — and then suddenly found metastatic prostate cancer. “How the hell did I get metastatic disease?” he said they ask him. “Whose fault is this?” Some cancers go from nonexistent to metastatic in the year between screening tests. Others don’t even show up on a P.S.A. test.

So at least one doctor disagrees. You may not like the NYT and that’s fine, but to anyone who says “do you know better than Dr Emanuel” someone can say “do you know better than Dr Brawley”. The answer is likely “no” in both cases, so that gets you nowhere. 

The problem that I’m seeing is the guy in the video is putting together a narrative - a compelling one, once you see how the pieces all fit together, about a sick President and a cover up that allows the illegitimate wielding of power. It’s like looking at one of those pictures with the dots and if you stare long enough and see the picture, you don’t know how anyone could miss it. But if you buy it wholesale and wholeheartedly, facts that fit will seem more likely to be true by virtue of their coherence with the web of beliefs of which they are a part. This will skew your assessments of probability and make you feel confident in conclusions that are not, in fact, well supported by the totality of the evidence. Whether or not something fits the narrative actually becomes the main criterion for acceptance. Skepticism is not just being skeptical of mainstream narratives; rather, it’s being sceptical of all narratives. A narrative can be completely coherent but wrong. That’s why the scientific method aims not to confirm hypotheses, but to falsify them. Look for evidence that falsifies your beliefs as well as supporting evidence. There’s a logical asymmetry between confirmation and falsification - no matter how many x you observe that are y, you make a logical leap when you conclude “all x is y”. But observing a single x that is not y falsifies “all x is y”. All doctors agree? Not so - I’ve found one that doesn’t. That doesn’t tell me what is true, but it does tell me what is false. 

I’ve grown comfortable saying “I don’t know”. I don’t know how long Biden has had cancer. I don’t know what his doctors knew. I know that it’s possible that it’s new. I know that the guy in this video is selectively choosing evidence to sell you on a narrative, so I wouldn’t base much on what he says. I wouldn’t discount completely what Dr Emanuel say but his isn’t the only expert opinion and not being an expert myself, I don’t have the tools to adjudicate who’s right. So I say “I don’t know” and if I want to know more I need to educate myself (I won’t - I have only so much mental energy). 

I’ve been told on occasion that I can come across as a pretentious ass. I apologize if that’s the case here. I’m a poor judge of such things. 

I don't think there's any problem with adding more information. There are a multitude of possibilities as to the timeline. I was only sharing the video for that reason. 🙂

I suppose I'm looking at it as water under the bridge at this point. Unless Biden and his family want to release the details, we'll be left in the dark as to how it did, or didn't, affect his Presidency. 

I do hope for the best outcome for Biden. 

1
Joey Bridges
Posts
9854
Joined
1/19/2022
Location
Kingston, TN, USA
5/22/2025 2:21am
Biden cancer is reported to be hormone responsive.... that's good news.A cancer is not know to be hormone responsive unless it has been treated for a...

Biden cancer is reported to be hormone responsive.... that's good news.

A cancer is not know to be hormone responsive unless it has been treated for a period of time.

🤔

Exactly.

Cancer will eventually override the many different hormones used in androgen treatment. 

1
LungButter
Posts
8684
Joined
1/9/2016
Location
Yellow Pine, ID, USA
5/22/2025 7:57am
LOOnatic wrote:
Ok Dave we all know it's you.You know its you.Winky guy knows it's you.Even Trump knows it's you. Quit playing behind your new user name . Sincerely,Everyone on...

Ok Dave we all know it's you.

You know its you.

Winky guy knows it's you.

Even Trump knows it's you.

 

Quit playing behind your new user name .

 

Sincerely,

Everyone on the internet

We got a few folks here that could follow that advice.

It's wild that they all think we are stupid enough to believe that they've never been here before.

1
ns503
Posts
4606
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
NS Toolies, CA
5/22/2025 4:31pm

I have no clue who the fuck Dave is despite you constantly calling me Dave. 

LOOnatic wrote:
Ok Dave we all know it's you.You know its you.Winky guy knows it's you.Even Trump knows it's you. Quit playing behind your new user name . Sincerely,Everyone on...

Ok Dave we all know it's you.

You know its you.

Winky guy knows it's you.

Even Trump knows it's you.

 

Quit playing behind your new user name .

 

Sincerely,

Everyone on the internet

He's not Dave.

2
2
inflammable
Posts
2219
Joined
10/2/2009
Location
Abilene, TX, USA
5/22/2025 8:34pm

I have no clue who the fuck Dave is despite you constantly calling me Dave. 

LOOnatic wrote:
Ok Dave we all know it's you.You know its you.Winky guy knows it's you.Even Trump knows it's you. Quit playing behind your new user name . Sincerely,Everyone on...

Ok Dave we all know it's you.

You know its you.

Winky guy knows it's you.

Even Trump knows it's you.

 

Quit playing behind your new user name .

