Below is my column in The Hill on the controversy this month over extrajudicial comments made by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. These are only the latest such comments by justices that became distractions during the discussion of pending cases before the Court.
Here is the column:
This month, the crowd at the Smithsonian Museum of African American History and Culture was electrified as a speaker called on the lawyers in the audience to “fight this fight” and declared, “We can’t lose the battles we are facing.”
What was particularly thrilling was that the declaration of an “act of solidarity” was not coming from a Democratic member of Congress or an MSNBC host, but from Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
There was a day when such a speech would have been scandalous for a sitting justice of the Supreme Court. For much of the court’s history, justices avoided public speaking beyond the perfunctory commencement speech or circuit judicial conference. The tradition was that justices would limit comments on major issues to their written opinions, so as to avoid any question of partisanship or bias against litigants. It was considered a cost of being one of nine.
That tradition, however, was shattered in the 20th century by what I once called the “rise of the celebrity justice.” Despite my respect for them, I was critical of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who seemed to relish appearances before ideologically supportive groups, discussing not only issues that might come before the court, but also making comments in books and speeches on political issues.
The troubling trend has created the impression of justices maintaining constituencies on the left and the right. The adoration and attention can have a corrosive effect on a jurist caught up in the moment. Previously, Sotomayor was criticized when she directly called for political action from young law students to defend abortion rights.
Sotomayor acknowledged, “I am pointing out to that when I shouldn’t because they tell me I shouldn’t.” However, she criticized a recent decision of the court from which she had dissented and chastised her conservative colleagues who “have opted to bury their heads in the sand.” She added, “You know, I can’t change Texas’ law but you can and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don’t like.”
Sotomayor’s latest comments came shortly before the hearing in the birthright citizenship case, where the court has been asked to rein in district courts imposing national or universal injunctions against the Trump administration. Sotomayor’s sharp questioning of the solicitor general drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, who asked if the other justices could be allowed to hear the counsel’s answers.
The hearing also highlighted the public comments of another justice on the very matter before the Court. In 2022, when President Biden faced a fraction of the injunctions imposed against Trump, Justice Elena Kagan publicly condemned the use of universal injunctions in an interview at Northwestern University School of Law. She lashed out at the obvious “forum shopping” to get before favorable courts and said “It just cannot be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal [appellate] process.” She added, “You look at something like that and you think, that can’t be right.”
Now, in the Trump administration, Kagan has a case that can right that wrong by requiring parties to certify a national class action if they want a national injunction. However, Kagan raised some eyebrows by quickly stating that “this case is very different” and then suggesting that there was a need for national injunctions against Trump.
As Solicitor General John Sauer tried to distinguish between the procedural question before the Court from the merits (which have not been fully briefed), Kagan and Sotomayor insisted that the unconstitutionality was clear. Kagan snapped “Every court is ruling against you.”
Kagan’s rationale was as disturbing as her apparent reversal. The merits of the birthright citizenship order are still being briefed in lower courts. Moreover, district courts have reasonably concluded that they are bound by prior Supreme Court decisions. The administration believes that those cases are wrong or wrongly interpreted. Most of us expected the Administration to lose in the lower courts before the issue can be raised with the Supreme Court.
And frankly, it will likely lose on the merits there as well. However, that was not the issue before the justices this week. The issue was whether, as a constitutional matter, district courts can bind an entire nation in resolving a case or must confine relief to the parties before it.
The Trump administration is not arguing that courts can never issue universal injunctions. Rather, it is arguing that one must establish a national class action in order to demand a national injunction from a district court. The process under Rule 23 of the federal rules includes tests for determining whether parties in a given case truly represent the interests of other similarly situated individuals.
Kagan and her liberal colleagues insisted that, even though they were not looking at the merits of the birthright citizenship case, they could take a “peek” at what Trump was trying to do. Kagan suggested that Trump’s birthright citizenship order was clearly unconstitutional and thus may warrant a national injunction even if other controversies might not.
Some of us believe that a court’s authority to issue injunctions should not change based on justices taking a peek ahead at the ultimate merits in a case. Kagan’s comments raised questions of whether an injunction “can’t be right” if a greater percentage of courts disagreed on the merits.
Putting aside how the Supreme Court will rule in the case (which is unclear), the controversy leading into the argument over Kagan’s earlier comments shows the perils of such public speeches. Kagan raised interesting concerns over ending such injunctions, but those points became enmeshed with her prior public positions. Her effort to distinguish the case led to claims that she was spinning a case to conform with her public commentary.
Sotomayor and Kagan have made many speeches that have uplifting messages for law students and lawyers alike, including some of the comments in these events. They are both worthy role models for all lawyers. However, these public comments are not a model for jurists, in my view. The controversies this week are only the latest examples of the costs to the court itself in justices holding forth on political subjects or issues that may come before them.
During the week of these controversies, another figure, retired Justice David Souter, passed away. One of the things I most respected in Souter was not only his modesty and civility but his reticence in making public comments. He spoke through his opinions and left the rest for others to debate.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School where he teaches a course on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.
This site is read by most constitutional lawyers and experts in the United States.
Is anyone reading this aware of a single police department in the USA (out of roughly 17,000 departments) that is following the “Carpenter v. US” ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Is there just one department out of 17,000 departments following this U.S. Supreme Court ruling? My state it appears that “0” departments are following the supreme law of the United States.
Are there any police departments following “Carpenter v. US” especially the “personal mapping” prohibition without a judicial warrant following the law?
It’s more than just wanting to be a ‘celebrity’, certainly among the left-leaning Justices. I think what we are seeing is the result of the general political development (derangement, if you wish) whereby any opposition to the half-century long Dem, liberalist, woke agenda is seen as requiring not rational debate but rather ‘war’, i.e. the Dems – bleating that they are fighting for democracy when they are really fighting for Democrat-cy since they can no longer continue their agenda. This has manifested in the U.S. Supreme Court by the tendency of such left-leaning Justices to prioritize doing-their-part for the cause by their various public bleats and brays beyond the walls of their Chambers. And that priority in the estimation of those Justices overrides their profoundly special role and responsibilities as Supreme Court Justices. It’s a far more profound problem so repellently and ludicrously displayed not long ago by the newest Justice taking part in some off-Broadway theatrical production just because … well, she always did want to be on Broadway and that it would be sorta lotsa fun. Wheeeee.
“Sotomayor and Kagan have made many speeches that have uplifting messages for law students and lawyers alike, including some of the comments in these events. They are both worthy role models for all lawyers.”
No, no they are not. You wrote an entire article filled with examples of why they are not worthy role models, then “bizarrely” end it by saying they are. Strange.
Given everything, given what the Democrats had to lose, why did President Biden run for a second term? Who was supposed to benefit? Who did benefit?
Was the late-drop-out scenario plotted out by party grandees to effectuate a Kamala Harris cram-down? If so, part of the plan worked. She did end up as the Democrat nominee without getting a single primary vote.
Was it orchestrated by seasoned influenced peddler Hunter Biden, to effectuate some kind of pay-off in exchange for President Biden dropping? He sure had party grandees over a barrel after the debate.
I cannot figure out why else President Biden’s handlers would have subjected their guy to such humiliation. He was debilitated. If he had announced early that he would not run again, history might have been kinder to him and his presidency.
We can find “insurrectionists” scattered to the far corners of the country but we can’t find the person that leaked the abortion opinion. Why wasn’t every conceivable suspect (including justices) given a polygraph? Because we would have found out that one of the justices leaked it and that even the Supreme Court is broken.
