Biden's health
Biden's health has been very big news this week, around two issues – his dementia and his cancer diagnosis.
The dementia issue was front and centre because of two books released about the cover up over his declining cognitive ability. Adding to that was the release of the audio tapes of his interview with the special prosecutor:
Amid long, uncomfortable pauses, Joe Biden struggled to recall when his son died, when he left office as vice president, what year Donald Trump was elected or why he had classified documents he shouldn't have had, according to audio Axios obtained of his October 2023 interviews with special counsel Robert Hur. …
The audio also appears to validate Hur's assertion that jurors in a trial likely would have viewed Biden as 'a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.'
Democrats and Biden's White House blasted Hur for his observations about Biden. They repeatedly insisted he was 'sharp' and that Hur was politically motivated. But the audio from the five-plus hours of interviews indicates he and co-counsel Marc Krickbaum were respectful and friendly.
Those who attacked Hur for his observations should be ashamed. It is now apparent that not only did he not exaggerate, but if anything he was relatively benign. Hur told the truth, and was assailed for it by operatives who didn't want the public to know.
Then in the last few days we have the news that Biden has Stage 4 metastasized prostate cancer. This is terrible news for him and his family. The fact he lost his eldest son to cancer makes it more horrible.
However sympathy for Biden doesn't negate the public interest in whether he truly had no idea he had prostate cancer until after he left office. Some cancers are very fast moving, but prostate cancer is not. The Herald reports:
In interviews with the news media, some physicians raised the idea that Biden could have known about his condition while in office, saying it was surprising that the President – who has access to some of the best health care in the country – would not have learned about his cancer earlier.
'He did not develop it in the last 100 to 200 days,' Dr Ezekiel J. Emanuel, an oncologist who served as an adviser on the coronavirus pandemic for the Biden administration, said on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe'. 'He had it while he was president. He probably had it at the start of his presidency in 2021.
'I don't think there's any disagreement about that,' added Emanuel, who noted that both Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush had reported being tested for prostate cancer.
There seem to be four possibilities here. They are: Biden had regular testing for prostate cancer and it never showed up and he had no idea at all that he had prostate cancer until a few days ago. This is medically very improbable. Biden was never tested for prostate cancer in the last few years, and he had no idea at all that he had prostate cancer until a few days ago. This would call into question the competence of White House doctors who never thought to test for prostate cancer. To be fair you don't regularly test men over 70 because even if they have traces, they are more likely to die of old age than the prostate cancer as it is usually so slow spreading. However the fact Biden's cancer has metastasized shows this was a terrible decision, if correct. Biden was tested for prostate cancer some years ago and tested positive. They did not want to reveal he had prostate cancer as it would add to concerns about his infirmity, so they deliberately decided not to have White House doctors regularly test for it. They figured it would probably not spread as quickly it did. If this is correct they sacrificed his life for his presidency. Biden and/or his family/staff were aware he had prostate cancer and were regularly testing and monitoring it, but decided not to release this information publicly
It feels a bit yucky discussing this, as Biden is highly likely to die from the prostate cancer (however it may be years, not months). But it is a legitimate part of the discussion about where the White House staff were covering up for his infirmities – both physical, and mental.
Reasonable people could disagree about whether Biden was able to do the job of President during his first (and only) term of 2021 – 2025. But it is crystal clear that Biden would have been absolutely incapable of being President for a full second term. The fact that they tried to do so, when they must have known he could clearly not remain mentally pr physically strong enough until 2029 reflects extremely badly on the Democratic Party.
One solution could be to pass a law requiring the President to undertake a comprehensive physical and mental examination, done by a panel of doctors (not just the White House physician). Maybe extend this to major presidential candidates also.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Techday NZ
a day ago
- Techday NZ
US-China chip export debate highlights risks for AI leadership
DeepSeek. TikTok. Taiwan. And a White House shake-up on AI rules. The spiralling US-China technology rivalry landed at the heart of Johns Hopkins University last week, as a panel of top experts and policymakers took to the stage to debate whether restricting exports of advanced semiconductors to China can help the US maintain its edge in the race for artificial intelligence. The discussion, hosted by Open to Debate in partnership with the SNF Agora Institute, comes at a critical time. In Washington, the Trump administration has announced plans to roll back the Biden-era AI Diffusion Rule and introduce new chip export controls targeting China – a move seen by many as a signal that the technology contest between the two superpowers is only intensifying. On one side of the Johns Hopkins debate were Lindsay Gorman, managing director at the German Marshall Fund's Technology Program, and former CIA officer and congressman Will Hurd. They argued the answer is yes: semiconductor controls can give the US a real advantage in the AI race. Gorman pointed to DeepSeek, a Chinese AI model whose CEO has publicly lamented the impact of advanced chip bans. "Money has never been the problem for us. Bans on shipments of advanced chips are the problem. And they have to consume twice the power to achieve the same results," she quoted, highlighting how China's AI advances still depend heavily on imported hardware. "The United States has significant hard computing power advantages – the ability to produce high-end chips, designed specifically for training AI models," Gorman told the audience. She argued that, together with its allies, the