A message from King Charles III: check your prostate!

[+ augustus]

21 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Perhaps Rent.men can add "prostate exam" as a category under services for you.

Do they even do the old prostate exam anymore?  What with all these sexual assault allegations.  I had it done while in high school.  The doctor told me to turn on my side then he stuck his lubed finger in my rear.  I had no idea what was coming!  I told me father when he got home and he just laughed.  

[Ali Gator]

According to some media sites (who got their info from 'inside Palace sources'), KC has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer - not prostate cancer, as they are publicly saying (he did have an enlarged prostate, according to the sources, but upon further examination they found pancreatic cancer). 

I don't know how true this is, as I've not seen anything in the MSM, but this is what's being reported and what is being discussed on some social media circles. Take it for what it's worth. 

[CuriousByNature]

On 4/4/2024 at 12:45 PM, Luv2play said:

If she were to be incapable of even this, then William could also abdicate of favour of Harry, whose wife would be more than willing I am certain to perform at public functions. Being an actress and all. lol

After the abdications of King George VII, Queen Charlotte, and King Louis... lol

[Luv2play]

1 hour ago, CuriousByNature said:

After the abdications of King George VII, Queen Charlotte, and King Louis... lol

I don’t think the House of Windsor could survive a regency. 

[CuriousByNature]

2 hours ago, Luv2play said:

I don’t think the House of Windsor could survive a regency. 

Probably not!

[marylander1940]

Queen Camilla Bursts Into Tears as King Charles References Mortality Amid Cancer Treatment

WWW.YAHOO.COM

---

"I hope that I survive long enough to come back again and see you."

What a lovely couple they're!

 

Edited October 29, 2024 by marylander1940

[marylander1940]

On 4/5/2024 at 1:13 PM, Ali Gator said:

According to some media sites (who got their info from 'inside Palace sources'), KC has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer - not prostate cancer, as they are publicly saying (he did have an enlarged prostate, according to the sources, but upon further examination they found pancreatic cancer). 

I don't know how true this is, as I've not seen anything in the MSM, but this is what's being reported and what is being discussed on some social media circles. Take it for what it's worth. 

If that was the cancer, he'd be dead by now, unless he's taking a new treatment. 

[Ali Gator]

9 hours ago, marylander1940 said:

If that was the cancer, he'd be dead by now, unless he's taking a new treatment. 

Depends on how early they caught it and his treatment.

If you heard / read his 'goodbye' speech to Australia this past week as he and Camilla was wrapping up their Royal visit, you will see he didn't sound too optimistic about his future. Camilla was in tears. 

[Luv2play]

19 hours ago, marylander1940 said:

If that was the cancer, he'd be dead by now, unless he's taking a new treatment. 

I think the survival rate after diagnosis for most pancreatic patients can be up to 5 years. Most die before that time. Not sure what new treatments are out there that have changed these stats. 
 

I’ve had a few friends die from it and that was within 2 years. 

[marylander1940]

1 hour ago, Luv2play said:

I think the survival rate after diagnosis for most pancreatic patients can be up to 5 years. Most die before that time. Not sure what new treatments are out there that have changed these stats. 
 

I’ve had a few friends die from it and that was within 2 years. 

Thank you for the information!

[SirBillybob]

Bear in mind that from the same age Elizabeth’s visits to Australia were about 5 years apart, I believe 2000, 2002 (a meeting not a tour), 2006, and 2011. Most folks age 75 would be knocking on wood regarding the next cycle let alone somebody recently treated for non-specific cancer. 

What I find surprising is that a prostate cancer diagnosis would likely have been disclosed by the firm if it had been so, seeing as it was openly revealed it was being assessed (needle bore biopsy I think). Why play the cards so close on another type? … to avoid tasteless joking perhaps? Anyway, there are more likely suspects than pancreatic; remove prostate from the equation and the probability it is not pancreatic (the pie sliver at 9 o’clock) is about 95%. 

Edited October 30, 2024 by SirBillybob

[Luv2play]

13 hours ago, SirBillybob said:

Bear in mind that from the same age Elizabeth’s visits to Australia were about 5 years apart, I believe 2000, 2002 (a meeting not a tour), 2006, and 2011. Most folks age 75 would be knocking on wood regarding the next cycle let alone somebody recently treated for non-specific cancer. 

What I find surprising is that a prostate cancer diagnosis would likely have been disclosed by the firm if it had been so, seeing as it was openly revealed it was being assessed (needle bore biopsy I think). Why play the cards so close on another type? … to avoid tasteless joking perhaps? Anyway, there are more likely suspects than pancreatic; remove prostate from the equation and the probability it is not pancreatic (the pie sliver at 9 o’clock) is about 95%. 