I was walking along the beach today and was suprised to see shells lined up in the sand in such a way that it read “86 SCOTUS”.
I’m not sure what that meant, but I assumed it was a political message of some sort.
The corruption in the Biden’s administration continues to be made manifest but only b/c the Democrats lost control of the DC machinery and the narrative. No wonder they are inciting domestic violence under the banner of the Resistance™.
Retired U.S. Navy Admiral Found Guilty in Bribery Scheme
In December 2021, Burke ordered his staff to award a $355,000 contract to Company A to train personnel under Burke’s command in Italy and Spain. Company A performed the training in January 2022. Thereafter, Burke promoted Company A in a failed effort to convince another senior Navy Admiral to award another contract to Company A. To conceal the scheme, Burke made several false and misleading statements to the Navy, including by falsely implying that Company A’s employment discussions with Burke only began months after the contract was awarded and omitting the truth on his required government ethics disclosure forms.
In October 2022, Burke began working at Company A at a yearly starting salary of $500,000 and a grant of 100,000 stock options.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/retired-us-navy-admiral-found-guilty-bribery-scheme
The DNC/MSM kept Biden’s neurocognitive decline under wraps and ignored Biden’s slow growing prostate cancer to metastasize to his bone b/c it served their purposes. They used the man for personal gain – the SOP for the DNC.
DEI dumasses like Sonia and now the most junior DEI dumass, Ketanji baby (who loves to open her dumass mouth every chance she gets), plus Roberts himself who refuses to get control his courts, are trashing the legitimacy of the court. It’s on you, Jonny Roberts. It’s gonna be your legacy.
Sotomayor has always been a huge, partisan political hack. This is nothing new.
Scott Adams, the cartoonist of Dilbert fame, announced today that he too has the same dx as Joseph Biden, Prostate CA, stage 4, w/ mets to bone, and has a life expectancy till this summer.
https://www.youtube.com/live/4NPIr9cNZA4?t=422s
in 2025, there is no reason for a man to develop Prostate CA stage 4 with mets to bone especially someone with the medical access a cartoonist of Dilbert fame has. This case would be more predictable if it were someone who is living in the rural setting, having little access to medical care due to a host of barriers, someone who does not believe in seeing physicians for regular checkups, or someone elderly who lives alone and has no one to care for them. I have to think Adams’s handlers knew, and used him just like…Dr. Jill
I feel, if he is to be believed, Mr Adams has likely known for a long time, been getting treatment, but unlike some stories, his isn’t a story of success.
The deliberate fraud and perversion of the 14th Amendment to allow millions of Mexicans et al. to illegally migrate into America will result in millions of legal deportations.
The 14th Amendment reference to birthright citizenship if born in the U.S. is being misapplied. It was a Civil War comment on ‘Plantation children’ of births by slaves sired by plantation owners. The child could not be sold as a slave; it was a free citizen. Applications to tourists are not relevant. Check the Congressional Record.
A similar provision was in the Northwest Territory purchase from France. The provision is mentioned [if understood] in a plaque at the headwaters of the Mississippi river in a Minnesota state park and territorial boundary of the purchase.
Hera Hear!! ‘..Kagan snapped “Every court is ruling against you.” ‘ I ask, isn’t this the reason one comes to the Supreme Court? Why would Kagan reduce herself to an MSNBS talking head by making such a comment in the context of biased disdain? ..and last but not least, we have Sotomayor’s comment ‘..”fight this fight”..’ while we ask.. Why is there so much Open and Prolific Violence in our society? ..so much unprovoked injury to others, theft, destruction of private property..??? and, yes, so many assassination attempts…?? ..we have Supreme Court Justices recklessly fanning those flames!!
Eighteenthhole,
Well said.
On one hand, I would like to think the SC justices to be neutral and un-biased in their rulings. On the other, I know that is not realistic. They are just as human as you and I. I would think it to be prudent to not voice opinions on various topics. At the same time, they are entitled to their 1stA rights.
However, as you aptly put, recklessly fanning those flames could very well be dangerous. Should they be held accountable if it were to spill out into wholesale violence across society? Would that be inciting violence? I do not know.
They have chip implants that gives them a form of tourettes syndrome? They have no will of their own. Odd isn’t it.
The democrats have lost the people and are now trying to force their nonsense via the courts. Gee, I wonder what they’ll try next…Hopefully Trump gets out ahead of them and continues to purge the military of the clowns and buffoons obama and the chicago mob have put there.
“Every court is ruling against you.”
That has nothing to do even with the merits. It is from the school of determining truth by counting noses. The law is what it is, and even if every lower court goes one way, they may all be wrong once Scotus does its own interpretation of the law. It’s not as if we’re talking about a factual question where evidence has been submitted to a fact-finder. On questions of law, the Supreme Court’s review is de novo, that is, they give exactly zero deference the the lower courts’ rulings.
Reminds me of the second grade class where Johnny brought a rabbit in to show-and-tell. Suzie asks the teacher if it’s a boy or girl rabbit. With all the fur the teacher can’t determine. So the teacher says, “I know how we’ll decide if it’s a boy or girl, we’ll vote.”
“Courting Controversy: Justices’ Side Commentaries Undermine the Supreme Court”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
Undermine the Supreme Court? You don’t say!
Someone needs to tell the Supreme Court that communism undermines the American thesis and is unconstitutional. Per Article 1, Section 8, redistribution of wealth may not be taxed for or funded in any form or fashion; taxation may only be imposed for debt, defense, and “general Welfare” or basic infrastructure; regulation is allowed in only three or four instances, and, per the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property, only owners may “claim and exercise” dominion. The Constitution and Bill of Rights provide maximal freedom to individuals while severely limiting and restricting government, causing constitutional government to be infinitesimal.
Admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., are all unconstitutional communism.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
America must be recovered and recaptured from the juristocracy and placed squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the American Founders.
If an NFL ref gives a speech about the importance of training for referees, the importance of good quality reffing, or the like, that’s not a problem. But if a referee shows up in one team’s locker room and does cheerleading for that team, then goes onto the field to ref during a game between that team and an opposing team, that’s a problem. The ref would be replaced.
Quoting Professor Turley: The tradition was that justices would limit comments on major issues to their written opinions, so as to avoid any question of partisanship or bias against litigants. It was considered a cost of being one of nine.
COST?
Lets review the signification of precise language. Professor Turley, using the word “cost” implies something of value lost or exchanged. In the special role of a supreme court justice, there has been, and should always be, the understanding that personal commentary is NOT their province, so as to preserve the high ideal of justice so entrusted to the highest “justices” in the land.
Use the word responsibility instead, “…limit comments….a RESPONSIBILITY of being one the nine.” To call it “cost” is to feed the entitled side of these socialist-democrat justices. To call it “cost” is to deny them something they selfishly feel they have rights-to, cancelling any altruism that ought to exist in the heart and brain of a moral/legal arbiter.
Shame on these Supreme Court blabbermouths.
SCOTUS just ruled EIGHT-ONE to lift the injunction that stopped Trump from deporting Venezuelans that Biden gave special treatment to under one of his cockamamie schemes.
The fact that two liberal justices voted with the majority shuts me up regarding my earlier point that liberals NEVER vote against their agenda. But Jackson managed to dissent making her seem even dumber that Sotomayor, which isn’t easy, as well as supporting my argument that liberals will use an ends justification when looking at cases.
Yes. She’s completely agendized.
It wasn’t really Biden that decided that. It was Mayorkas. Joe decided nothing during his presidency. Joe meant nothing. It was president by committee.
