John McCane is dying

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
This war of attrition the New York Times is fighting against John McCane may never deal a knockout blow, but it may be having a mental effect in the back of many people's mind. Whether or not it's justified is up to the public at large but it looks like they have a lot of ammunition to be coming up with something every 10 days. But why did they endorse him only to treat him like this? Was it a setup?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03...ed=1&_r=1&ref=politics

On the Campaign Trail, Few Mentions of McCain?s Bout With Melanoma

Along with his signature bright white hair, the most striking aspects of Senator John McCain?s physical appearance are his puffy left cheek and the scar that runs down the back of his neck.

The marks are cosmetic reminders of the melanoma surgery he underwent in August 2000. Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, sometimes tells audiences that he has ?more scars than Frankenstein.?

The operation was performed mainly to determine whether the melanoma, a potentially fatal form of skin cancer, had spread from his left temple to a key lymph node in his neck; a preliminary pathology test at the time showed that it had not.

But because such a test cannot be definitive, the surgeons, with Mr. McCain?s advance permission, removed the surrounding lymph nodes and part of the parotid gland, which produces saliva, in the same operation, which lasted five and a half hours.

The final pathology analysis showed no evidence of spread of the melanoma, his staff said at the time. Mr. McCain, of Arizona, has said he did not need chemotherapy or radiation.

In 1999, during Mr. McCain?s first race for president, he gave the public an extraordinary look at his medical history ? 1,500 pages of medical and psychiatric records that were amassed as part of a United States Navy project to gauge the health of former prisoners of war. This reporter, who is a physician, interviewed the senator?s doctors in 1999 with his permission.

But this time around, Mr. McCain has yet to make his full medical records or his physicians available to reporters. At least three times since March 2007, campaign officials have told The New York Times that they would provide the detailed information about his current state of health, but they have not done so. The campaign now says it expects to release the information in April.

So Mr. McCain?s prognosis for the recurrence of melanoma can be gauged only by talking to experts not connected with his case. Those experts say his prospects appear favorable.

The melanoma removed in 2000 was Stage IIa on a standard classification that makes Stage IV the most serious. For Stage IIa melanoma, the survival rate 10 years after diagnosis is about 65 percent. But the outlook is much better for patients like Mr. McCain, who have already survived more than seven years.

For patients with a melanoma like Mr. McCain?s who remained free of the disease for the first five years after diagnosis, the probability of recurrence during the next five years was 14 percent and death 9 percent, a study published in 1992 found.

No spread has been detected in the three or four dermatologic checkups Mr. McCain has undergone each year since 2000, stress tests show no evidence of heart disease, and ?his doctors consider him in very good health,? his campaign staff said in a recent statement.

The campaign also said Mr. McCain regularly took Vytorin to lower his cholesterol, a baby aspirin to help prevent heart attacks, a multivitamin and, occasionally, Claritin or Flonase for allergies.

Mr. McCain has proved resilient in the past, surviving serious injuries that he sustained when his airplane was shot down over Vietnam and then when he was captured, and sometimes tortured, as a prisoner of war for five and a half years.

Now he is hoping to be the oldest man ever elected to a first term as president. Even if the melanoma returns, he would not be the first sitting president to have had cancer.

From what information Mr. McCain has disclosed, he is at increased risk for melanoma and other skin cancers because of his medical history, fair skin and prolonged sun exposure at a young age ? long before the wide use of sunscreen.

Since the 2008 campaign began, doctors not connected with Mr. McCain?s case have expressed intense interest in the extent of the face and neck surgery that he underwent on Aug. 19, 2000, at the Mayo Clinic Scottsdale in Arizona.

Some of these doctors have noted in e-mail messages and in comments to reporters that the surgery appeared to be so extensive that they were surprised his melanoma was not more serious ? perhaps Stage III, which would give him a bleaker prognosis. These doctors said they would be surprised to learn that such an operation would be performed without evidence that the melanoma had spread.

But a number of melanoma experts said in interviews that such an operation was understandable according to the medical standards of 2000 and that the extensive surgery did not necessarily imply Stage III melanoma.

?It was not out of line,? said one of the experts, Dr. Richard L. Shapiro, a melanoma surgeon at New York University. Dr. Shapiro added that he would feel more comfortable in making a judgment if he saw a full pathology report.

?It was a complex problem,? he said, ?that was handled very skillfully by a team of experts.?

Dr. Denis Cortese, Mayo Clinic?s president and chief executive, said in a recent interview that experts in all three of the clinic?s sites discussed details of Mr. McCain?s operation before it was performed.

In trying to discover whether the melanoma had spread from his temple, Mr. McCain?s doctors made an incision down the side of his face and partly removed the lymph nodes in his neck, the campaign said in the statement.

