- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
He’s doing well being open about medical issues, imho.
It’s a good thing to do when you’re in a position like his, as it might encourage others to get things checked out sooner rather than later.Now I feel bad for joking about the regular bum updates
Nah, you’re good.
A statement from Buckingham Palace:
During The King’s recent hospital procedure for benign prostate enlargement, a separate issue of concern was noted. Subsequent diagnostic tests have identified a form of cancer.
His Majesty has today commenced a schedule of regular treatments, during which time he has been advised by doctors to postpone public-facing duties. Throughout this period, His Majesty will continue to undertake State business and official paperwork as usual.
The King is grateful to his medical team for their swift intervention, which was made possible thanks to his recent hospital procedure. He remains wholly positive about his treatment and looks forward to returning to full public duty as soon as possible.
His Majesty has chosen to share his diagnosis to prevent speculation and in the hope it may assist public understanding for all those around the world who are affected by cancer.
Prostate cancer is very common, very survivable, and very easily treatable. It’s a serious health problem, but he’s almost definitely gonna be fineMe fail reading comprehension. The article says it’s NOT prostate cancer
, assuming he has prostate cancer.Me posting a “well actually” while OP was “well actually” - ing themselves.
As long as he gets real treatment, not some wack job with a scented candle and some holistic shite.
In the United States, we treat it very differently than in Europe. In Europe, it is more scented candles and holistic shit. In America, it’s aggressive treatments of surgery or chemotherapy.
Europe has a much better life expectancy with prostate cancer.
If he gets the scented candle treatment it’ll be because he’s well into “alternative medicine”, not because that’s standard practice here. He has a track record of promoting homeopathy in particular
Kingy has a reputation for holistic shite though. He recently appointed one of these charlatans to a senior post.
Removed by mod
I’m not sure how much I trust nutritionfacts.org
Who are you, so wise in the ways of science?
You don’t have to. They don’t make claims of their own. They just report on research.
“They just report on research” requires me actually looking through multiple papers and ensuring that
(1) their interpretation of each piece of research is correct
(2) that the research that they have chosen isn’t cherry-picked to fit a particular point of view.
There are going to be huge numbers of research papers on chemo therapy, some will have better research methodologies than others, some may talk about particular forms of cancer and different forms of chemotherapy. “Doing your own research” involves close-reading and expertise. That’s why I prefer sources that I can trust to have that expertise. I don’t know that about nutrition facts, which appears to be the passion project of an MD who is passionate about nutrition, but who doesn’t appear to have a background in oncology.
Pretty gutless and dishonest, mod, when the claims being made are backed by verifiable fact and peer-reviewed science. The article you censored without even taking a moment to understand is supported by these papers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26502403
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26098871
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22751283/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22210088
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24905161
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25500146
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31229193
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31291813
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30726124
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30726124
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30138052
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25068501
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28033447
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30933235
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31135826
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31268471
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29276024
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28978555
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29636577
So - the first source there has no abstract available - did you look at it? Why include it when we don’t know what it says.
The second source - what exactly did you take away from that? What’s your understanding of the phrase ‘surrogate end-point’?
The third source doesn’t say chemotherapy is ineffective - it’s saying that it is very unpleasant and there needs to be additional research on reducing general toxicity and therefore effectiveness
The forth source is saying chemotherapy is expensive. No abstract available.
At this point I give up the will to live - you aren’t providing us with sources that demostrate your original claim that “drugs have never been proven effective at improving survival” - you’re just throwing vaguely related links at us in the hope taht we won’t look too carefully.
Rishi says it’s been caught early, which by normal Tory truth-telling standards probably means it’s stage 4 and we’ll get another few days off this summer.
Hope it’s a nice day. Be a shame to waste it on bad weather.
deleted by creator
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The type of cancer has not been revealed, but according to a palace statement the King began “regular treatments” on Monday.
Buckingham Palace says the King “remains wholly positive about his treatment and looks forward to returning to full public duty as soon as possible”.
He will postpone his public engagements and it is expected other senior royals will help to stand in for him during his treatment.
The King, 75, returned to London from Sandringham in Norfolk on Monday morning and the palace says he has commenced treatment as an outpatient.
Although he will pause his public events, the King will continue with his constitutional role as head of state, including paperwork and private meetings.
UK figures suggest, on average each year, more than a third (36%) of new cancer cases were in people aged 75 and over.
The original article contains 280 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 50%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Is this good or bad news? I don’t know much about the UK, but I thought he was kinda unpopular.
I want to see the monarchy abolished but don’t wish him personally any great ill will. He’s more of a meddler in affairs of state than his mother and has been nonce-adjacent too many times for me to trust his judgement but this brings me no joy - too many friends getting cancer at the moment.
He’s not hated, certainly not hated enough for people to wish he dies of cancer.
He’s less popular than his mother, but that’s mainly because people are simply ambivalent about him.