Here’s a push-back to a MAGA media lie questioning the safety of Mifepristone–a false narrative calculated to ban medication abortions, of course. There was a hearing in which RFK, Jr. was questioned by Josh Hawley about an alleged “study” that proved that Mifepristone was not as safe as has been represented and that there is a much-higher rate of serious complications–Hawley claims it is 11%. The American College of Gynecologists is pushing back–pointing out that this “study” isn’t a “study” at all–it is a compilation of purchased information about insurance claims based on ICDM codes that do not take into account the use of Mifepristone for other conditions, like spontaneous miscarriage, going to the ER for follow up–not complications. Below is an excerpt from “Fact Check”, May 5, 2025:
“The EPPC paper is neither peer-reviewed nor published in a medical journal. It was written by the organization’s president of public policy and director of data analysis.
The paper’s authors say they purchased insurance claim data from 2017 to 2023. From that information, they claim to have identified 865,726 mifepristone abortions by looking for specific procedure, diagnosis and billing codes or prescriptions.
Lincoln pointed to flaws with this strategy, including that it counted “people who got mifepristone and may have taken that alone, without misoprostol — which is not the evidence-based regimen.”
ACOG’s Dantas said the methodology could be overestimating the number of people seeking abortion care by including patients who were prescribed mifepristone to deal with complications associated with miscarriages.
Asked about the sample, Hunter Estes, the EPPC’s director of communications, dismissed concerns that treatments for a miscarriage would have shown up in the database.
“We would not count that as an abortion, even if she was given mifepristone on that visit,” he said in a May 2 email.
After selecting the patients to track, the paper then looked for medical codes for what it categorized as “serious adverse events that occurred within 45 days following the abortion.”
Lincoln took issue with the authors including ectopic pregnancy — a condition where the fertilized egg implants and grows outside of the uterus — among the negative outcomes.
“Pills can’t move your pregnancy out of your uterus and into your fallopian tubes,” she said.
Lauren Ralph, associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California-San Francisco, agreed (archived here).
“Ectopic pregnancy is not caused by a medication abortion, but rather is something that occurs in pregnancy. Abortion medications do not create harm if taken by someone with an ectopic pregnancy,” she said in a May 2 email.
The paper also recorded 40,960 visits to a hospital emergency department as serious adverse events following medical abortion.
EPPC’s Estes said the report included only visits deemed “likely to be related to the abortion, based on the diagnosis and procedure codes in the insurance records.”
But Ralph told AFP a visit to the emergency room alone is not evidence of a serious adverse event.
“Prior research indicates that many people go to the emergency department for follow-up care post-abortion, but this care is often to ensure abortion completion or get reassurance about symptoms rather than for treatment of an adverse event,” she said, referencing a 2018 study (archived here).
She said research has consistently found that the rate of serious adverse events is 0.3 to 0.5 percent — far lower than the figures pushed by EPPC.
When medical abortion was first approved by the FDA in 2000, patients were required to visit a clinic in person to receive the pills (archived here). In December 2021, the policy was updated to allow certain providers to prescribe the medication via telehealth appointments (archived here). Further policy changes allowed pharmacies to be certified to dispense mifepristone directly to patients, and in March 2024, major US chains CVS and Walgreens announced plans to fill prescriptions in Massachusetts and other states where the medication is legal.
The EPPC called on the FDA to “reinstate its earlier, stronger patient safety protocols.” But a peer-reviewed study published in Nature Medicine in February 2024 found: “Telehealth medication abortion is effective, safe and comparable to published rates of in-person medication abortion care” (archived here). ”
Just another MAGA media creation of “alternative facts” –just like the conspiracy theory over Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis.
Another effort to defend the M&P of the “culture of death”, so revered by the left.
you read Gigi’s comment? you must be waiting on the washing machine to stop spinning because one cant imagine ever wanting on purpose to read gigi’s copy pasta
Mifepristone and otherwise abortions have killed 63 million in the U.S. and 2.78 billion separate and sovereign human beings worldwide since 1950.
“My body, my choice”—those tiny humans demonstrated their desire to live simply by persisting.
And here are some bonus scientific facts that prove it’s not just an organ or part of the mother.
During its early stages of development, the placenta of the unborn child secretes neurokinin B-containing phosphocoline molecules, which protects the child from detection by its mother’s immune system, because it can be interpreted as a foreign body and is subject to attack. This is because the fetus is of non-identical genetic material to the mother due to their different DNA.
Also present in the unborn child are lymphocytic suppressor cells which stop interleukin 2 (IL2) cells from signalling cytotoxic T cells to kill the child. The purpose of IL2 cells is to distinguish between self and non-self (parts of the mother and foreign parts). The lymphocytic cells would not need to inhibit the response of the cytotoxic T cells if the IL2 did not signal the feuts as a foreign body. This would not occur if it was one of her own organs because the response would not be initiated.
An organ does not have its own organs. The fetal heartbeat begins at around 22 days after fertilisation as I said earlier, and brain waves are detected at about six weeks, which means the unborn child has a heart and a brain. At seven weeks, all other organs are present, although not fully developed, which would mean not only did the mother have an organ with different DNA to her, but this organ also has its own organ systems, and so the mother has an extra heart, brain, stomach, liver, etc.
– Emma Greenland-Broadsmith
Nurse Gigi: I believe (based on my expert witnesses from years of past litigation) that prostate cancer is generally slow-growing with low symptoms, although urinary/symptoms/ED show up. It is unlikely that it would be undiagnosed let alone become Stage 4 in the four months since he left office, especially since a simple PSA test is fairly routine these days.This should have been picked up by his “annual” WH physical a long time ago,..(or was it??) Please offer an opinion from Huffpost or your other unnamed sources (please cite) to the contrary. Thank you in advance.
(this was addressed to a different Gigi comment, sorry.)
Lin,
As always, a great take down of Natasha/Gigi, nurse, lawyer, among other claims, with ever so elegance that of Melania Trump like fashion ware.
Oh! While you have the elegance of Melania Trump like fashion ware, Natasha/Gigi comments make her look much more like common white trailer trash.
How marvelous!
lin: you are neither a urologist nor an oncologist, and neither am I. You are therefore not qualified to opine about how likely it was that Biden had cancer when he was in office, that he knew it, or how long it could have been present, and if you believe there was some cover-up, it’s only because you are devoted to MAGA media. All prostate cancers are not slow-growing, and even the very aggressive type that Biden has do not all produce an elevated PSA. This is excerpted from “Newsweek”, today’s date:
“Dr. Mark Litwin, professor and chair of the Department of Urology at UCLA who specializes in testicular, bladder, prostate and kidney cancer, told Newsweek that “aggressive prostate cancers (of course) grow quickly; that’s their nature. So, it is likely that this tumor began more recently.”
He added that “aggressive prostate cancers often do not produce PSA,” which is why some patients are found to have cancer spread to other parts of the body when they are initially diagnosed.
Jonathan Waxman, a professor of oncology at Imperial College London and the founder and president of Prostate Cancer UK, told Newsweek that while prostate cancer usually “develops very slowly over the years,” Biden “has a high grade cancer which develops relatively rapidly.”
Waxman added that no clinical trial has “shown any benefit from screening and this is why there is no national screening program for prostate cancer unlike breast cancer.”
But while James stressed the importance of screening, he also acknowledged that some “significant cancers don’t make PSA.”
“It’s possible that you can have metastatic prostate cancer with a normal PSA and that they didn’t also scan his prostate as part of the health checks,” he said. “You can envisage scenarios where he can go from a normal PSA to metastatic cancer, but it is very unusual.”