US controls a "strategic choke point" on computing power. "Properly implemented controls can have an effect and also have an increasing and compounding effect over time in retarding China's AI advantages and giving the United States a head start," she explained. Will Hurd, who also served on OpenAI's board before running for US president, compared the AI contest to the nuclear arms race. "Artificial intelligence is the equivalent of nuclear fission. Nuclear fission controlled gives you nuclear power… uncontrolled, nuclear weapons can kill everybody," he said. Hurd emphasised the importance of first-mover advantage, warning that the US cannot afford to lose its technological lead. He also highlighted a lack of reciprocity in the tech relationship between the two countries. "Chinese companies like Baidu, DJI, and TikTok operate freely in the US, but American companies are not allowed to operate in China," Hurd pointed out. "If there was a level of reciprocity between our two countries, we wouldn't be here having this debate about chip controls." Yet, on the opposing side, former senior US diplomat Susan Thornton and technology strategist Paul Triolo insisted the US could not outpace China in AI simply by tightening export controls. Triolo argued that the controls are "not working and will not lead to US dominance in AI", describing them as a blunt instrument that creates confusion for industry and disrupts global supply chains. "Most experts believe that Chinese companies are only three months behind US leaders in developing advanced AI models," Triolo said, suggesting any technological gap is vanishingly slim. Thornton, who spent decades at the heart of US-China diplomacy, warned of unintended consequences. "The main thing we should be asking ourselves about this question… is what is the cost benefit of US policy actions?" she said. "We have to face the reality that China is already building AI… a third of the world's top AI scientists are Chinese. China is one third of the entire global technology market. So it's clearly a player." She cautioned that blocking China from critical technology could backfire, hurting US companies, alienating allies and raising the risks around Taiwan, the global centre of advanced chip manufacturing. "Certainly, the one thing we need to do is avoid going to war," Thornton warned. "Taiwan, the most sensitive issue in US-China relations, has now been dragged right into the middle of this AI issue because they're the place that produces all the cutting-edge chips that we're trying to control." Audience members pressed the panel on whether international collaboration on AI safety was possible, and whether the US could ever match China's data advantage, given the size of the Chinese population and its permissive data environment. Hurd conceded that "the US will always have less data because we have a little thing called civil liberties," but argued that superior algorithms and privacy-protective machine learning could level the playing field. For Triolo, the dynamic nature of the technology means that attempts to wall off China are self-defeating. "There are many ways to get to different ends. The controls have forced Chinese companies to work together, develop innovations, and become more competitive both domestically and globally," he said. Gorman, in closing, rejected what she called "a defeatism that says America can't out-compete China or slow its progress". "Our companies are doing well. There isn't an issue here with demand, it's with supply. Doing better means that we have to throw what we can at this problem now with a smart application of tools," she argued. But Thornton had the last word, urging caution. "Making the AI competition with China a zero-sum game, not only will not work, it is dangerous," she said. "We should focus on the things that are going to matter to our children and their children, which is the long-term AI competition, which if not constrained and bounded by international agreements and by cooperation among countries… it'll be a very dangerous world."
RNZ News
a day ago
- RNZ News
Elon Musk's deep dive into politics was bad for business. His breakup with Trump could hurt even worse
By Matt Egan , CNN Elon Musk. Photo: AFP Analysis - Elon Musk's decision to go all in on Donald Trump never made much sense. His scorched-earth approach to breaking up with Trump is even harder to square. As a close Trump ally, Musk's actions inevitably affected Tesla - the biggest piece of his business empire and the maker of one of the most visible and expensive items that Americans can purchase: electric vehicles. First, Musk turned off Tesla's core customers, Democrats on the coasts, by pouring money and using his influence to help Trump return to the White House. Then he took a chainsaw to the federal workforce. Trump confirmed their relationship has soured , with Musk repeatedly blasting the president's sweeping domestic agenda bill in recent days and a public fight on social media on Thursday (US time). Now, Musk's war of words with the president risk turning off the same Trump voters who may have considered buying a Tesla until this week. Not only that, but Tesla's ambitions for self-driving vehicles require government approval, something that no longer looks like a sure thing amid the Musk-Trump feud. Other Musk businesses like SpaceX are built on government contracts - contracts that Trump wasted no time threatening on Thursday. The past 12 months - with Musk marrying himself to the polarising Trump brand and then breaking up with him - look like a textbook example of what a CEO should not do, especially a consumer-facing CEO. "It's a bit of a head-scratcher that Musk is going so rogue-negative towards Trump so quickly. It's a potentially very hazardous path," Dan Ives, a senior equity research analyst at Wedbush Securities and a longtime Tesla bull, told CNN in a phone interview on Thursday. The Musk-Trump break-up, playing out on the billionaires' respective social media platforms, was both entirely predictable and shocking nonetheless. After Musk blasted Trump's policy bill as a "disgusting abomination" earlier this week, Trump suggested Musk has "Trump derangement syndrome." Musk responded by undercutting Trump's political prowess, saying: "Without me, Trump would have lost the election." As two of the world's most powerful people continued to trade public barbs, Tesla shares dropped lower and lower. Tesla shares (TSLA) [ plummeted 14 percent as the bromance between Trump and Musk imploded in front of the entire world. The selloff erased about US$152 billion (NZ$252 billion) from Tesla's market value and