?No spread of melanoma was found in any of these locations,? the campaign said. ?However, this preventative procedure had cosmetic side effects for Senator McCain, including swelling at the site of the incision. Thus, the large scar and attendant swelling that Senator McCain has on the left side of his face is not the result of the melanoma itself, which was small and localized, but rather of the more extensive surgical procedure utilized out of a high degree of caution.?

Mr. McCain has had four melanomas.

In 1993, he waited more than six months before seeking care after a Navy doctor recommended that he consult a dermatologist for a lesion on his left shoulder that turned out to be his first melanoma. It was excised and has not recurred.

Pathology tests showed that the two other melanomas ? detected on his upper left arm in 2000 and on his nose in 2002 ? were of the least dangerous kind, in situ. In that type the malignant cells are confined to the outer layer of skin.

The most serious melanoma was spotted on his temple in 2000 by the attending physician at the United States Capitol after it had escaped the eye of Mr. McCain?s personal physician at Mayo Clinic Scottsdale. (The Capitol physician also spotted another melanoma that was in situ.)

The melanoma on Mr. McCain?s left temple was 2 centimeters in diameter and 0.22 centimeters deep, and was fully excised with wide margins, 2 centimeters in each direction, his campaign staff said.

To determine whether the cancer had spread to lymph nodes in his neck, the Mayo doctors injected a radioactive dye into the melanoma in a procedure known as a sentinel node biopsy hours before surgery. The doctors waited for the dye to flow in the lymph fluid to the node in the neck to which the cancer is statistically most likely to spread first.

Then they used a gamma counter ? an instrument like a Geiger counter ? to identify the node, and removed it. Pathologists quickly froze the tissue while Mr. McCain was on the operating table, looked at it through a microscope and did not detect cancerous cells.

But this kind of biopsy is not 100 percent reliable for melanoma, partly because the chemical stains that help pathologists identify breast and other cancers in frozen sections do not work as well on melanomas. Also, the cancer could have spread to a nonsentinel node.

So Mr. McCain?s surgeons, following what was then an accepted practice, removed the surrounding nodes as part of the sentinel operation.

The operation to dissect the lymph nodes in the face and neck can be tricky as the surgeon works to avoid injuring the nerve that controls various facial movements and expressions.

In Mr. McCain?s case, the Mayo Clinic team of surgeons reconstructed the skin and soft tissue overlying the left temple, face and neck by pulling up skin to close the wound.

Doctors advise melanoma patients to have regular checkups to detect new skin cancers and the spread of old ones because melanomas can be quirky. Mr. McCain?s staff has not said what tests his doctors have used to monitor his case.

Most recurrences of melanoma occur in the first few years after detection. Survival figures for melanomas are often measured in 10-year periods rather than the 5-year periods for many other cancers.

?With melanoma, a patient is never completely clear,? said Dr. Shapiro, the N.Y.U. expert.

If melanomas do recur, standard treatment options are limited for many to surgery and a difficult form of chemotherapy. The chances of long-term survival diminish.

Now, on the campaign trail, Mr. McCain appears to take care to shield himself from the sun, slathering on powerful sunscreen before outdoor events, finding spots of shade from which to speak and sometimes wearing baseball caps while outside.

Mr. McCain is occasionally asked on the campaign trail about his age. But he is almost never asked about his health.

 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
He's what - 72 years old? I would be worried if he didn't have some health problems, as that would support the "McCain is an alien robot trapped in a man's body" theory that keeps popping up on teh intertubes.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
This just emphasizes the care Senator McCain must take in selecting a Vice-presidential candidate. I see no more reason for concern than that caused merely by his relatively advanced age. I will, however, note that the Times, however critical of Mr. McCain, at least takes the effort not to misspell the Senator's name.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Dari
This war of attrition the New York Times is fighting against John McCane may never deal a knockout blow, but it may be having a mental effect in the back of many people's mind. Whether or not it's justified is up to the public at large but it looks like they have a lot of ammunition to be coming up with something every 10 days. But why did they endorse him only to treat him like this? Was it a setup?

That seems a very fair question to me.

They keep raising questions about his fitness for duty, yet endorse him? I don't get it.

McCain's medical records? When are we going to see a story about Hillary's failure to provide tax returns?

Fern
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,892
10,713
147
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Dari
This war of attrition the New York Times is fighting against John McCane may never deal a knockout blow, but it may be having a mental effect in the back of many people's mind. Whether or not it's justified is up to the public at large but it looks like they have a lot of ammunition to be coming up with something every 10 days. But why did they endorse him only to treat him like this? Was it a setup?

That seems a very fair question to me.

They keep raising questions about his fitness for duty, yet endorse him? I don't get it.

McCain's medical records? When are we going to see a story about Hillary's failure to provide tax returns?

Fern

Maybe you are both seeing an evil conspiracy where there isn't one? :roll:

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Keep the hit pieces coming!