Representative Greg Murphy, a North Carolina Republican and urologist who has treated prostate cancer patients for decades, said it was “medically reckless” to suggest a cover-up regarding Biden’s prostate cancer.
“A man with a ‘below normal’ PSA can still have prostate cancer,” Murphy wrote on X. “This is why a rectal examination by your physician must ALSO be done. Unfortunately, some doctors are forgoing critical examination and relying only on the blood test. Make sure your doctor does both.”
In another post, Murphy questioned why someone “running for President of the United States, especially someone who is elderly, did not have these examinations.”
But other Republicans and Biden critics, including President Donald Trump’s eldest son, suggested that Biden was diagnosed with prostate cancer far earlier than announced.*
Donald Trump Jr. questioned on X if it is “yet another cover-up,” sharing a post from physician-scientist Dr. Steven Quay, who called prostate cancer “the easiest cancer to diagnose” and said it was “highly likely” Biden was diagnosed with prostate cancer “throughout his White House tenure.”*
Others, including Trump ally Laura Loomer, have seized on a 2022 clip of Biden saying Delaware pollution was the reason “why I, and so damn many other people I grew up with, have cancer.” A spokesperson for the Biden White House clarified at the time that he was talking about having non-melanoma skin cancers removed before he became president.
But Loomer wrote on X that Biden “has had cancer for a while” and that White House physicians “have long been suspected of fabricating his medical records.”*
Costas Panagopoulos, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, told Newsweek that he doubts Biden’s cancer was diagnosed while he was in office.
“If they did know, I don’t see why they would have decided to hide it,” he said. “It would have been an understandable reason to bow out of the 2024 presidential race gracefully, perhaps even to step aside and let Harris take the reins and set her up as the Democratic standard bearer going into the election.”
He also said it “seems to me that Biden would not have wanted to forestall treatment for nearly a year.”
When prostate cancer spreads to other parts of the body, it often moves to the bones. Metastasized cancer is much harder to treat than localized cancer because it can be difficult for drugs to reach all tumors and completely root out the disease.
However, when prostate cancers need hormones to grow, as in Biden’s case, they can be susceptible to treatment that deprives the tumors of hormones.
According to the CDC, prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men aside from non-melanoma skin cancer. While the majority of prostate cancer cases are detected at an earlier stage, some can be diagnosed when the cancer has spread to other parts of the body.
The CDC said 70 percent of prostate cancer cases were diagnosed at a localized stage, meaning the cancer had not spread outside the prostate, between 2017 and 2021. Fourteen percent were found at a regional stage, meaning it had spread to nearby lymph nodes, tissues or organs and 8 percent were found at a distant state, when it had spread to distant parts of the body.”
MAGA media is so desperate to look for something, anything, to use to off-set Trump’s endless scandals as a reason to attack Biden that they even make up fake stories that his cancer was covered up–all without any evidence. And, the MAGAts believe it.
*Each of these accusations is based on ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist who served in President Obama’s administration and joined Biden’s administration as a COVID-19 advisor, said Biden likely had prostate cancer at the start of his presidency in 2021.
“This is not speculation. If you have prostate cancer that has spread to the bone, then he most certainly—you were saying—had it when he was president of the United States,” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough asked Emanuel in an interview Monday.
“Oh yeah. He did not develop it in the last 100, 200 days,” the oncologist replied. “He had it while he was president. He probably had it at the start of his presidency in 2021.”
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough asked Emanuel in an interview Monday.
Since when has MSNBC host Joe Scarborough become MAGA media?
Again, “Oh yeah. He did not develop it in the last 100, 200 days,” the oncologist replied. “He had it while he was president. He probably had it at the start of his presidency in 2021.”
How does if feel to be so wrong, so many times?
How about citing a SOURCE? Even if cancer cells were present–did Biden KNOW about it? IS THERE PROOF HE KNEW HE HAD PROSTATE CANCER? Other oncologists say that not all prostate tumors produce an elevated PSA, and that Biden may not have had the rectal exam that might have detected it. The bottom line is: THERE’S NO PROOF OF ANY COVER-UP, and claiming that there is such is deliberate misinformation, calculated to detract from Trump’s legal troubles, the $400 million dollar Qatari gift and other Trump scandals.
–and gigi offers,”The CDC said 70 percent of prostate cancer cases were diagnosed at a localized stage, meaning the cancer had not spread outside the prostate, between 2017 and 2021. Fourteen percent were found at a regional stage, meaning it had spread to nearby lymph nodes, tissues or organs and 8 percent were found at a distant state, when it had spread to distant parts of the body.”
Well, that means that Biden’s diagnosis falls within that 8 percent, since, despite showing several symptoms of diminished health over the past few YEARS
“Prostate cancer is the easiest cancer to diagnose when it first starts and to watch it progress to bone metastases,” Dr. Steven Quay, a doctor and pharmaceutical inventor who founded the Seattle-based company Atossa Therapeutics, wrote in a post on X Sunday.
“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,” Quay noted. “Meaning, it would be malpractice for this patient to show up and be first diagnosed with metastatic disease in May 2025.”
Quay suggested Biden and his doctors knew of the disease years ago, but kept it hidden from the American people.
“It is highly likely he was carrying a diagnosis of prostate cancer throughout his White House tenure and the American people were uninformed,” he concluded.
Inventor Quay’s comments are nothing but a GENERALIZATION about prostate cancer. The kind that Biden has does NOT always produce an elevated PSA. Dr. Quay doesn’t have any ACTUAL FACTS upon which to base his comments, which are reckless and irresponsible. Riddle me this: why would Biden forego treatment for years if he KNEW he had prostate cancer?
Biden was not of sound mind. He was clearly mentally impaired. We all knew that. The recent Hur interview proved that. He was at the mercy of his handlers. They would rather allow him to suffer cancer than give up their power in the WH.
Yet, you avoid or ignore Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist who served in President Obama’s administration and joined Biden’s administration as a COVID-19 advisor, said Biden likely had prostate cancer at the start of his presidency in 2021.
“Oh yeah. He did not develop it in the last 100, 200 days,” the oncologist replied. “He had it while he was president. He probably had it at the start of his presidency in 2021.”
You. Lose. Again.
More of the MAGA media slop served up as fact. In fact, I just walked past a television tuned to one of those MAGA media channels and the moderator said almost verbatim what you just wrote about “clear” evidence that Biden was totally incompetent while he was in office. Tell me— were the leaders of other countries in on the conspiracy to cover up Biden’s alleged incompetence? Biden traveled all over the world and met with world leaders and gave interviews to foreign media. Why haven’t any of them accused Biden of being incompetent? Occasionally forgetting details about dates, slurring speech when you have a lifelong stuttering problem and shuffling when walking when you have arthritis are NOT proof of mental incompetence. Results speak louder than anything and Biden produced remarkable results. MAGA media even goes so far as to claim that our government has really been run by some shadow group—probably Obama—and you MAGAts believe it.
You MAGAts live in your own little bubble in which you believe you speak for and share the beliefs of most Americans— you are wrong. Never say that “WE” — meaning most Americans —“know” any of the swill you got from MAGA media.
Tell me— even if Biden had cancer cells in 2021– where’s any evidence that he KNEW it, hid it from the American people and refused treatment? Where’s the proof of a conspiracy on the part of his doctor, family and his administration to hide this illness? Why would he refuse treatment for years since this kind of cancer is susceptible to hormonal treatment?
