Al Roker Recalls His Own Experience with Prostate Cancer as He Sends Well Wishes After Joe Biden's Diagnosis
Al Roker shared his own experience with prostate cancer following former President Joe Biden's diagnosis
The Today co-host sent his well wishes to Biden, writing, "You will face this latest challenge with courage, humor and grace"
Biden's personal office announced on May 18 that he was diagnosed with prostate cancerAl Roker is reflecting on his own experience undergoing treatment for prostate cancer after former President Joe Biden's diagnosis was revealed.
On May 18, Biden's personal office announced in a statement that the former politician, 82, was 'diagnosed with prostate cancer, characterized by a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) with metastasis to the bone.'
"While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management,' the statement continued. 'The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians."
In response to the news, Roker, 70, sent well wishes to Biden, writing on X, 'Mr. President. As I found out from my battle with prostate cancer, you are part of a group that no one wants to be part of, but knowing you, you will face this latest challenge with courage, humor and grace.'
The pair have had a long-standing friendship with Roker getting a surprise call for the former President after his shoulder surgery in 2014 and talking with the politician during the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade in 2021.
The television personality also recalled being diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2020 during the May 19 episode of Today.
"When I was diagnosed, I had an 8 on the Gleason scale, but they said they had caught it early, even though it was aggressive, so I had a fairly wide range of treatment options.'
According to the American Cancer Society, a prostate cancer's grade group is a measure of how likely the cancer is to grow and spread quickly. Grade group 5 means that "the cancer might or might not be growing outside the prostate and into nearby tissues. It has not spread to nearby lymph nodes or elsewhere in the body," per the Cancer Society.
Roker announced his own diagnosis on Today on November 6, 2020.
"It's a good news–bad news kind of thing," he said. "Good news is we caught it early. Not-great news is that it's a little aggressive, so I'm going to be taking some time off to take care of this."
"We'll just wait and see, and hopefully in about two weeks I'll be back [on the show]," he added.
Three days later, he underwent surgery at New York City's Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to remove his prostate, lymph nodes and some surrounding tissue.
In an exclusive essay for PEOPLE in June 2024, the weatherman recalled experiencing nerves for a six-month check-up.
'After the surgery, you've got to come back in six months to see where you are,' he wrote. 'And so as that six month date comes up, you're a little more anxious because did this take? Is everything okay? I mean, they biopsy the material they take out and feel they got all of it, but you don't know.'
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human-interest stories.
'I go and Dr. Laudone said, 'Okay, you're under 0.01, which is undetectable.' That's their standard,' he continued.
Roker also shared that he was grateful for early detection as it allowed him to become a grandfather. His daughter Courtney welcomed daughter, Sky, in July 2023.
"I'm so grateful I'm here to be able to see my first grandchild,' he said of Sky. 'If there's any reason to make sure you're as healthy as possible, it's that. That little girl is just everything. I mean, I love my children, but my gosh, I didn't know I would love another person this much.'
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Midway through year one, America is souring on Trump's agenda
Last week, President Trump signaled that he would soon make the most consequential foreign policy decision of his presidency, whether or not to order the U.S. military to strike Iran. In no uncertain terms, this decision may ultimately have greater impact than former President Biden's unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan in summer 2021. Biden's polling numbers never recovered from the chaos that unfolded at that time. Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here With that in mind, it is important and instructive to look at what the polls say about how Americans feel about Trump's presidency thus far, both generally and on key issues such as foreign policy. Roughly six months into his second term, new polling shows that support for Trump has declined across the board and on key issues. Indeed, despite Trump's assertions that his approval ratings hit 'all-time highs,' the numbers tell a different story. Trump began his second term with 51 percent approval versus 44 percent disapproval, but now, those numbers have reversed. Just over half (52 percent) of Americans now disapprove of his job performance, compared to only 40 percent who approve — a net 19-point drop-off, according to the RealClearPolitics polling aggregator. To be sure, as chaos spreads in the Middle East and the question of American involvement hangs in the air, Trump's support on foreign policy is also critical. At the start of Trump's term, Ipsos polling showed Trump with a net plus-2 rating (39 percent to 37 percent), likely due to his promises to end wars and deliver peace through strength. Early on, he seemed to be delivering. He was instrumental in securing a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas and oversaw the return of multiple Israeli hostages. According to polling from Data for Progress (Jan. 17-18), a plurality of Americans — 49 percent — credited Trump rather than Biden with the Israel-Hamas cease-fire. For context, Biden ended his presidency with a minus-18 point approval rating for his handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and Trump started his with a plus 12 percent approval rating on the same issue. Half a year later, Trump is practically on par with Biden on the conflict, at minus-17 — a 29-point net swing