I'm glad the American people *and* media are united in their cause to bring down the GOP.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Dari
This war of attrition the New York Times is fighting against John McCane may never deal a knockout blow, but it may be having a mental effect in the back of many people's mind. Whether or not it's justified is up to the public at large but it looks like they have a lot of ammunition to be coming up with something every 10 days. But why did they endorse him only to treat him like this? Was it a setup?

That seems a very fair question to me.

They keep raising questions about his fitness for duty, yet endorse him? I don't get it.

McCain's medical records? When are we going to see a story about Hillary's failure to provide tax returns?

Fern

Maybe you are both seeing an evil conspiracy where there isn't one? :roll:

Perception is everything. Perhaps they thought conservatives seeing the NYT endorsing would be the kiss of death. Since that didn't work, they're now going with Plan B. No doubt Plan C is being thought up as we speak if it hasn't already.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
They've got to do something to help the Dems. They're in shambles right now. These hit pieces are designed to negate any advantage McCain garners from being the nominee already.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Dari
This war of attrition the New York Times is fighting against John McCane may never deal a knockout blow, but it may be having a mental effect in the back of many people's mind. Whether or not it's justified is up to the public at large but it looks like they have a lot of ammunition to be coming up with something every 10 days. But why did they endorse him only to treat him like this? Was it a setup?

That seems a very fair question to me.

They keep raising questions about his fitness for duty, yet endorse him? I don't get it.

McCain's medical records? When are we going to see a story about Hillary's failure to provide tax returns?

Fern

Maybe you are both seeing an evil conspiracy where there isn't one? :roll:

Are you so daft that you cannot see through this bullshit? Two hit pieces within two weeks after they endorsed him.
 

GenHoth

Platinum Member
Jul 5, 2007
2,106
0
0
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
I will, however, note that the Times, however critical of Mr. McCain, at least takes the effort not to misspell the Senator's name.

Beat me to it!
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Dari
This war of attrition the New York Times is fighting against John McCane may never deal a knockout blow, but it may be having a mental effect in the back of many people's mind. Whether or not it's justified is up to the public at large but it looks like they have a lot of ammunition to be coming up with something every 10 days. But why did they endorse him only to treat him like this? Was it a setup?

That seems a very fair question to me.

They keep raising questions about his fitness for duty, yet endorse him? I don't get it.

McCain's medical records? When are we going to see a story about Hillary's failure to provide tax returns?

Fern

Maybe you are both seeing an evil conspiracy where there isn't one? :roll:

I don't know about claiming it's an evil conspiracy. But I do think it fair to question why they endorsed him and then turn around and lay out old news about his potential unfitness for the job - unduly influenced by lobbyists, cancer victim etc. You'd think these would have been considered in their endorsement process undertaken the editorial staff.

If these things were considered irrelevent, or dismissed for lack of veracity, I submit that they aren't fit to print either. Why print irrelevant or untrue things?

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,068
55,589
136
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Dari
This war of attrition the New York Times is fighting against John McCane may never deal a knockout blow, but it may be having a mental effect in the back of many people's mind. Whether or not it's justified is up to the public at large but it looks like they have a lot of ammunition to be coming up with something every 10 days. But why did they endorse him only to treat him like this? Was it a setup?

That seems a very fair question to me.

They keep raising questions about his fitness for duty, yet endorse him? I don't get it.

McCain's medical records? When are we going to see a story about Hillary's failure to provide tax returns?

Fern

Maybe you are both seeing an evil conspiracy where there isn't one? :roll:

Perception is everything. Perhaps they thought conservatives seeing the NYT endorsing would be the kiss of death. Since that didn't work, they're now going with Plan B. No doubt Plan C is being thought up as we speak if it hasn't already.

So wait a minute... when the NYT endorses someone, they are endorsing him to attack him? You people are nuts. I'm guessing none of you even read the NYT's endorsement. Basically what they said was that they ddin't agree with McCain on a lot of issues, but the other Republican candidates were SO crazy that he was the best of a bad lot.

Maybe you people should actually read the Times once in awhile. Not only is it the most highly respected newspaper in America, but you would also realize that they have run numerous articles that are critical of Hillary Clinton as well. Ones questioning conflict of interest with renewable energy firms she's associated with, ones critical of her negative campaigning, ones going after her health care plans, etc... etc. Shockingly enough, those articles never seem to merit a 'hit piece' thread on here. Maybe it's the other way around for Hillary, does attacking her help her in your bizarro world? Also going unnoticed is the neverending stream of anti-Hillary pieces penned by Moureen Dowd a few times a week.

What's also interesting is that the article raises the same questions about McCain's health as I've heard mentioned dozens of times on here. Obviously it's a concern when he will be the oldest person ever to run for president, especially considering the presidency isn't exactly renowned for attracting the youngsters.