I see colorectal is high on the list after prostate and lung. If we rule out the first two, then the likelihood is that it is colorectal. 
 

I have had a friend who was operated on in his 40’s and is still around at 77. But some people are squeamish about anything to do with the intestinal tract. I can see the Palace being in this group. 

[SirBillybob]

Right, palace PR on disclosure discussion: “yeah, but, the butt of butt jokes”. Far greater vulnerability to tasteless comments wrt Farrah Fawcett, even. 

Edited October 30, 2024 by SirBillybob

[+ Lucky]

Back around 1980 my friends and I were pleased to learn of an openly gay doctor. No matter what you went to see him for, he had to do a prostate exam and squeeze out that drop of fluid. He looked so happy. We finally found another gay doc, but he ended up with drug problems.

[Luv2play]

On 1/21/2024 at 9:25 PM, Luv2play said:

I generally agree but if testing is invasive , as are colonoscopies and biopsies of prostates, then there is some risk of things going horribly wrong. Not many you hear of but those that do get publicity are horror stories. 
 

One example that comes to mind is a guy in his 40’s out on the west coast of Canada, a well known film maker who lived on Salt Spring Island, went in for a biopsy when his PSA showed elevated levels. Three days later he was dead of sepsis. 

I’ve also read of perforated bowels happening during colonoscopies. 

I had a biopsy on my prostate which revealed cancer. This was 17 years ago. I got it treated and am alive today to talk about it. The biopsy was the most painful part because they only sedate you but don’t put you out. 

Prostate cancer is in the news again with former president Biden receiving a diagnosis of stage 4 prostate cancer that has spread to his bones. This is a grim finding and despite the hopeful comments by cancer specialists in the media, the outlook for an 82 yo is not good imo. 

25 years ago former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau died at the age of 81 of the same disease. They say more treatments are available today but the basic options of chemo and radiation are still being most often employed and at that stage have limited effectiveness in most cases. 
 

Aggressive treatment also has its downsides in terms of quality of what remaining life there is. My only surprise is that this wasn’t caught earlier. A simple PSA test administered several years ago could have averted this situation. 

[SirBillybob]

On 5/19/2025 at 8:38 PM, Luv2play said:

Prostate cancer is in the news again with former president Biden receiving a diagnosis of stage 4 prostate cancer that has spread to his bones. This is a grim finding and despite the hopeful comments by cancer specialists in the media, the outlook for an 82 yo is not good imo. 

25 years ago former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau died at the age of 81 of the same disease. They say more treatments are available today but the basic options of chemo and radiation are still being most often employed and at that stage have limited effectiveness in most cases. 
 

Aggressive treatment also has its downsides in terms of quality of what remaining life there is. My only surprise is that this wasn’t caught earlier. A simple PSA test administered several years ago could have averted this situation. 

He evidently had a PSA test in his early 70s although screening guidelines for that age are in the ‘discretionary but not recommended’ category. Who knows what the results were although it’s very possible that there was nothing found in the result that prompted a prostate MRI or otherwise further investigation. It is also unclear as to whether the recent nodule that itself presumably prompted biopsy for confirmation of malignancy was detected via DRE, MRI, or both. The information rolling out is ambiguous though that is typical for media reporting outside of considerations of deliberate content distortion. The typical rush for first place finish on headlines consistently results in factual inaccuracy.

The screening he had did not prevent eventual prostate cancer diagnosis whose new incidence is so common anyway at his current age. A large majority of octogenarians that die of any cause have prostate cancer of various grade that did not manifest or kill them before the non prostate coup de grâce that did the job. The average additional male life expectancy, non-adjusted for prostate cancer, is 5-7 years at his age and prostate cancer could be a co-factor added to his other health status vulnerabilities that shorten that added span. However, surveillance prevents very few prostate cancer deaths per 1,000 PSA-screened in spite of how ubiquitous prostate cancer is.

PSA is a soft surrogate marker of cancer. He landed within the greater than 99% of males screened for whom such screening did not culminate in the detection required to mitigate morbidity and death due to prostate cancer occurring later, that large percentage of course encompassing collectives with or without eventual prostate cancer, even though far more than 1% of males will have such cancer within their lifetime.

At least he is now accurately diagnosed and with no delay in timely best practices intervention, not subject to the problem of overdiagnosis of cancer that emerges with widespread screening and will have ultimately been of relatively innocuous grade or non-implicated in all-cause mortality, a phenomenon that figures prominently in (surprising to many) clinical guidelines that discourage routine PSA testing. 