This is a perfect example of how MAGA media operates— they jump from an generalized opinion that prostate cancer takes years to metastasize— given by a doctor who is NOT Biden’s treating physician—and jump to an accusation that Biden has been known about it for years and has been lying about it—all without any proof. I cited the opinions of other doctors who said that this type of aggressive prostate cancer may not produce an elevated PSA and that it’s not unheard of for the disease to first be diagnosed after it has spread to the bones.
Joe Biden can’t even get cancer without being accused of lying and being involved in a conspiracy.
Gigi, Anonymous, Anonymous, and Anonymous:
Thank you all for making my point!
As you can read, not only am I not a “MAGAt,”, but my very precise statement was, “It is unlikely that it would be undiagnosed let alone become Stage 4 in the four months since he left office, This should have been picked up by his “annual” WH physical a long time ago.
Gigi dismisses it all as “nothing but a GENERALIZATION…” and yet the quotes she offers are nothing more than “generalizations,” that is to say,
And Thank you Gigi, for offering this:
“It’s possible that you can have metastatic prostate cancer with a normal PSA and that they didn’t also scan his prostate as part of the health checks,” he said. “You can envisage scenarios where he can go from a normal PSA to metastatic cancer, but it is very unusual.”
(Notice that my own words were “it is unlikely,” but Gigi’s source said, “but it is very unusual.”
Hmmm.
And Gigi also helped me out with a quote from urologist Murphy, quoting him saying,”“A man with a ‘below normal’ PSA can still have prostate cancer,” Murphy wrote on X. “This is why a rectal examination by your physician must ALSO be done. Unfortunately, some doctors are forgoing critical examination and relying only on the blood test. Make sure your doctor does both.”
Of course, NONE of what Gigi says or quotes in any supports that, even rapidly growing and undiagnosed, we go from Stage 0 to Stage 4 that fast.
(I’m not sure why Gigi waxed prolix on MAGA “tendencies” to make excuses or find a coverup. Nothing in my comment to her even vaguely suggests either. I was approaching the issue medically, -as were the Anonymi)
(Indeed, and I simply add, when I joined this blog and got to understand Gigi, I often said to her, “Neither you nor I…”
It doesn’t quite work when she adopts that line and tries it on me….)
Thank you Gigi and thank you very good info from the three Anonymi!
What are you trying to say by claiming that it is “unlikely” that Biden’s cancer was just recently diagnosed? You have no actual proof of anything and are relying on generalizations about prostate cancer being slow-growing. However, Biden’s cancer is the very aggressive variety. You are just trying to bolster MAGA media that implies and\or outright accuses Biden of knowing he had prostate cancer and there being a conspiracy to cover it up.
What is your knowledge about the course of this particular form of cancer and whether and when he was symptomatic, what screening was done and when? You are the one who has proven my point about MAGA media and those who believe the crap it publishes. Trump, Jr and others outright accused Biden of knowing he had cancer for years and being involved in a conspiracy to hide this from the public.
Of course, all of this is a calculated distraction away from Trump’s tariffs, his attempts to bully Walmart to “eat” the tariffs— which is a tacit admission that Walmart and not China is on the hook to pay the tariffs, the lack of progress in resolving the Russian war against Ukraine and the disastrous Middle East trip in which Trump made a fool of himself fawning over MBS. Now it turns out that Trump is the one who asked Qatar for the $400 million dollar airplane — not the other way around. Oh, and Trump lied about the age of the two Air Force One planes— they aren’t “42” years old— they are 34 and 35 years old and well maintained. Trump’s private plane is about the same age.
“What are you trying to say by claiming that it is “unlikely” that Biden’s cancer was just recently diagnosed?”
No, what we are saying is that it is HIGHLY unlikely that Biden as the 1 in a billion prostate cancer that goes from undetectable to stage 4 in 9 months
Rejecting that incredibly unlikely scenario ALL other possibilities involve malfeasance.
My personal favorite is that Biden was getting cursory – if any at all actual physicals. Because those arround him were trying to hide his obvious cognative impairment. Somethintg that is now incredibly well documented.
“You have no actual proof of anything and are relying on generalizations about prostate cancer being slow-growing. ”
You constantly abuse the word proof.
Those challenging you need ONLY one thing – the highly improbable possibility that Biden has a 1 in a billion cancer that went from undetectable to metastasized in 9 monhs without any symptoms.
“However, Biden’s cancer is the very aggressive variety.”
So agressive that no one else has ever had prostate cancer that agressive.
“You are just trying to bolster MAGA media that implies and\or outright accuses Biden of knowing he had prostate cancer and there being a conspiracy to cover it up.”
I doubt Joe Biden was competent enough to know.
Joe is NOT the one who lied.
“What is your knowledge about the course of this particular form of cancer and whether and when he was symptomatic, what screening was done and when? ”
What we ALL know – except you is that there is no cancer so agressive it was not detected 9 months ago, and grew unbeleivably fast and still had no symptoms
“You are the one who has proven my point about MAGA media and those who believe the crap it publishes. Trump, Jr and others outright accused Biden of knowing he had cancer for years and being involved in a conspiracy to hide this from the public.”
No they are outright accusing those close to Biden of incredible deception for political purposes that likely will cost Joe his life.
And they are doing so with the odds incredibly favoring their correctness.
We have been down this road with you many times.
Through today it has NOT been absolutely proven that Trump did not collude with Russia – but contra your idiocy there is abslutely no evidence, and it was trivial for any rational person in Oct 2016 to quicky conclude it was thoroughly implausible – and year after year more and more people have come to understand how implausible that was.
We went through the same thing with Covid. It is still not proven that Covid did not come from wet markets in china.
But the current odds are about 1:13 Trillion. Even COmedian John Stewart pretty much got it on Colbert.
What are the chances that a deadly bat coronavirus that appeared in the town with a lab studying bat coronaviurses and trying to make them more deadly came from that lab ? 100% ? Nope. 99.999999999% yes.
You shilled the highly improbable Hunter Biden laptop is russian disinformation. Is it possible to prove 100% that is NOT true ?
No, but the odds that it is russian disinformation are astronomically loaw.
Over and over again – those of you on the left demand that we beleive things that Occams razor tells us are highly unlikely.
BTW the Tarrifs are doing quite well – Inflation DROPPED.
Walmart is going to make its own decisions. I doubt they are eating the tarriffs.
Progress is being made in the Urkjaine war, in the mideast, and with Iran as well as with India/Pakistan.
Is it as fast as we might hope ? Nope.
But NOTHING was being done for 4 years. Now something is being done.
Trump asked for things for the US from MBS and came home with commitments.
Biden asked for things from MBS and got blown off.
Trump Force one was first put into service in 1993 It was rebuilt and recommissioned in June 2023.
The VC25’s are are Air Force One were produced in 1985, but did not enter service until 1990 due to a bunch of problems.
While they are incredibly well maintained, they have not been significantly redesigned since 1990.
Further when they are decommissioned – which will happen shortly. One of them is already promised to the George Bush Presidential library – just like The plane from Qatar.
AF1 and TF1 are of similar ages, But TF1 was completely refitted 2 years ago. AF1 has not been ever.
I doubt the Qatar deal goes through – AF1 is much more than an Opulently fitted 747. It would likely cost as much to reengineer it to suit the requirements of a US president as to complete the Boeing Replacements for AF1.
My guess is that Trump is negotiating and Qatar is helping him.
That Trump is putting the screws to Boeing to deliver the new AF1 quickly and cost effectively.
A carrot and a stick – because he also get a 300B deal for Bowing with Qatar for new planes.
