GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Last night at the almost exact moment Senator Thompson announced he was a candidate for President, a curiously well timed article was published by bloomberg about Fred Thompson’s cancer. The media has paid no attention to it; most likely because it reeked of a smear tactic even the DNC wouldn’t touch, and…
…Of course, Hugh Hewitt instantly jumped all over it, posting a section of it on his blog, to scare the Fredheads into believing that Fred Thompson will probably die sometime soon.
First of all, if Thompson was sick enough to die right after he took office, do you think he would’ve run for President? Seriously? The guy who Romney supporters have said doesn’t have the desire to be President wants to just run and then wither away in chemo? Doctors would have been all over this from the outset, and nobody in their right minds would run for office in the physical shape Mr. Hewitt apparently believes Mr. Thompson is in.
I can just see the excitement in his face as he gleefully posted that one with a “Gotcha!” Or possibly, the instant concern and heartache it caused that he just rushed it out because, in his heart, he knew there was little time to say goodbye, and wanted to make sure all the little Fredheads got their chance to say a final farewell to their dying icon. Or maybe, he thought that it was something he must do for the good of the country.
Not buying it.
If Hewitt was seriously concerned, he would’ve done more research into the article before he jumped to his conclusions. Granted, this is the same guy, who as one commenter on the post said,”a few weeks ago it was fred’s southern drawl; today it’s cancer; tomorrow it will be hugh telling us that fred fathered black children out of wedlock.”
What’s really sad is that Mr. Hewitt didn’t have the time to thoroughly double check the facts outlined in the article. That’s where he shows his true colors. To get a full opinion on a matter such as this, one would have to consult more than one trained doctor specializing in this type of treatment, to get all the different responses and form his own conclusion. In this case, there are more than enough out there that will thoroughly rebut this article for what it was in the first place… a piece that was released the exact moment that Thompson announced. I know the exact time it was published because I caught it right at the moment it was released… around 12:10 AM this morning, directly after Thompson finished his Leno appearence. If they had any care for Thompson’s well being, they wouldn’t have resorted to this, and Hugh tries to capitalize on it.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I vommented onthis at my blog several times between early April and the end of may.
I summed it all up here - inclding the medications used, the treatments, the outcomes, and quotes from relelvant textbooks, ans wella s from Thompson and his Oncologist.
http://coloradoansforthompson.blogspot.com/2007/05/fred-thompson-and-lymphoma-answer.html
Its all right there. More than 3 months ago.
Fred Thompson was diagnosed in November 2004 with nodal marginal zone lymphoma, an indolent B-cell lymphoma. Nodal marginal zone lymphomas account for only 1% all Non-Hodgkins Lymphomas(NHL). It was treated with rituximab, he is in remission. Fred Thompson himself says “I have had no illness from it, or even any symptoms. My life expectancy should not be affected.” Furthermore, his oncologist says “he is no longer in treatment as he is in remission. Doctors cannot currently detect the lymphoma by physical examinations or scans. Senator Thompson has never been physically ill or had any symptoms from his lymphoma or had any side effects from the therapy.” Bruce D. Cheson, M.D. Professor of Medicine Head of Hematology Division of Hematology/Oncology.
and there’s more!
Some have questions about use of rituximab in early therapy. Ruling out CHOP since this is not a diffuse large B cell lymphoma, a standard treatment for a number of NHLs is R-CVP, of which rituximab is a component (its the “R”). I note that this is more often a stage 3-4 treatment, and since they did not mention chemo and steroids (the “C” is chlorambucil, the P is prednisone), I doubt this (R-CVP) is what was used. Rituximab is approved for other uses (Rheumatoid arthritis for instance), and this may have been an “off label” therapy decided upon by the oncologist and the patient’s risk tolerance and desires. (And for the non-medical folks, rituximab is a genetic vectored therapy that targets only the lymphoma cells, not a chemo that hits the whole body).
From my consultations and surveying, this is a bit aggressive in terms of standard treatments; Were I in Fred Thompson’s position I would consider the risks to be worth it, givner his family situation. Taking bit of a risk with a harder treatment line is worth it in terms of better life expectancy. And it beats chlorambucil’s potential (chemo) side effects - rituximab is simpler for the patient (usually via IV infusion 1 time a week for 4 weeks).
ANd furthermore…
Furthermore, any person making a claim of “Stage 2″ or worse is squarely at odds with reality. For those of you unfamiliar, here are the general definitions of the first two NHL stages:
Stage 1 The lymphoma is only in one group of lymph nodes, in one particular area of the body.
Stage 2 More than one group of lymph nodes is affected, but all the affected nodes are contained within either the upper half or the lower half of the body.
Given the descriptions of a single lump under the jaw and no other areas involved (the armpits and/or neck would have been stated had it been stage 2), Sen Thompson’s lymphoma was very likely stage 1.
Secondarily, the medical literature available very much disputes any presumption that people die from the disease more often than other causes. I believe anyone that says otherwise is mis-characterizing it. This is based on talking to an oncologist that I know, and from others experienced in the field. There may be other info more current that his oncologist in Georgetown has than what has been publicly cited (not to mention typical press laziness has them citing outcomes for the wrong disease). Here are some sources for to consult - they proved valuable for me, and might educate you.
Oxford Textbook of Oncology (2nd edition). Eds Souhami et al. Oxford University Press, 2002.
Wintrobe’s Clinical Haematology (11th edition). Eds Lee et al. Williams and Wilkins, 2004.
Malignant Lymphoma. Eds Hancock et al. Arnold, 2000.
Improving Outcomes in Haemato-oncology. National Institute of Clinical Excellence, November 2003.
British Committee for Standards in Haematology guidelines on nodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma, draft 2. August 2002
On top of all that, a direct quote from Thompson’s doctor basically demolishes anyone taking the position that Sen Thompson is physically at risk for serving out his term:
“Some lymphomas are very aggressive, but people with slow-growing types, like Senator Thompson’s, often dying from natural causes associated with old age, rather than from the disease. In 2004, Senator Thompson was diagnosed with a form of lymphoma. Today, he is in remission from this, slow-growing disease. Senator Thompson chose to receive such therapy (Rituxan), but he is no longer in treatment as he is in remission. Doctors cannot currently detect the lymphoma by physical examinations or scans. Senator Thompson has never been physically ill or had any symptoms from his lymphoma or had any side effects from the therapy.” Bruce D. Cheson, M.D. Professor of Medicine Head of Hematology Division of Hematology/Oncology.
The one thing that people do get right is that there would probably be a recurrence eventually, followed by likely re-treatment with rituximab. That much was stated by Sen Thompson’s oncologist in an interview later.
But the summation is….
But most damning statement for critics and would be sowers of Fear Uncertainty and Dobut, are the words from Fred Thompson himself: “I have had no illness from it, or even any symptoms. My life expectancy should not be affected.”
So, to the FUDsters: Are you accusing Fred Thompson of lying to the public about his fitness for the Presidency? Or, more likely, is it that you are overstating and misrepresenting the case? In effect, I believe the critics are trying to discredit by use of half truths - and to me, thats disingenuous and deceitful, unless its out of pure ignorance. With this info, I hope to I solve the problem of ignorance with a bit of research and people I know in the medical field. So could any journalist were he not being lazy
So, yes Fred Thompson has a form of cancer, but not it is not as debilitating and disqualifying as many attempt to make it out to be, and their diagnosis and prognosis the speculate on are flat out wrong and appear to be simply a scare tactic.
I suggest they stick to the facts - lest they be called on them, and shown to be lying or ignorant (like I showed here). Leave diagnosis and prognosis of lymphomas up to real doctors involved in this - professional oncologists.
The bottom line is: Were Thompson truly at such a risk as disengenuously inferred, he would not run, its not in his character.
To say otherwise reveals even more about questioner than it does his target, the candidate.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Hello, it’s Hugh Hewitt, what do you expect? Are you shocked when a snake bites you, too?
‘tomorrow it will be hugh telling us that fred fathered black children out of wedlock’
Well, he did father a child out of wedlock when he was 17 years old, but the child wasn’t black. That actually makes me like him more. Such a naughty, bad boy (thank you Senator Craig), and that in the 1950s.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
His Cancer is probably the reason he was in the golf cart in Iowa and
is probably the reason he is running a “different” campaign…voters have a right
to know if their candidate might seriously die in office…All the fred campaign has
come out with is that it is in remission…which means it might come back…
Leukemia is something to mess around with…it killed our lt gov win rockefeller…
most people thought he would easily become Gov in AR…4 months after having contracted the
horrible disease…he died…so it is serious…more serious than your political hack job on
Hugh…
September 6th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“If Hewitt was seriously concerned, he would’ve done more research into the article before he jumped to his conclusions”
What conclusion did Hewitt offer? He posted a link to an article.
Shouldn’t your ire be towards the writer from Bloomberg?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
You are right on target with your assessment of Hewitt’s blog article. With the timing of the article, and the lack of informed opinions referenced in it, it cannot be seen as anything more than a scare tactic to frighten away potential voters. In my opinion, this attempt to hurt Fred Thompson only makes the author of the article appear small and calculating.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Rett the reason he was in the golf cart is because he’s lazy, not because of his cancer. He’s never even been sick from the cancer.
But the issue here is remission. When and how much more deadly would his remission be considering the first occurance?
September 6th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
The DNC didn’t touch this, possibly because Fred was only a candidate for 5 minutes at the time. They don’t move that fast. If he gets nominated they will touch it for sure.
Also I don’t see the connection to Senator Craig or black children you are making. He didn’t start any rumors, he linked to an article which happens to be negative.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Hewitt has been mulling over this issue for sometime. The timing here seems to have been chosen by Bloomberg. I wonder if there’s some sort of solidarity between mayors at work here.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
hugh’s master plan for “painting the map red” in the 2006 went up in flames. now he’s breaking out the Romney pom-poms. to heck with anyone who invokes the wrath of hugh.
September 6th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
There are far better reasons than his cancer to oppose Fred’s candidacy, e.g., his complete lack of anything resembling executive experience, his lack of accomplishments in the senate, his lack of money and organization, and therefore, electability, etc.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
sampo: ‘hugh’s master plan for “painting the map redâ€? in the 2006 went up in flames. now he’s breaking out the Romney pom-poms. to heck with anyone who invokes the wrath of hugh.’
Hewitt is a dangerous man, because he will stop at nothing to achieve his goals.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Yeah Tommy,
I agree there really is no need to go apes over Fred’s cancer. Sounds like he is ok.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Fred will have to address this issue again. It’s easy for him to do though, he just has to show he’s fit. I agree it’s a scare tactic on Hewitt’s part, but it will only work if it goes unchallenged. Fred should demonstrate he doesn’t need a golf cart (don’t use one again, though this is a bit dumb because Romney had one at Ames too), and release some reputable doctors’ opinions. It’s not a hard one for him to combat.
My main concerns with Fred are his “drive” (the laziness issue, this will be important running against the Hillary machine); the fact that he seems a bit bizarre on federalism (he did very little as a senator, saying it’s not the federal government role; true perhaps, but what he should have done is targeted areas of legitimate federal responsibility and then worked for improvements in those areas, not just do nothing); he has no executive experience; and, he doesn’t strike me as being socially conservative. Yes he has a perfect voting record on Roe, but this is primarily because he’s a federalist. Personally, he thinks early term abortion should be between a mother and her doctor (unless he’s changed his views on this). On social issues he’s much better than Rudy though.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I get to see first hand new lymphoma treatments at my job. They are amazing-
they target the cells they are after and have no discernible side effects
under the microscope. Even if his lymphoma should return, considering the
numerous new products for lymphoma treatment coming from several companies
I have no worries about this. Contrast this with drugs for other types of
cancer and there is a huge difference- after seeing some of the things they
do, I think I might rather go with the cancer.
The bottom line is this should have no bearing on whether Fred is fit
to be president. And I’m a Romney supporter.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Fred can end this by having his medical records released. Easy smeasy and it would silence the skeptics.
September 6th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Keven J,
Your post is great news for Econ Grad Stud and all of us who are pulling for him.
September 6th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Thompson, according to his doctors has a stage 3 lymphoma not a 2 or 1. How long has he ever been in remission? Isn’t it true that the Rituxin won’t work again now that it has been used? Fred’s doctors because of the HIPPA laws can only say what Fred gives them permission to say. He has no business running for President with a stage 3 lymphoma. He is a sick man. Just look at him. That rapid weight loss is not a good thing.
September 6th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Recently, I lost 15lbs in three weeks when my wife went home to visit her parents (and I’m not a big guy). I ate almost nothing the whole period, and I feel great for it and she thinks I look better too. So yes, fast weight loss can be a good thing. I would rather have a sick competent guy leading me than a healthy nut. Which, by the way, is why I like Romney the best. He best represents the type of competent conservative I’m looking for in a candidate..
September 6th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Jason,
thank you for understanding why I was angered by Hewitt’s remarks.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
I totally agree that Fred’s cancer isn’t an issue right now and probabably won’t be before the election. However it is 50/50 that it doesn’t become an issue the next election in 2012. If you want look up the facts about indolent lymphoma. I believe FDT has a small cell follicular lymphoma. He was diagnosed almost 3 years ago which means by the time of the election he will have had it for 4 years.
It will be an issue and it is a fair question to ask, do really want to elect someone who probably will need chemotherapy during his first term?
September 6th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Thank you, Dskinner, for having common sense. Just look at the man. How can any of you say he looks healthy? This is a huge issue. You all might think it shouldn’t be brought up but putting your heads in the sand won’t make it go away. This is a serious issue that trumps anything else about Fred. According to Tucker, Fred tied the hands of his oncologist and won’t allow him to speak. If that doesn’t start ringing gongs then something is wrong. The man is a sick man
September 6th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Wow! Now that I read the article I have no idea why you are upset. The article was totally fair and accurate. Now you may be right that Hewitt is using it as a scare tactic so people don’t vote for Fred, but that is hardly the issue.
As they mention in the article, Tsongas was totally healthy in a similar position to FDT and he died 5 years later. I’m not saying that it will happen, but outlawing discussion of the issue and calling it an unfair attack is wrong and it’s bad politics.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Pisces 11: Link to info, please, or stop lying in a public forum.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Hugh Hewitt makes me sick.
Remember he is the jackass that thought the Harriet Miers nomination was a good idea and supported President Bush on it. And now this clown is supporting Romney? Even if I wasn’t already 14345789234598274% opposed to Romney, Hewitt’s support would be enough to get me off of that bandwagon.