I can’t think of anyone I’d wish to die of cancer. I watched my father become a shell of a man while cancer took him, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
Really, I wouldn’t wish anyone dead, but definitely not of cancer. What a horrible way to go.
Fuck cancer.
Generally it’s considered bad when people have cancer.
The monarchy has no real power, and they’re no worse at wealth hoarding than any other billionaire, so it’s vaguely uncouth to be happy he has cancer.
The monarchy has no real power
"The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian.
A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor’s private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public.
Following the Queen’s intervention, the government inserted a clause into the law granting itself the power to exempt companies used by “heads of state” from new transparency measures.
The arrangement, which was concocted in the 1970s, was used in effect to create a state-backed shell corporation which is understood to have placed a veil of secrecy over the Queen’s private shareholdings and investments until at least 2011."
Aight. I meant more like “the monarchy can’t order the military to detain people, or unilaterally pass decrees against the will of the people”.
Asking parliament to pass an abusive law isn’t the same type of abuse of power that would justify wanting a monarch to die in the short term in my view.
Charles is not Putin. I’m pretty firmly in the “overthrow the monarchy camp”, but that’s different from wanting an essentially harmless figurehead of an old man to have cancer.
Charles is not Putin. I’m pretty firmly in the “overthrow the monarchy camp”, but that’s different from wanting an essentially harmless figurehead of an old man to have cancer.
Who wants him to have cancer? You said they have no real power, I showed that they do. Obviously they can’t have people thrown out of windows but that wasn’t the point I was making.
I was more saying we seem to have different definitions of “real power”. You’re not wrong that they have influence, but the influence they have doesn’t seem like “dictator level” power. Simple disagreement of terms.
Given the context of someone asking “is it good the man has cancer”, people disagreeing with “there’s no real reason to want him to have cancer, so no” are easily mistaken as suggesting that maybe it is good he has cancer.
“real power” to me, is being able to make the government craft legislation that suits you. I can’t do that, can you?
Yeh, I can actually - I can write to my MP, go and see them in the local surgery and persuade them to table questions and even draft legislation It’s quite cool.
Yes, we’ve already determined that we have different definitions.
To me, real power would be if they could just choose not to disclose the information.
Those with true power and wealth are rich and powerful enough to convince the world that they aren’t that rich or powerful.
So, 1 item, specifically connected to the monarchy in 70+ years.
That was the first result that popped up. There are more.
There are very very few. And all directly linked to the issue of monarchy itself
How many is too many?
In her lifetime the Queen gave royal assent to around 2,500 bills. If she directly influenced the contents of more than 3, I would be surprised
There was a ruling put in place when Harry and William were young to prevent the press from being able to report their normal day to day lives, like going to playdates, or playing at the beach.
I assume this guy is livid at that!
Why would you assume that?
Sure, death in itself is never a good thing. But since there is only one way for him to end his reign, you can’t really wish him away without wishing him harm.
He can abdicate, he doesn’t have to die to lose his title.
Well, if the Brits voted to not have a monarchy, they could just kick him out.
I don’t think the British monarchs in the current day need to be removed from office the way the French did it.
He is only unpopular with the terminally online. At most, people are apathetic/don’t really have an opinion of him
Spoken like someone who isn’t one of his subjects.
His coat of arms are on my passport lol
No, they’ve got it bang on.
He’s primarily unpopular with those of us that are against the monarchy as an institution rather than because of the man himself. If he dies that doesn’t get rid of the institution, it just changes which rich prick currently has the job
You can hate someone and what they stand for without wanting them to get cancer. Call me an old bleeding heart, but I don’t think it’s very healthy to wish death on anyone.
When the system of government is literally based on succession through death, you kind of open yourself up to such questions.
Yeah, that’s the problem here, right? If you wish him away, there is only one way.
It’s not the only way, he could abdicate for one thing. There’s the possibility of democratic abolition of the monarchy (but if you go by opinion polls it doesn’t have enough public support at the moment).
You can wish for the abolition of the monarchy (in a non-guillotine sort of way)
changing the system of government doesn’t require anyone’s death.
No one wanted him to get cancer
Well, I wouldn’t say “no one”. There’s always one.
People on the whole don’t like the idea of that much wealth in one location, or the way that there are lots of loopholes and exemptions for them that commoners don’t receive.
However, opinions of the bottom in the seat vary.
The late queen was generally well regarded as a reasonably nice person.
And the current king is getting nods of approval for championing environmental issues, and the way that he’s been very open about his recent medical issues (which hopefully will drive more prostate-holders to get checked).Imagine asking if it’s good or bad news that an old man has cancer.
Imagine not being able to ask if it’s good or bad news that a politician resigns. The fact that there is only one way for him to quit doesn’t mean you can’t be happy about him quitting.
He can always abdicate. It’s been done before. But that wi have no effect on the constitution or shake of government
Maybe turn on the human being bit of your brain. The guy has cancer.