“No, ohwhat we are saying is that it is HIGHLY unlikely that Biden as the 1 in a billion prostate cancer that goes from undetectable to stage 4 in 9 months”
John, not all prostate cancers are of the same type, nor do all prostate cancers cause a worrisome increase in the PSA level. I responded to Gigi on this to make things clear. The news media lack understanding of prostate screening and treatment.
“You have no actual proof of anything.”
Gigi, there is substantial proof that Biden is a liar and corrupt. There are different cell types of prostate cancer and various levels of aggressiveness.
The question is when it was known that Biden had prostate cancer. Did Biden have a PSA, an indicator, not a diagnosis? PSA’s, according to many medical organizations, are not indicated for males over 70 or 80 years of age because the risk becomes too high for the potential benefit. That many on the news are screaming about the lack of a PSA indicates they do not understand the risk-benefit concerning prostate cancer. We have not had a president over 80, so to date, PSAs may have been done based on protocol.
The second issue is the timing. Based on what the news media says, both right and left, Biden has a high Gleason rating. How does one know without a biopsy, and even when aggressive, metastatic disease is rare early on in the disease?
Why did they pursue the diagnosis of prostate cancer? Was it because a nodule had just been found? To be such a recent development would make the situation very unlikely. Were they following the PSA that suddenly spiked? Did Biden have bone pain leading to an indirect discovery when lesions were seen on X-rays or scans?
All this doesn’t matter because we do not need more proof of the Biden Administration’s self-centered lack of concern for the American public. That and a continuous flow of lies for almost 50 years is well-established.
Gigi, based on your poor understanding of genetics, make sure you get a PSA.
All things considered, I have no reason to believe you over the doctor. Especially as Biden’s senility was denied for years by people like you and even the press colluded to help push that narrative.
Lets assume your claims are correct – that means that Biden had an unbeleivably rare form of prostate cancer. One that does not produce elevated PSA, that is so agressive it goes from undetectable to metastasized in about 9 months, and that does not have any other symptoms during those 9 months.
Why would Biden forego treatement for years ?
At 75 if you are diagnosed with NORMAL prostate cancer – after years of prior checks, you will not die from it even if left untreated.
It is only agressive prostate cancer that would kill a 75 yr old before he dies of something else.
But I do NOT suspect that Biden knew and lied or that his doctors knew and lied.
The most likely explanations is that Biden’s medical exams were deliberately cursory – lest the doctor have to report cognative impairment.
Biden was hiding ONE problem and his efforts to do so resulted in MISSING another.
But even there – it is probelmatic to question without Joe knew – though he certainly had symptoms – he was also cognatively impaired.
Others close to him had to have known something was wrong from symptoms.
Thank you Anonymous. -And especially bone metastasis (not just lymph nodes or proximal organ tissue)….
Ok, enough. Joe said he had cancer way back in the oil on his windshield in Delaware. They all just lied. It’s come out now because of the Hur tapes release.
4get it. They lie. Everyone lies it seems. It’s part the American culture now.
AI Overview
Prostate cancer, a slow-growing cancer, can take an average of eight years to spread from the prostate to the bones. However, some cases can take longer, and others can be faster, depending on the cancer’s aggressiveness.
Biden’s cancer is a very aggressive form.
Yes, you expect everyone to beleive Biden had the 1 in a billion form of prostate cancer.
And that anyone who questions that is a MAGA cultist conspiracy theorist.
Your on the wrong side of Occam’s razor.
AI reports what those who control it wish.
“You are therefore not qualified to opine about how likely it was that Biden had cancer when he was in office”
Anyone who reviews cancer statistics and is capable of basic math is qualified to opine.
I do not know if Joe knew – frankly he is sufficently cognatively impaired – he may have completely failed to grasp the significance of symptoms.
I do not know that there was malpractice – but if he was getting the medical care that we expect of septagenarian p[residents, it is near certain that there was either malpractice or a coverup.
I do not know how long this was present. But even “aggressive” cancers do not go from stage I to Stage 4 in the 6+ months since Biden’s doctors publicly reported him in good health.
The opinion that this was being covered up is the MOST LIKELY explanation for the facts we know.
“All prostate cancers are not slow-growing, and even the very aggressive type that Biden has do not all produce an elevated PSA.”
Correct, But those of you and the left are claiming this went from undetectable in June to invading his bones by May. Without any symptoms in between.
I had a slow growing enlarged prostate that was precancerous – and I absolutely KNEW there was a problem, which is why I went to the doctor, and they dealt with the problem. Throughout the entire process my PSA levels were normal. There were still OTHER symptoms, and OTHER means for doctors to check.
My GP refered me to a Urologist because my prostate was SLIGHTLY enlarged – not because of a PSA test.
Prostate cancer in men over 50 is a virtual certainty. Pretty much every male will get it if they live long enough. Doctors are supposed to do MANY tests to look for it on a regular basis.
“that “aggressive prostate cancers (of course) grow quickly; that’s their nature. So, it is likely that this tumor began more recently.””
They do, but zero to invading the bone in 9 months is almost impossible. Further cancers that are that agressive ALSO have dramatic changes that are evident – to that person AND to those arround them. I had a mildly enlarged prostate – not even cancer, with a NORMAL PSA, and not only did I know there was a problem but my family knew there was.
“He added that “aggressive prostate cancers often do not produce PSA,””
Correct – I did not have abnormal PSA levels and still doctors found the problem EARLY and dealt with it.
You do not seem to get it – nor do the experts you cite that are spraying irrelevancies mixed with lies.
Presuming Biden actually had an agressive Prostate Cancer – which is rare, and one that did not elevate PSA – rarer still.
That does NOT mean there were no symptoms at all and that it was not detectable earlier.
Patients whose original diaganosis is cancer that has spread to the rest of the body pretty much ALWAYS have been ignoring symptoms (and avoiding doctors).
There are SOME cancers that can develop rapidly with no symptoms – those are unbelievably rare, and prostate cancer is NOT one of those.
There are some cancers which develop – rapidly or very slowly with no symptoms. Prostate cancer is NOT one of those.
If you are over 50′ your doctor is examing your prostate with every physical – at Biden’s age that is atleast once a year.
Even between physicals tumors of the prostate have symptoms that YOU and everyone close to you will notice.
“Waxman added that no clinical trial has “shown any benefit from screening and this is why there is no national screening program for prostate cancer unlike breast cancer.””
This is an absurdly stupid and FALSE statement. Every male ever born can tell you that everytime they have a phsysical the doctor checks their prostate.
100% of the time. ALWAYS. PSA tests are ONE way to test. They are not the only way. One of the reasons that PSA tests are not common – except for older men where they are routine – I get one every year, is that prostate cancer is detectable MANY ways.
This claim that some agressive cancers will not show up on a PSA is a left wing nut red herring.
It presumes that Biden has a cancer that does not elevate PSA – which si NOT a fact in evidence.
And it presumes that the ONLY way or even the most common way to find prostate cancer is through a PSA test – IT ISN’T.
““It’s possible that you can have metastatic prostate cancer with a normal PSA and that they didn’t also scan his prostate as part of the health checks,” he said. “You can envisage scenarios where he can go from a normal PSA to metastatic cancer, but it is very unusual.””
Like a 1 in a billion chance.
““A man with a ‘below normal’ PSA can still have prostate cancer,” Murphy wrote on X. ”
True
““This is why a rectal examination by your physician must ALSO be done. Unfortunately, some doctors are forgoing critical examination and relying only on the blood test.”
ROFL.
Show of hands how many MEN here do not get a rectal exam of there prostate – as well as other palpitations to detect an enlarged prostate at EVERY SINGLE PHYSICAL ?
Regardless by Murphy’s own arguments – if PRESIDENT Biden’s phsyicians did not phsyically examine his prostate – they committed medical malpractice.
My dotor has checked by protate at every physical since puberty.
“In another post, Murphy questioned why someone “running for President of the United States, especially someone who is elderly, did not have these examinations.””
Physically examing a prostate takes only a few seconds for a GP as part of a normal physical.
Failing to do so is malprocatice.
Failing to do so for a man over 60 is serious malpractice.
Failing to do so for the president of the united states is very serious malpractice.
EVERY SINGLE MALE WILL GET PROSTATE CANCER IF THEY LIVE LONG ENOUGH.
“But other Republicans and Biden critics, including President Donald Trump’s eldest son, suggested that Biden was diagnosed with prostate cancer far earlier than announced.”
The choices are he was diagnosed and there was a cover up, or his physicians committed malpractice.
“Dr. Steven Quay, who called prostate cancer “the easiest cancer to diagnose” and said it was “highly likely” Biden was diagnosed with prostate cancer “throughout his White House tenure.””
Which is correct.
“According to the CDC, prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men aside from non-melanoma skin cancer”
All males will get prostate cancer if they live long enough.
The good news is that prostate cancer is NORMALLY slow growing and benign. For MOST men – they will die of something else long before they die of untreated prostate cancer.
“While the majority of prostate cancer cases are detected at an earlier stage, some can be diagnosed when the cancer has spread to other parts of the body.”
Cancer can also be detected when it kills you – the statement above is litterally trrue, but it is also a logical fallacy.
There is no inability to detect prostate cancer before it spreads. It is a FAILURE of doctors to detect prostate cancer only after it has spread.
“The CDC said 70 percent of prostate cancer cases were diagnosed at a localized stage, meaning the cancer had not spread outside the prostate, between 2017 and 2021. Fourteen percent were found at a regional stage, meaning it had spread to nearby lymph nodes, tissues or organs and 8 percent were found at a distant state, when it had spread to distant parts of the body.””
Which just means doctors FAILED.
My mother died of Colon cancer. NO ONE should die of colon cancer.
There are only two ways you died of colon cancer – You did not get regular colonoscopies as you aged.
And you ignored symptoms.
Or your doctor failed egregiously.
Prostate cancer is far easier to detect that colon cancer – there are multiple ways to detect it.
And they do not need to put you under and stick instruments up your a$$ to do so.
“Each of these accusations is based on ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE whatsoever.”
The evidence is trivial – Prostate cancer ALWAYS has multiple symptoms.
Symptoms noticeable by the person with the cancer and symptoms noticable by those arround them.
And symptoms that can be detected many ways relatively non-invasively in a minute at most at any physical.
There are only 4 choices.
Biden had the fastest growing prostate cancer known to man and neither he nor those arround him noticed obvious changes – symptoms.
Biden was NOT getting regular thorough physicals.
Biden’s doctors conducted a thorough physical and completely missed a major thing they are supposed to look agressively for in older men.
Or Bidn’s cancer was identified – a year or more ago and covered up.
My Guess is that Biden was NOT getting regular thorough physicals, because any REAL physical of a man his age would ALSO have shown cognative impairment.
And the easiest way to hide that is NOT to look for it.
Nurse Natasha
Gigi, Lets assume your arguement regarding Mifesperone is correct – That the rate of serious complications when used fo rabortions is below 11% and that the study included other mifesperone uses.
SO WHAT – any drug that has 11% OVERALL serious complications is a HUGE problem.
If aspirin in ANY use or in all uses combined had 1 1% rate of serious complication s- it would be a black label perscription drug.
Don;t get me wrong – I want the FDA and CDC and NIH GONE completely .
You should be able to take drugs that have an 11% rate of serious complications – without ANYONE’s permission, if you want.
But the determination of what safety is needed for a drug to be sold to the public comes from requirement of laws that PROGRESSIVES passed.
Live by your own rules. Mifesperone is NOT safe enough available by YOUR rules.
I am not interested in the politicized opinions of left wing nut doctors and faux experts are FDA, CDC, NIH,
What matters is FACTS. Mifesperone is NOT same enough to meet the requirements for approval.
Either do the right thing – and change the standards of the law, so that ALL drugs with an 11% overall serious complication rate can be allowed or just get rid of the public health nazi’s, Or FOLLOW YOUR OWN DAMN RULES!!!!
BTW the standard of science is reproducability. Peer reveiw is a modern concoction of the left to allow science to become politicized.
Whenever you hear a paper is not peer reviewed – all that means is it is not left wing enough.
Address the factual and statistical claims – are they sound ? is the data sound ? Are the results reproducable ?
That is how SCIENCE works.
“Lincoln pointed to flaws with this strategy, including that it counted “people who got mifepristone and may have taken that alone, without misoprostol — which is not the evidence-based regimen.””
So ? Drugs are often not used as perscribed, or used in combination with other drugs or not used in combination with other drugs.
When there are large percentages of serious complications, either drugs are not permitted or they have really nasty labelling requirements.
Even illegal drugs do NOT have an 11% rate of serious complications.
“ACOG’s Dantas said the methodology could be overestimating the number of people seeking abortion care by including patients who were prescribed mifepristone to deal with complications associated with miscarriages.”
First COULD is not the same as DOES, regardless, again SO WHAT ? We are still dealing with an 11% overall rate of serious complications.
That is either high enough to stop physicions from perscribing the druge – according to YOUR RULES.
or high enough that it gets a black box label.
You spend a great deal of effort to hint – because YOUR sources do not actually say this, that Mifisperon is saw if used PRECISELY as perscribed for abortions,
If that were true – you would STILL lose. That is not the standard.
I would note that you cite lots of CLAIMS made by people supporting Mifesperon.
You do NOT provide data.
ectopic pregnancies DO HAPPEN. People who have them typically do not know. If as YOUR sources claim Mifesperone makes that WORSE – that is STILL aproblem.
Further the rate of Ectopic pregnancies is 2% – not 11%.
Do you have a basis for a claim that people who without knowing it, have an Ectopic pregnancy are more than 5 times as likely to have an abortion using Mifesperone ?
“Ectopic pregnancy is not caused by a medication abortion, but rather is something that occurs in pregnancy. Abortion medications do not create harm if taken by someone with an ectopic pregnancy,”
Likely true but irrelevant – again unless you have a statitic that demonstrates that people who unknown to them have an ecptopic preganancy ar more tha 5 times more likely to have a medication abortion.
Not only don’t YOU seem to understand statitiscis or data analysis – but the “experts” you cite do not either.
They are NOT making valid arguments, they are engaged in a sales pitch for Mifesperone – throwing claims at the wall in the hope something sticks.
“The paper also recorded 40,960 visits to a hospital emergency department as serious adverse events following medical abortion.”
And what is wrong with this ? Most of us see hospital ERs a few times in our lives. Everytime I have been to the ER it has been SERIOUS, or I would have gone to a doctor.
“”EPPC’s Estes said the report included only visits deemed “likely to be related to the abortion, based on the diagnosis and procedure codes in the insurance records.”
But Ralph told AFP a visit to the emergency room alone is not evidence of a serious adverse event.”
Actually it is EVIDENCE, it is just not proof beyond any doubt.
Regardless, again directed reasoning – your OWN quote says the reports authors only included ER visits likely to be related to the abortion”
Do you have evidence that they lied about this and included broken legs ?
““Prior research indicates that many people go to the emergency department for follow-up care post-abortion, but this care is often to ensure abortion completion or get reassurance about symptoms rather than for treatment of an adverse event,” she said, referencing a 2018 study (archived here).”
