Video of Joe Biden Saying He Had Cancer in 2022 Picked Up by Critics

[FreeinChrist]

I had an MRI and the urologist told me there was a 65% chance that I had cancer.
When he did a biopsy and the results came back there was no cancer

That is good. It is best to catch things earlier if you do have it.

 

[BPPLEE]

The problem with the PSA test that is available is that there are enough false positives and false negatives is enough to cause groups like the American Urological Association to recommend PSA screening every 2 - 4 years for ages 50 - 69, and no mention of it from ages 70 on.

There are tools in the toolbelt, but there could be better ones.

I have a PSA taken every 4-6 months when they do my bloodwork

 

[Bradskii]

In Australia, if you're over 45 you get a free test package for bowel cancer in the post every two years.

https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/national-bowel-cancer-screening-program

 

[BCP1928]

First and foremost, his repentance. His time is running out. God can soften the hearts of the most obstinate sinners. But he needs to call out to him, if not, it won’t be a happy ending for eternity.

Do you see Biden as a particularly obstinate sinner?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The problem with the PSA test that is available is that there are enough false positives and false negatives is enough to cause groups like the American Urological Association to recommend PSA screening every 2 - 4 years for ages 50 - 69, and no mention of it from ages 70 on.

There are tools in the toolbelt, but there could be better ones.

I think the main reason why they don't recommend it for ages 70+ is because of the incredibly slow rate that the majority of prostate cancers progress at and the risk/benefit tradeoff.

If a 77 year old man has a slow-growing form of cancer that (even left untreated) would take 10 years before it would actually kill him, ultimately, it's not worth the trade-off of doing surgery, radiation, and/or chemo at that age for most people if it's only going to equate to, at best, an extra 2-3 years of life. (even countries with universal healthcare that don't have a private insurance profit motive, have similar guidelines)

Usually those kinds of things are considered in an actuarial sense. -- even in countries with robust universal healthcare.

Obviously on an individual level when it comes to ones self or ones family members, they're more inclined to hold the "we need to do everything we absolutely can as far as treatment"

But public health policy makers (especially in countries with government funded healthcare) need to be more pragmatic about it. And from their perspective, it doesn't make sense to throw large sums at "pulling out all the stops" to ensure that a person lives to 90 instead of 88.

Whereas, if a man has it in his 50's, then we're talking about much larger number of 'potential years of life lost' if he leaves it untreated.

 

[wing2000]

The problem with the PSA test that is available is that there are enough false positives and false negatives is enough to cause groups like the American Urological Association to recommend PSA screening every 2 - 4 years for ages 50 - 69, and no mention of it from ages 70 on.

There are tools in the toolbelt, but there could be better ones.

From what I have read, the medical community is unable to distinguish aggressive prostrate cancer from less aggresive cancer in the early stages. That has led to invasive and unnecessary treatment historically.

 

[FreeinChrist]

From what I have read, the medical community is unable to distinguish aggressive prostrate cancer from less aggresive cancer in the early stages. That has led to invasive and unnecessary treatment historically.

There is a need for more research into BPH and prostate cancer.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

A little something I found on perplexity that I thought was interesting.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-long-will-it-take-for-pros-_pZArwyUQgmAAAq_Qvw_1A

Apparently many doctors say that it takes years for prostate cancer to spread to the bones. More evidence that Biden was hiding it for years.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Do you see Biden as a particularly obstinate sinner?

Many Catholics, including the Pope, would say so because of his advocacy of abortion and gay marriage.

 

[wing2000]

A little something I found on perplexity that I thought was interesting.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-long-will-it-take-for-pros-_pZArwyUQgmAAAq_Qvw_1A

Apparently many doctors say that it takes years for prostate cancer to spread to the bones. More evidence that Biden was hiding it for years.

You have not presented any evidence to back that assertion. Nor could you. Health records are private.

Additionally, as others have pointed already out, PSA tests are normally not done after age 70.

"...medical experts point to guidelines that advise against P.S.A. screening for men over the age of 70. The guidelines vary slightly across different medical organizations, but doctors generally agree that men of an advanced age should not automatically be screened for prostate cancer."