US$34 billion (NZ$56.4 billion) off Musk's net worth, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. Tesla shares rebounded on Friday morning but only modestly. Trump told CNN's Dana Bash on Friday that he's "not even thinking about Elon" and won't be speaking to him in the near future. "He's got a problem. The poor guy's got a problem," Trump said. Tesla shareholders are dismayed on multiple levels. First, Musk taking on the president so publicly could further shrink the car maker's customer base by angering Trump backers. "You could end up alienating both sides of the aisle in the course of just a few months. When you're a consumer-facing company, that's the opposite of what you want to do," Ives said. By combing through daily tracking data, researchers found in a recent working paper that Musk's endorsement of Trump and role in the administration "politicised Tesla, polarised the electric vehicle carmaker's brand image and reputation, and likely resulted in partisan consumerism." "Corporate leaders engage in partisan politics at the peril of their brand images and, ultimately, even the bottom line," professors from the University of Northern Iowa, Columbia University and Northeastern University wrote in the paper. Secondly, Tesla relies on the federal government for tax credits and for approval of its controversial full-self driving technology, a green light that investors had been hoping for after the election. Neuralink, Musk's brain chip startup, is also reliant on FDA approval. Bigger picture, the Trump administration will help set the regulatory landscape for autonomous vehicles, not to mention artificial intelligence and other Musk priorities. And the president has not been shy about flexing the power of the federal government to hurt his opponents. "You want Trump nice in the sandbox. You don't want Trump on your bad side," Ives said. Bill George, an executive fellow at the Harvard Business School and former CEO of health tech company Medtronic, described the recent feud as a "brutal breakup." "Never go to war with the president of the United States," he said. "There's going to be a lot of collateral damage to your business." Trump threatened on Thursday to go after Musk's business empire. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social. "I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" SpaceX, Musk's privately held space company, relies heavily on federal contracts, especially from NASA. SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet recently won business from the Federal Aviation Administration to help the agency upgrade networks used to manage US airspace. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, founder of the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute, said the lesson is not about chief executives taking political positions. "The lesson here is that there is no honour among thieves. These are two mob bosses that have had a parting of ways. And now they are going to take each other down," Sonnenfeld told CNN. Harvard Business School's George noted that Musk and Trump had been acting like "best bros" just days earlier. "The lesson here is that you can either work in government or run your business," George said. "But you can't do both." - CNN
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Bill could create global ‘ripple effect'
EV advocates warn of Chinese dominance as a result of cuts to credits in the United States, writes Grant Schwab. The cuts to Biden-era tax credits in the budget passed by the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives could stunt the growth of the nation's still-fledgling electric vehicle industry and create ripple effects throughout the global vehicle market, clean energy advocates warn. "Anybody who claims to be concerned about Chinese dominance in battery minerals and supportive of US competitiveness in that sector needs to know: This bill is absolutely devastating to that goal," Zero Emission Transportation Association executive director Albert Gore said. The credits are meant to stoke both the domestic supply of critical minerals and advanced battery technologies and the demand for products that use those materials, namely next-gen, zero-emission vehicles. Environment-minded conservatives argue that broader tax breaks — which would be less targeted towards EVs and critical minerals — and regulatory rollbacks are instead best for growing those industries, and that Democrats are wrong to catastrophise over the changes. But with significant policy whiplash looming, advocates said multibillion-dollar investments in key sectors could shrivel thanks to the harsh realities of competing with the United States' chief economic rival. They also predicted political consequences for Republicans if the Senate follows suit and President Donald Trump, who has been critical of non-Tesla electric vehicles, signs a rollback into law. "The plan passed by House leadership will make it harder to produce the energy America needs, while simultaneously putting hundreds of projects, thousands of jobs and billions in investments at risk — mostly in Republican states that elected them," Bob Keefe, executive director of E2, a nonpartisan business group focused on energy and the environment, said in a statement. Even with those risks, House Republicans voted to pull back on EV-related credits in their tax and spending mega bill that passed along party lines on May 22 after all-night negotiations. The final version of the package seeks to eliminate four tax credits for EVs by the end of 2025 and modify another on manufacturing that industry leaders have said is crucial to building domestic battery prowess. The EV credits include offering $7500 on the purchase of qualifying new light-duty models, $4000 for used models, providing up to $40,000 for commercial vehicles and giving $1000 to individuals to install EV chargers. A manufacturing credit targets battery producers and upstream industries. Battery cells are each eligible for a credit of $35 per kilowatt-hour of energy they can store. Critical mineral miners, processors, purifiers and recyclers can claim a credit equal to 10% of their production costs. The bill proposes phasing out that credit a year earlier than initially planned and adding new requirements against the use of materials from certain foreign nations. "The production credit is critical for our industry, and it will be a significant impact for our industry if it goes away," Ford chief executive Jim Farley said at the Detroit Auto Show in January. "Many of our plants in the Midwest that have converted to EVs depend on the production credit". — TNS