Really ? Sounds pretty manufactured to me. ER visits are expensive. With insurance you stil lusually have a coouple of hundred dollar copay.
So you are saying that women who take mifesperone and who are otherwise perfectly healthy go in large numbers to an ER to esablish that they abourtion was successful, rather than going to their doctor, a clinic or Planned Parenthood ?
One of the tests of claims – whether in studies or not is do they make sense? Does the claimed behavior make sense ?
It is on very rare occasions true that humans in large numbers actually do engage in conduct that does not make sense.
Again RARE occasions. That is why when you make a claim about human behaviour that is nonsensical – YOU need rock solid statistical evidence.
The claim that women go to the ER to confirm a successful medication abortion DOES NOT MAKE SENSE – it is against their economic interests, It is also inconsistent with all other data we have about the behavior of abortion seeking women
“She said research has consistently found that the rate of serious adverse events is 0.3 to 0.5 percent — far lower than the figures pushed by EPPC.”
Contra your claims – the methodology for the EPPC study sounds perfectly reasonable. The methodological attacks on the study that YOU have leveled rest on conjecture and opinion – not data or statistical errors. If as you claim other studies produce different results – FINE, LETS actually examine the EPPC study, Lets replicate it, lets but the statistics under a magnifying glass – but you do not disprove the result of a study with speculation conjecture and opinion.
You do so with FACTS.
And lets do the same to the studies that claim the problem rate is 0.5%.
There is obviously a discrepancy, One result is clearly wrong.
What YOU do not grasp is after the covid nonsense we have all heard, the CAGW nonsense, the myriads of bad science claims we have heard exclusively from the left.
Peopel do NOT trust the science claims of those on the left any more. We especially do not trust public health faux experts.
Make your case using facts and data and statistics – not speculation oppinion conjecture and politically directed reasoning.
Everyone of us – right or left is capable of allowing our views to color our conclusions. The actual job of real science is to make that difficult.
That is NOT accomplished by peer review – which is by definition review by other like minded scientists.
It is accomplished by reproducing results over and over. But strong data, quality statistical analysis, and skepticism whenever the results reinforce your wished.
“When medical abortion was first approved by the FDA in 2000, patients were required to visit a clinic in person to receive the pills (archived here). In December 2021, the policy was updated to allow certain providers to prescribe the medication via telehealth appointments (archived here). Further policy changes allowed pharmacies to be certified to dispense mifepristone directly to patients, and in March 2024, major US chains CVS and Walgreens announced plans to fill prescriptions in Massachusetts and other states where the medication is legal.”
So ? History is not science, nor is it evidence that the law is being followed – not even when government agencies are making the history.
“The EPPC called on the FDA to “reinstate its earlier, stronger patient safety protocols.” But a peer-reviewed study published in Nature Medicine in February 2024 found: “Telehealth medication abortion is effective, safe and comparable to published rates of in-person medication abortion care” (archived here). ””
Again two things can be true at the same time.
AGAIN – I would eliminate the FDA, eliminate all perscriptions – not just telehealth ones.
But if we are going to have and FDA as YOU require. Then they MUST follow the same rules of ALL drugs – not give special passes for ones you favor.
“Just another MAGA media creation of “alternative facts” –just like the conspiracy theory over Joe Biden’s cancer diagnosis.”
What alternate facts ? Even YOUR comment provided good reasons to beleive the 11% serious reactions assertion. You cited some parts of the methodology used.
And then you countered thes e- not with FACTS – but with specualtion. YOUR sources assumed the EPPC study results were wrong and they speculated why.
They did NOT demstrate that speculation was correct.
What is your claim about some Joe Biden cancer diagnosis conspiracy theory ?
Biden has reported that he has stage 4 prostate cancer that has spread to the bone.
We all wish the best for him – though given my own experience with a very intellectually capable father who had his mind fail him and was painfully aware of it.
A quick death may be a blessing. Cognative imparement is a bad way to die. My father died from complications of vascualr dimensia.
My mother died of Colon cancer. If I get a choice – I would pick cancer.
I wish the best for Joe Biden. But if a cure for BOTH his cancer and his dimensia is not possible the “best” may be a quick relatively painless death.
As to “conspriacy theories” – my Mother died of Colon cancer. She was diagnosed with Stage 4 Colon Cancer in February. She was dead a little less than a year later.
But Doctors told us that you do not get Stage 4 Cancer overnight – that you must be ignoring symptoms for years. IF you are seeing a doctor regularly for your age and you receive a sudden diagnosis of Stage 4 cancer – your doctors have committed malpractice.
If Biden was receiving the medical care that we would expect a president his age receives – he would have been diagnosed at stage I or Stage II and it would have been treatable. Is it possible that Biden went from nothing detectable to Stage 4 in 6 months ? Yes, but it is highly unlikely.
The most likely explanation is that he either was NOT getting regular examinations by a doctor, or they were cursory or the doctors were lying to us.
That is not a conspiracy theory, it is near certainly true.
“Address the factual and statistical claims – are they sound ? is the data sound ? Are the results reproducable ?
That is how SCIENCE works.”
That is peer review. Apparently you don’t understand what peer review is. Other scientists testing the claims and data IS peer review.
“Other scientists testing the claims and data IS peer review.”
Though some of the implications might be correct, the statement is WRONG.
John Say: let me tell you this again–if you write these lengthy epistles for my sake, save yourself the trouble. YOU DO NOT EXIST to me. You are a hardcore MAGAt, and arguing with you is a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I will not read what you write.
” I will not read what you write.”
Gigi, you are too much of an idiot to understand what anyone writes. No one cares what you read or write. Occasionally people respond to you to enhance understanding by others. No one expects you to be anything but what you are, stupid.
Get a PSA until you understand genetics.
Hello S. Meyer:
Good to read through your comments tonight. If I may humbly add to what you said (and I must admit that I started laughing when you told Gigi to get a PSA), I express this thought only:
(I have just a little more than one year of medical schooling–dropped out because I kept getting faint in pathology and surgery clinics, ha ha. And I later worked on the CODE Team/ER when I went back to school. Anyway, because of my medical background, my law firm would assign all the medical issue cases to me for litigation/trial..) But while I agree with you about PSA tests past 70, I wish to draw attention to the fact that Biden has a Hx of an enlarged prostate (common) going back to at least 2019, as well as a medical Hx of more than one skin (epithelial) cancers on different areas of his body during the same years. This suggests compromised immunity prone to anaplastic and/or neoplastic development and cell proliferation–a finding that would warrant scheduled follow-up on the previous hyperplastic prostate finding. That is why I was simply expressing my opinion that the discovery was so recent, if it really was. I didn’t know that it would turn into such a lengthy thread and evoke such bile from Gigi. And I’m sorry it led everyone off-topic.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-biden-health-timeline-prostate-cancer/story?id=121955307
“And I’m sorry it led everyone off-topic.”
Lin, you have nothing to be sorry for. Your contribution was invaluable, enhancing everyone’s interest and helping inform the vulnerable population (Men with prostates) of present-day research.
I told Gigi to get a PSA, hoping that would cause her and others to think. PC genetics presents a problem. Should a girl who identifies as a boy get a PSA, and should a boy who identifies as a girl not get a PSA?
I am disappointed at the news media on both sides because their rhetoric was politically motivated, lacking adequate research into prostate cancer in the elderly.
You brought up the enlargement of the prostate. That is common in older men, and so is skin cancer, especially when the individual has a light skin color and has a lot of exposure to the sun.