Biden's Cancer Diagnosis: What They're Not Telling You

Either the most monitored patient in America received substandard care, or the public was deliberately misled. Neither possibility inspires confidence.

The announcement of Biden's metastatic prostate cancer is either evidence of deliberate concealment or unprecedented medical negligence.

Both options are disturbing.

Former President Biden has prostate cancer with bone metastases.

The diagnosis, revealed yesterday, carries a Gleason score of 9 — among the most aggressive presentations. This isn't early disease. It didn't appear overnight.

The medical reality no one is discussing

Advanced prostate cancer with bone metastases isn't a condition that materializes spontaneously after leaving office.

It follows a progression that competent screening should detect, especially in:

1. A patient monitored by Walter Reed physicians

2. The literal President of the United States

3. A man with unlimited medical resources

4. Someone whose health status was constitutionally significant

The White House medical unit performs regular thorough checks on presidents, specifically designed to detect abnormalities early and certainly before prostate cancer with bone metastases could develop.

There are 2 possibilities, both unacceptable

This situation permits only two interpretations:

Option 1: They knew. The Biden team detected this cancer during his presidency but concealed it from the public. They withheld critical health information from voters during heated debates about his fitness for office.

Option 2: They missed it. The most sophisticated medical team in the world somehow failed to detect advancing prostate cancer in the world's most important patient.

Neither scenario inspires confidence in the state of medicine or public health.

The pattern of medical opacity

Biden's casual 2022 remark in a Somerset speech bears revisiting: "That's why I and so damn many other people I grew up with have cancer."

The world asked questions and the White House immediately recharacterized this as referring to past skin lesions. Was this damage control for an accidental disclosure?

Maybe.

Similarly, Frank Biden's cryptic comment in July 2024, is now raising eyebrows.

“I’m incredibly proud of my brother. Selfishly, I will have him back to enjoy whatever time we have left. He is a genuine hero.”

Whatever time we have left…? Did he know something that Americans didn't?

Politics corrupts medical transparency

This case exemplifies how political considerations corrupt medical disclosures. The scientific enterprise depends on truth, but politics rewards concealment.

The medical literature is unambiguous: prostate cancers develop gradually - not rapidly in a 4-month time window.

Admittedly, PSA screenings are imperfect. But this particular test is criticized because it returns false positives - meaning it signals a problem when there is no reason for concern. Meaning:

When it’s wrong, it leads to additional, harmful, unnecessary testing when everything is actually fine - not the other way around.

For this diagnosis to emerge only after Biden left office requires either:

1. Deliberate withholding of information

2. Catastrophic medical oversight

3. An unprecedented biological anomaly (vanishingly unlikely)

Occam's razor suggests the first explanation.

Evidence-based conclusion

When evaluating competing hypotheses, we must consider what the evidence supports:

• Did Biden's cancer spontaneously develop and metastasize in the 4 months since leaving office? Biologically implausible.

• Was it present but undetected despite world-class medical care? Medical malpractice of historic proportions.

• Was it detected and concealed? Consistent with both medical reality and political incentives.

I'll state plainly what others won't: this diagnosis was almost certainly known earlier and deliberately withheld from the American public.

Between deception and incompetence, I hope it was deception.

Deliberate opacity can be addressed through policy and accountability, but incompetence of this magnitude would undermine the entire medical establishment.

Either way, the public deserves better than politically-convenient medical narratives. They deserve the truth.

Public health cannot afford another trust deficit

After the catastrophic erosion of public trust during COVID- from shifting mask guidance to school closure debates to inaccurate portrayal of risk across age and health status- our public health institutions cannot withstand another credibility blow.

Public health depends entirely on trust.

Without it, even the most scientifically sound guidance becomes ineffective. This case risks becoming yet another example where political expediency trumped medical transparency.

The medical establishment, already facing a crisis of confidence, cannot afford to be seen as complicit in political deception. If we want Americans to trust public health guidance in future crises, we must demand absolute transparency about the health of our leaders now.

Until next time,

Tiffany

---

This article examines publicly available information through an evidence-based lens. Subscribe for more analysis at the intersection of medicine, policy, and scientific integrity.

*never medical advice