Oh, and Fern the NYT had an editorial specifically calling her out for not releasing her tax returns.

You people keep seeing what you want to see though... I'm sure the evil Liberal New York Times is out to get you all again.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
They keep raising questions about his fitness for duty, yet endorse him? I don't get it.

Maybe they figured he was just the best of a bad lot...
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh, and Fern the NYT had an editorial specifically calling her out for not releasing her tax returns.

I subscribe to the local "version" of the NYT. They own our paper so we see most of their editorials. But our paper didn't run that one.

Fern
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
it's funny they bothered endorsing anyone when all the editors have so obviously taken sides (Dowd/Rich are falling over each other trying to hump Obama, while Krugman's been shilling for Hillary)
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,068
55,589
136
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Oh, and Fern the NYT had an editorial specifically calling her out for not releasing her tax returns.

I subscribe to the local "version" of the NYT. They own our paper so we see most of their editorials. But our paper didn't run that one.

Fern

Did you read their endorsement of McCain? They pretty much said they didn't agree with him on the issues, but that the other candidates were so bad for the Republicans that they figured he was the least bad. All of these things we're talking about factored in for sure, but really when on one hand you're weighing someone who you don't agree with who is old (McCain) against someone who is as insanely far to the right as Romney, the choice is still pretty easy.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,068
55,589
136
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's funny they bothered endorsing anyone when all the editors have so obviously taken sides (Dowd/Rich are falling over each other trying to hump Obama, while Krugman's been shilling for Hillary)

They aren't editors by the way, they are op-ed columnists. And don't forget everyone's favorite person Bill Kristol who has been drooling over McCain for quite some time now.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,549
1,130
126
Originally posted by: GenHoth
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
I will, however, note that the Times, however critical of Mr. McCain, at least takes the effort not to misspell the Senator's name.

Beat me to it!

McCane is a play on his name making fun of how old he is. Where have you two been? Its even made it on air on the cable networks.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
They keep raising questions about his fitness for duty, yet endorse him? I don't get it.

Maybe they figured he was just the best of a bad lot...

Apparently so.

"Hey let's endorse the lecherous, corrupt, dying old guy. He's better than the others".

There are many large newspapers that don't make endorsements. IMO, they coulda just passed on the opportunity to do so with the Repub side.

I suppose some will say that they didn't wanna look biased. IMO, that wouldv'e been better than how they look now - biased and stupid.

Fern
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
Skin cancer runs in my family, it's a very important subject to me. That said, I can't see how you think that NY Times article is a "hit job." To me, it seems a straight forward factual presentation of Senator McCain's brush with a very serious diease, The article points out quite clearly that, although we have not seen his current medical records yet, the prognosis is very good for McCain's health. The conclusion I took was that it appears this health problem whould not have any effect on McCain's ability to perform as President.

Calling this a hit job is being way too over sensitive.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
They keep raising questions about his fitness for duty, yet endorse him? I don't get it.

Maybe they figured he was just the best of a bad lot...

Apparently so.

"Hey let's endorse the lecherous, corrupt, dying old guy. He's better than the others".

There are many large newspapers that don't make endorsements. IMO, they coulda just passed on the opportunity to do so with the Repub side.

I suppose some will say that they didn't wanna look biased. IMO, that wouldv'e been better than how they look now - biased and stupid.

Fern

Yep. But they probably drank their own Kool-Aid and felt that the world couldn't move on unless they give their input:roll:
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: GenHoth
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
I will, however, note that the Times, however critical of Mr. McCain, at least takes the effort not to misspell the Senator's name.
Beat me to it!
McCane is a play on his name making fun of how old he is. Where have you two been? Its even made it on air on the cable networks.
So I missed it. Sometimes the P&N level of "humor" eludes me.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,931
10,260
136
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Keep the hit pieces coming!

I'm glad the American people *and* media are united in their cause to bring down the GOP.

Sheer honesty.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,892
10,713
147
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Dari
This war of attrition the New York Times is fighting against John McCane may never deal a knockout blow, but it may be having a mental effect in the back of many people's mind. Whether or not it's justified is up to the public at large but it looks like they have a lot of ammunition to be coming up with something every 10 days. But why did they endorse him only to treat him like this? Was it a setup?

That seems a very fair question to me.

They keep raising questions about his fitness for duty, yet endorse him? I don't get it.

McCain's medical records? When are we going to see a story about Hillary's failure to provide tax returns?

Fern

Maybe you are both seeing an evil conspiracy where there isn't one? :roll:

Perception is everything. Perhaps they thought conservatives seeing the NYT endorsing would be the kiss of death. Since that didn't work, they're now going with Plan B. No doubt Plan C is being thought up as we speak if it hasn't already.

If you believe what you just wrote, you are at least emotionally retarded, and perhaps just retarded. :roll: