Charles cancer update

[PrettyFlyforaMaiTai]

Charles’ cancer treatment will continue into next year

”his treatment has been moving in a positive direction and as a managed condition the treatment cycle will continue into next year" according to palace sources.

I don’t mean to be a negative Nelly but this doesn’t seem as positive as they’re trying to make out.

news.sky.com/story/kings-cancer-treatment-will-continue-into-next-year-sky-news-understands-13276684

I think referring to it as a good cancer yourself is fine. It’s your cancer.

I just hate it personally for my son due to the complications it has caused. He’s alive and hopefully it won’t come back but other than that, it’s been absolutely life changing. He’ll never be the same again and neither will I.

I'm confidently stating that there was never any information released about the queen having multiple myeloma, because there never ever was any such information released from any official source. Google it, and you'll see that's the case.

The only claims that she "may" have had this were in books written by Gyles Brandreth and Boris Johnson, neither of whom are official mouthpieces for palace information. Those books are the only sources of this hypothesis.

I don't know what you think you saw on the news but it was not an official statement, it was probably a discussion about the claims in these books, none of which have been confirmed or denied by the palace, so may or may not be true.

You shouldn't go round asserting that the queen definitely had a particular cancer when all you know is that it was claimed in a book that she "might" have had it. Basically you have no idea whether she did so you shouldn't state it as fact.

In fact as a "healthcare provider" you should know better than to assert that speculation is the truth.

Well what I should have said is that it's a reminder of what a massive massive turd he is!

However, there are plenty of people who, despite ALL the evidence of shittiness, just don't see it (as proven by the last US election.)

Yes, me.

This is what I thought. A neighbour has leukaemia. He has had it for 15 years and gets a round of chemo every few years.
In older people its not uncommon to have cancer that can not be cured, but can be kept at bay, at least for a while.

Just to add, it has never been said in any official or semi official source that Queen Elizabeth had or died from cancer. Her death certificate said old age.

Who told you?

I call my cancer a good cancer. Not because it was easy to get through but because it’s well researched, well funded, has many treatment options and good outcomes. If you have to get one, and one in two of us will, then it’s the best of a bad bunch from POV. The treatment does mean I am now more likely to get a more aggressive kind in future and I’ll still consider that good because I know the playing field.

That’s not to be flippant about anyone else’s but I do consider myself lucky to have had what I did rather than say pancreatic or one that involved drastic surgery.

It was on the news. I can't help that. I did not distribute that information. It was the news agency.

Which news agency? It was certainly not information distributed by any reputable news agency in the U.K.

Also, I never stated it as fact. I used the term, 'I think....'

I don't understand why you are so exercised about this. It's meaningless.

They have not revealed which type of cancer it is

If it was " on the news" it would have only been in the context of discussing the claims made in those books, rather than an actual report of an official statement.

It's very important for the viewer to discriminate between what is reported as fact and what is discussed in, for example, a piece about a book. In any discussion about the book the news report would, however, have made crystal clear that the health comments were only allegations, so I don't know why you would have taken it as an official report.

This was one of your statements:
Because it was announced on the news after her death and she had the same sort that ended my Mums's life. It was no longer a secret once she died.

That sounds like you're confidently stating it as a fact.

I find people who don't pay proper attention to news, then spout speculation as facts, extremely irritating. It's exactly the sort of crap that goes on on social media and other people believe them and so it escalates into a whole load of misinformation and fake news.

If you can't see the harm in spreading misinformation then there's no hope for you quite honestly.

This thread has turned into something so distasteful.
I have cancer, as have many others on this thread.

To discuss cancer in this way is both upsetting and abhorrent.

Cancer is bad.

End of.

To be debating whether one kind is better than another is kind of sick.

KC doesn't have a cold or a broken leg.

He has cancer.

That should be enough for a bit of sympathy and granting him privacy.

I've watched this thread all day and haven't actually seen anything except for people trying to categorise the top ten cancers in order of survival.

Not the greatest moment on MN

From what I can see, there hasn't actually been any official update on the King's health.

Have you seen something otherwise, @PrettyFlyforaMaiTai?

Sky News are a fairly reputable source, and the Guardian are repeating their story.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/20/king-charles-cancer-treatment-continue-next-year

Anything that says 'palace source' is not reliable.

Anything that says 'palace source' is not reliable.

Why? It's a convention of how the place communicates with the press.

I would interpret all major news outlets carrying the same story attributed to ‘palace sources’ to mean it was an official briefing (spoken, not press release)

I can understand that. I think I’d call my sons the same if he’d had a more typical experience.

A 10 month hospital stay, a cardiac arrest, 5 bowel surgeries, almost losing his right leg and him not walking since is definitely not a good cancer to me even though it’s unlikely to come back. It’s already done it’s damage.

It would have been either the Beeb or ITV news. It was just on as any normal TV news is on.

And they announced that the Queen had been suffering from a particular type of cancer?

Yes. They stated that she had been diagnosed with bone marrow cancer.

Despite what other posters have said, I know what I heard. My DH heard it too and his job is all about evidence.

The fact that Boris Johnson et al has stated in his book that she had bone cancer makes this likely also. Hopefully some of the ire that has been directed at me might be directed at him and the other person that also stated this as my simply reporting what I heard on a respected news channel seems to have created so much froth.

Either way. I literally don't care. News outlets are known for reporting stuff at four that they withdraw at six on advice and there is no way of proving one way or another who is right, for another 48 years at least.

The Palace didn't.

It was Giles Brandreth (who is believed to be well connected to some in the RF) who said it was bone marrow cancer. I think this was repeated by some outlets - so may have been mentioned during a radio broadcast - and sometimes wrongly shortened to bone cancer (which is what I suspect Boris did; I don't think he's terribly sound on science and might not have grasped that there's a very important difference)

Bone marrow cancer is plausible, based on what we what we saw and her need to rest, but bottom line is that we don't know and will probably never know