 

Sincerely,

Everyone on the internet

ns503 wrote:

He's not Dave.

Of course not. Dave didn't live in his parent's basement. 

1
1
SEEMEFIRST
Posts
14014
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
5/23/2025 8:40am

I believe this is the Dr Ezekiel Emanuel that TeamGreen mentioned earlier in this thread

MPJC wrote:
To the claim in this video that no doctor believes that this cancer is a recent development, from the New York Times: Dr. Otis Brawley of...

To the claim in this video that no doctor believes that this cancer is a recent development, from the New York Times: Dr. Otis Brawley of Johns Hopkins University tells me he has treated about half a dozen men in the last year who had routine P.S.A. results — and then suddenly found metastatic prostate cancer. “How the hell did I get metastatic disease?” he said they ask him. “Whose fault is this?” Some cancers go from nonexistent to metastatic in the year between screening tests. Others don’t even show up on a P.S.A. test.

So at least one doctor disagrees. You may not like the NYT and that’s fine, but to anyone who says “do you know better than Dr Emanuel” someone can say “do you know better than Dr Brawley”. The answer is likely “no” in both cases, so that gets you nowhere. 

The problem that I’m seeing is the guy in the video is putting together a narrative - a compelling one, once you see how the pieces all fit together, about a sick President and a cover up that allows the illegitimate wielding of power. It’s like looking at one of those pictures with the dots and if you stare long enough and see the picture, you don’t know how anyone could miss it. But if you buy it wholesale and wholeheartedly, facts that fit will seem more likely to be true by virtue of their coherence with the web of beliefs of which they are a part. This will skew your assessments of probability and make you feel confident in conclusions that are not, in fact, well supported by the totality of the evidence. Whether or not something fits the narrative actually becomes the main criterion for acceptance. Skepticism is not just being skeptical of mainstream narratives; rather, it’s being sceptical of all narratives. A narrative can be completely coherent but wrong. That’s why the scientific method aims not to confirm hypotheses, but to falsify them. Look for evidence that falsifies your beliefs as well as supporting evidence. There’s a logical asymmetry between confirmation and falsification - no matter how many x you observe that are y, you make a logical leap when you conclude “all x is y”. But observing a single x that is not y falsifies “all x is y”. All doctors agree? Not so - I’ve found one that doesn’t. That doesn’t tell me what is true, but it does tell me what is false. 

I’ve grown comfortable saying “I don’t know”. I don’t know how long Biden has had cancer. I don’t know what his doctors knew. I know that it’s possible that it’s new. I know that the guy in this video is selectively choosing evidence to sell you on a narrative, so I wouldn’t base much on what he says. I wouldn’t discount completely what Dr Emanuel say but his isn’t the only expert opinion and not being an expert myself, I don’t have the tools to adjudicate who’s right. So I say “I don’t know” and if I want to know more I need to educate myself (I won’t - I have only so much mental energy). 

I’ve been told on occasion that I can come across as a pretentious ass. I apologize if that’s the case here. I’m a poor judge of such things. 

I think the fact that the cancer has metastisised (sp) into the bone is what raises the time line question.

Did Dr. Brawley mention that part?

1
MPJC
Posts
2083
Joined
5/18/2017
Location
CA
Fantasy
5/23/2025 9:43am

I believe this is the Dr Ezekiel Emanuel that TeamGreen mentioned earlier in this thread

MPJC wrote:
To the claim in this video that no doctor believes that this cancer is a recent development, from the New York Times: Dr. Otis Brawley of...

To the claim in this video that no doctor believes that this cancer is a recent development, from the New York Times: Dr. Otis Brawley of Johns Hopkins University tells me he has treated about half a dozen men in the last year who had routine P.S.A. results — and then suddenly found metastatic prostate cancer. “How the hell did I get metastatic disease?” he said they ask him. “Whose fault is this?” Some cancers go from nonexistent to metastatic in the year between screening tests. Others don’t even show up on a P.S.A. test.

So at least one doctor disagrees. You may not like the NYT and that’s fine, but to anyone who says “do you know better than Dr Emanuel” someone can say “do you know better than Dr Brawley”. The answer is likely “no” in both cases, so that gets you nowhere. 

The problem that I’m seeing is the guy in the video is putting together a narrative - a compelling one, once you see how the pieces all fit together, about a sick President and a cover up that allows the illegitimate wielding of power. It’s like looking at one of those pictures with the dots and if you stare long enough and see the picture, you don’t know how anyone could miss it. But if you buy it wholesale and wholeheartedly, facts that fit will seem more likely to be true by virtue of their coherence with the web of beliefs of which they are a part. This will skew your assessments of probability and make you feel confident in conclusions that are not, in fact, well supported by the totality of the evidence. Whether or not something fits the narrative actually becomes the main criterion for acceptance. Skepticism is not just being skeptical of mainstream narratives; rather, it’s being sceptical of all narratives. A narrative can be completely coherent but wrong. That’s why the scientific method aims not to confirm hypotheses, but to falsify them. Look for evidence that falsifies your beliefs as well as supporting evidence. There’s a logical asymmetry between confirmation and falsification - no matter how many x you observe that are y, you make a logical leap when you conclude “all x is y”. But observing a single x that is not y falsifies “all x is y”. All doctors agree? Not so - I’ve found one that doesn’t. That doesn’t tell me what is true, but it does tell me what is false. 

