Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It literally blows my mind that she's been able to beat cancer so far. I've known several people with pancreatic cancer and they were all gone within 2 years of diagnosis.
She must be made of teflon.
Your right.....I hate her politics but she must be tough as nails. People don’t beat those types of cancer often. Seems like she could be run over by a truck, get up dust herself off and spit out the gravel from the tires. Not sure how she keeps bouncing back like this. Good to hear these cancers not winning for a change, as pancreatic and lung cancer usually do.
So why create a title that states "cancer is back" when own linked article states something clearly different?
From linked OP:
"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has completed radiation therapy for a cancerous tumor on her pancreas and there is no evidence of the disease remaining, the Supreme Court said Friday.
The court said in a statement that a biopsy performed July 31 confirmed a localized malignant tumor. Ginsburg, 86, underwent a three-week course of radiation therapy and as part of her treatment had a bile duct stent placed, it said. The court said Ginsburg “tolerated treatment well” and does not need any additional treatment but will continue to have periodic blood tests and scans.
The tumor was “treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body,” the court said."
Except the Supreme Court statement didn't say that; that was a summary (and an incorrect summary) by the author of the news article. The Supreme Court statement held in relevant part that the tumor was "treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body." People are confused by what "treated definitively" means, as such a term is unclear and does not, on its face, mean or imply that there is no evidence of the disease remaining. But the Supreme Court press office is run by smart people who know full and well the impact and meaning of words. My guess is that the prognosis isn't as good as the statement would have some believe (), but the office didn't want to come out and say that.
She'll hang on through the end of next year, then once the maniac is booted out she can retire at her leisure.
President Trump should move to have her removed. She can't be lucid and/or able to do her job under the influence of all the drugs she must be taking. There are no lifetime appointments.
I may disagree with Justice RBG aggressively on her interpretation of the law, but I hope and pray for a full recovery, no matter the odds. Cancer is a ***** that needs to be eradicated from the face of the Earth. Far too many people gone from that wicked disease, to include several wonderful loved ones.
Agree, I would never wish pain, suffering, or death on RBG even though I do not liker her politics.
Fox & Friends this morning went on about "the Left" making statements that if RBG resigns, McConnell cannot vote on a nominee replacement during an election year if he has any substance. Fox & Friends expressed outrage that The Left did not wish RBG well but made it political.
Interesting thing: not at any time during that Fox & Friends ranting segment, did any one of them on F & F wish RBG well.
So why create a title that states "cancer is back" when own linked article states something clearly different?
From linked OP:
"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has completed radiation therapy for a cancerous tumor on her pancreas and there is no evidence of the disease remaining, the Supreme Court said Friday.
The court said in a statement that a biopsy performed July 31 confirmed a localized malignant tumor. Ginsburg, 86, underwent a three-week course of radiation therapy and as part of her treatment had a bile duct stent placed, it said. The court said Ginsburg “tolerated treatment well” and does not need any additional treatment but will continue to have periodic blood tests and scans.
The tumor was “treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body,” the court said."
Upon further reflection, I'm changing my statement from "was back" to "is back".
The tumor wasn't removed. It was treated.
The statement saying "there is no evidence of disease elsewhere" doesn't mean that the cancer still isn't in her pancreas.
Wellppp I was born in 1982 and not technically an adult until 2000 so that was a little before my era.
I want the same things you do. I just want a balance. Each judge has their political leaning.
Everybody has their own political bias.
But to qualify as a judge, you must demonstrate the ability that you can stick to the letter of law and put your personal bias aside.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but the office didn't want to come out and say that.