Biden's spokesman noted yesterday:

"...Mr. Biden’s last-known prostate-specific antigen test, the most common way to screen for prostate cancer, was in 2014. Mr. Biden would have been 71 or 72 years old at the time."

So it's entirely possible for bone cancer to have developed in that time period.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/20/us/politics/biden-prostate-cancer-psa-test.html?searchResultPosition=1

 

[Oompa Loompa]

You have not presented any evidence to back that assertion. Nor could you. Health records are private.

Additionally, as others have pointed already out, PSA tests are normally not done after age 70.

"...medical experts point to guidelines that advise against P.S.A. screening for men over the age of 70. The guidelines vary slightly across different medical organizations, but doctors generally agree that men of an advanced age should not automatically be screened for prostate cancer."

Biden's spokesman noted yesterday:

"...Mr. Biden’s last-known prostate-specific antigen test, the most common way to screen for prostate cancer, was in 2014. Mr. Biden would have been 71 or 72 years old at the time."

So it's entirely possible for bone cancer to have developed in that time period.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/20/us/politics/biden-prostate-cancer-psa-test.html?searchResultPosition=1

Men over 40 are usually given prostate exams annually. How likely do you think the chances are that a elderly sitting president would not have gotten one during his entire term as president or vice president?

 

[wing2000]

Men over 40 are usually given prostate exams annually. How likely do you think the chances are that a elderly sitting president would not have gotten one during his entire term as president or vice president?

I think it's likely the Presdent followed the medical guidance given to him. Having his last PSA test at 72 is in line with that guidance. Speculating on how many PSA tests he had prior to age 72 is irrelevant.

 

[BCP1928]

Many Catholics, including the Pope, would say so because of his advocacy of abortion and gay marriage.

You have a direct line to the Pope about this?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I think it's likely the Presdent followed the medical guidance given to him. Having his last PSA test at 72 is in line with that guidance. Speculating on how many PSA tests he had prior to age 72 is irrelevant.

I am not talking about PSA test! I am talking about your basic annual prostate exam that will check to determine abnormalities in its early stages. Surely he had to have had multiple during his time in office. If not, that would be medical malpractice.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

You have a direct line to the Pope about this?

The pope has openly stated his positions on both topics and liberals are upset about it.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-is-pope-leo-s-position-ab-1IbiD_AeRca3WejKPSopRg

 

[Oompa Loompa]

You have not presented any evidence to back that assertion. Nor could you. Health records are private.

Have you seen Joe's medical records, or any evidence at all, diagnosing him with prostate cancer? No? Then Joe must be lying about it to make an excuse for his poor performance and gain sympathy points. Right?

 

[BCP1928]

The pope has openly stated his positions on both topics and liberals are upset about it.

Thanks for the update--he's only been in a short while and I must have missed it. Got a link? I am not aware that Leo has spoken out against civil marriage for gays.

 

[BCP1928]

Have you seen Joe's medical records, or any evidence at all, diagnosing him with prostate cancer? No? Then Joe must be lying about it to make an excuse for his poor performance and gain sympathy points. Right?

Why is this such an issue with Biden?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Why is this such an issue with Biden?

I will take your attempt to deflect away from the question as a "No." You have not seen any of Biden's medical records. Therefore, you can provide no evidence that Biden has cancer at all. Therefore, if applying your argument on itself, you must either concede the possibility that Biden has been secretly hiding his condition for potentially years, or that Joe is potentionally lying about his condition to redirect attention from one thing to another.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Therefore, if applying your argument on itself, you must either concede the possibility that Biden has been secretly hiding his condition for potentially years, or that Joe is potentionally lying about his condition to redirect attention from one thing to another.

You also must concede the possibility of aliens, or that life is all just a computer simulation and none of this is real.

The fact is that there's no real reason to believe either of the theories you're presenting - it's normal for men over 70 to not be screened for prostate cancer, so the information that his last screening was in 2014 is believable, and I don't see what the point of trying to redirect attention would be. The cynical position that everyone is lying or has some sort of angle is not productive when it comes to civil discussion.