I’ve grown comfortable saying “I don’t know”. I don’t know how long Biden has had cancer. I don’t know what his doctors knew. I know that it’s possible that it’s new. I know that the guy in this video is selectively choosing evidence to sell you on a narrative, so I wouldn’t base much on what he says. I wouldn’t discount completely what Dr Emanuel say but his isn’t the only expert opinion and not being an expert myself, I don’t have the tools to adjudicate who’s right. So I say “I don’t know” and if I want to know more I need to educate myself (I won’t - I have only so much mental energy). 

I’ve been told on occasion that I can come across as a pretentious ass. I apologize if that’s the case here. I’m a poor judge of such things. 

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

I think the fact that the cancer has metastisised (sp) into the bone is what raises the time line question.

Did Dr. Brawley mention that part?

He says "metastatic". 

Again, I don't really know how long Biden has had this or how long they've known - I'm just saying it's not outside of the realm of possibility that it's a recent diagnosis and that too much confidence to the contrary is misplaced. 

SEEMEFIRST
Posts
14014
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Arlington, TX, USA
5/23/2025 10:31am
MPJC wrote:
To the claim in this video that no doctor believes that this cancer is a recent development, from the New York Times: Dr. Otis Brawley of...

To the claim in this video that no doctor believes that this cancer is a recent development, from the New York Times: Dr. Otis Brawley of Johns Hopkins University tells me he has treated about half a dozen men in the last year who had routine P.S.A. results — and then suddenly found metastatic prostate cancer. “How the hell did I get metastatic disease?” he said they ask him. “Whose fault is this?” Some cancers go from nonexistent to metastatic in the year between screening tests. Others don’t even show up on a P.S.A. test.

So at least one doctor disagrees. You may not like the NYT and that’s fine, but to anyone who says “do you know better than Dr Emanuel” someone can say “do you know better than Dr Brawley”. The answer is likely “no” in both cases, so that gets you nowhere. 

The problem that I’m seeing is the guy in the video is putting together a narrative - a compelling one, once you see how the pieces all fit together, about a sick President and a cover up that allows the illegitimate wielding of power. It’s like looking at one of those pictures with the dots and if you stare long enough and see the picture, you don’t know how anyone could miss it. But if you buy it wholesale and wholeheartedly, facts that fit will seem more likely to be true by virtue of their coherence with the web of beliefs of which they are a part. This will skew your assessments of probability and make you feel confident in conclusions that are not, in fact, well supported by the totality of the evidence. Whether or not something fits the narrative actually becomes the main criterion for acceptance. Skepticism is not just being skeptical of mainstream narratives; rather, it’s being sceptical of all narratives. A narrative can be completely coherent but wrong. That’s why the scientific method aims not to confirm hypotheses, but to falsify them. Look for evidence that falsifies your beliefs as well as supporting evidence. There’s a logical asymmetry between confirmation and falsification - no matter how many x you observe that are y, you make a logical leap when you conclude “all x is y”. But observing a single x that is not y falsifies “all x is y”. All doctors agree? Not so - I’ve found one that doesn’t. That doesn’t tell me what is true, but it does tell me what is false. 

I’ve grown comfortable saying “I don’t know”. I don’t know how long Biden has had cancer. I don’t know what his doctors knew. I know that it’s possible that it’s new. I know that the guy in this video is selectively choosing evidence to sell you on a narrative, so I wouldn’t base much on what he says. I wouldn’t discount completely what Dr Emanuel say but his isn’t the only expert opinion and not being an expert myself, I don’t have the tools to adjudicate who’s right. So I say “I don’t know” and if I want to know more I need to educate myself (I won’t - I have only so much mental energy). 

I’ve been told on occasion that I can come across as a pretentious ass. I apologize if that’s the case here. I’m a poor judge of such things. 

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

I think the fact that the cancer has metastisised (sp) into the bone is what raises the time line question.

Did Dr. Brawley mention that part?

MPJC wrote:
He says "metastatic". Again, I don't really know how long Biden has had this or how long they've known - I'm just saying it's not outside of...

He says "metastatic". 

Again, I don't really know how long Biden has had this or how long they've known - I'm just saying it's not outside of the realm of possibility that it's a recent diagnosis and that too much confidence to the contrary is misplaced. 

Yeah, I don't know, I'm a mechanic, not a doctor, but everyone I have heard says it takes quite a while to get in the bones.

Post a reply to: Biden diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer

The Latest