Edited May 21 by SirBillybob

[Luv2play]

I think in the case of Biden the fact it has metastasized and spread to the bones indicates he has had cancer for a considerable time. Either they kept it quiet or failed to screen him. Once it spread to his bones and affected his urination ability they could not keep it quiet any longer.

.I and my two brothers all developed prostate cancer in our early to mid 60’s, I being the youngest at just shy of 60. Our Gleason scores varied, and one brother with 7.8 was the highest, Biden is above 9.

My brother with the highest score went on to develop bladder cancer 10 years after having his  prostate removed. The other with a Gleason at 5 never went on to a higher score. He is checked semi annually. I had my prostate removed and am cancer free after 19 years. 

Our father was diagnosed with it in his early 80 ‘s but never had any treatment and lived to 88, dying of heart related issues. Our family experience shows that the hereditary risk is something that needs to be considered when deciding to be tested and at what age. 

[pubic_assistance]

16 minutes ago, Luv2play said:

Either they kept it quiet or failed to screen him.

Clearly the former.

Its not even remotely believable that any man hasn't been checked for cancer in over ten years, let alone the President of the United States.

[SirBillybob]

2 hours ago, Luv2play said:

I think in the case of Biden the fact it has metastasized and spread to the bones indicates he has had cancer for a considerable time. Either they kept it quiet or failed to screen him. Once it spread to his bones and affected his urination ability they could not keep it quiet any longer.

Well, no. Inverse relationship Gleason score and time to metastasis so just a few years from onset of prostate cancer eventually graded as aggressive is not an outlier case. 

[SirBillybob]

2 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Clearly the former.

Its not even remotely believable that any man hasn't been checked for cancer in over ten years, let alone the President of the United States.

The rate of PSA testing uptake declines by age particularly from the point of age at which Biden reportedly had been last PSA screened. There are no data for 10 year iterations of testing uptake at any point in age, so it’s difficult to extrapolate uptake yes/no from data restricted to a calendar year, but the USA guidelines revised shortly following his test a decade ago recommended against routine screening for age >69. Annual testing rates that deviate from the guidance simply reflect discretionary testing, partially due to the transparency accompanying guidance that grades the recommendation for non-testing for the oldest of the three stratified age groups, as highly recommended in tandem with a low grade of evidence for legitimizing the non-screening, neither of the two grades moderate.

The decline represented in the curve is obviously not related to increased mortality because all rate denominators are live males. 

 It’s certainly within the realm of possibility that 10 years could elapse without repeating a test done around age 70. I don’t see the pressing need to speculate since several scenarios are possible and the overall picture for this disease and its variability would suggest that the pressing driver for establishing concrete from elusive is political backdrop as opposed to what is clinically expedient for management and the minuscule value of a single case for adding to best practices. 

For the highest age group the rate of prostate cancer of any grade is higher than the PSA screening rate that itself alone is non-confirmatory for cancer presence that is actually extremely common. It’s as if screening becomes oddly habituated according to historical testing uptake but yields minimal value. 

Edited May 22 by SirBillybob

[+ Vegas_Millennial]

8 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

9 hours ago, Luv2play said:

Either they kept it quiet or failed to screen him.

Clearly the former.

Its not even remotely believable that any man hasn't been checked for cancer in over ten years, let alone the President of the United States.

His doctors probably told him but he forgot.  Remember, he's been senile for quite awhile.  God bless this elderly man!

Edited May 22 by Vegas_Millennial
Removed incomprehensive, incoherent, and ineffective; replaced with senile

[SirBillybob]

1 hour ago, Vegas_Millennial said:

His doctors probably told him but he forgot.  Remember, he's been senile for quite awhile.  God bless this elderly man!

I’m going to prevail on this for refuting my own senility, as I have picked up on the challenge of ambiguity posed by interpreting whether you mean that what slipped his mind was that doctors had informed him that he had been checked or that screening had yielded a cancer diagnosis. 

[+ Charlie]

I just had my annual physical, and my doctor performed the regular old prostate exam two days ago. There hasn't been anything up that chute since my last physical, and I had almost forgotten what it feels like. Luckily, my doctor is gay, so he knows how to do it professionally. (He said everything felt fine to his experienced fingers.)

[Twinkslover]

On 1/22/2024 at 10:00 AM, PileDriver said:

I have an annual exam with my gay urologist. it's a fun exam that we both enjoy. throb.

 

Which doc  do you go to ? If you DM me pls ?