against him, according to Quinnipiac. Looking specifically at Trump's handling of Iran, 41 percent disapprove, versus 37 percent who approve, according to polling from YouGov. It is not that Americans disagree with Trump's perception of Iran as a threat. In fact, nearly three-quarters (73 percent) say they are worried about the threat Iran poses to U.S. national security, up 13 points from last year, according to polling from Fox News. But Americans' fear of the prospect of another forever war in the Middle East seems to be weighing on the mood. That same Fox poll, conducted last weekend, shows that Trump has lost the public's trust in another key issue area: the economy. Likely due to the chaos and uncertainty unleashed by Trump's tariff policy, a majority (58 percent) of voters disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy, while just 40 percent approve, a significant decline for one of Trump's former strengths. In fact, the 18-point margin of discontent is the worst spread Trump has seen in either of his terms. And it does not appear that Trump's cornerstone legislation, the 'big, beautiful bill,' will help. Six in 10 Americans (59 percent) oppose it, and 49 percent think that the bill will 'hurt' their families economically. Just as the economy went from a strength to a vulnerability, Trump's polling has also seen a reversal on immigration, a crucial issue that largely propelled Trump to victory last November. Americans are increasingly concerned about the administration's heavy-handed approach to immigration. This is not to say that Americans dislike Trump's policies generally; a majority (51 percent) approve of Trump's handling of the border, per NBC polling. And exceptionally strong support (87 percent) remains for deporting migrants who commit crimes, according to Economist-YouGov polling. Yet Americans are turned off by the administration's response to protests in Los Angeles specifically, and the belief that the administration is being too cavalier about whom it is deporting. The same poll shows that 57 percent believe the administration is making mistakes in whom it is deporting, and 74 percent say the government needs to make sure there are no mistakes in deportations. Taken together, polling six months into Trump 2.0 shows that many of his former points of pride and political strengths have lost considerable support among all but his most ardent supporters. But it would be a mistake to say the rest of Trump's presidency is doomed. Tariff uncertainty is likely to fade, either because people stop paying attention or due to signed trade deals. In that same vein, it's entirely possible that views on the economy rebound if the 'big, beautiful bill' delivers on Trump's pro-growth agenda. Moreover, tensions in the Middle East will eventually come to a head, with or without American involvement. Fears of a forever war in Iran are misguided, and it's still not at all certain that Trump will commit American forces. Finally, Trump is greatly assisted by the fact that Democrats are still unable to develop a compelling and politically viable alternative. Still reeling from their loss in November, the party continues to struggle to find its way and challenge Trump's excesses. Six months may just be too short a time period to predict the course of the next three and a half years. But it remains useful and informative to gauge the mood of the electorate at this delicate time. Whether or not Trump can reverse this downward trend remains to be seen. It will be extremely compelling to watch. Douglas E. Schoen and Carly Cooperman are pollsters and partners with the public opinion company Schoen Cooperman Research based in New York. They are co-authors of the book, 'America: Unite or Die.'
Chicago Tribune
3 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Dr. Anand Kumar: What do we have a right to know regarding the health of candidates for high public office?
There has been a lot of brouhaha in the news media and on social media about the alleged cover-up of former President Joe Biden's health status, with a emphasis on his cognitive frailties and performance. The current No. 3 on The New York Times nonfiction bestseller list co-authored by two well-known journalists has the catchy title 'Original Sin.' The central thesis of the book is that Biden's family and inner political circle shielded him from public exposure as much as possible with the intent of concealing his memory and related cognitive challenges to improve his chances of reelection. The first presidential debate between these two candidates occurred in front of a nationally televised audience on June 27, 2024, and the rest is history. There is more recent speculation that the former president's announcement that he has an aggressive form of prostate cancer that has spread to the bone, reported by his office last month, was likely known in advance but was not made public before the election. The intent of this piece is not to relitigate who knew what and when about the former president's physical and mental state, but to raise provocative questions about the public's right to know about the health status of candidates for the nation's highest office. This is particularly relevant as increasingly mature individuals seek higher office nationally. Revelations about the physical and mental health of presidential candidates often tend to be cursory and minimal. The information available to the voting public focuses typically on the findings of a routine physical exam, resting electrocardiogram and standard laboratory tests. Candidates from both major political parties tend to conceal or at least adopt a 'need to know' approach to their health status and personal medical information. The fitness of candidates varies widely, and decisions should clearly be made on a case-by-case basis. That said, there are general principles of ethics and candor that should govern the disclosure process for political candidates. Let us assume a scenario in which a candidate is 65 years old. I'm pushing 70 and therefore increasingly sensitive to using the 65-year-old cutoff for designating someone as 'elderly.' Nonetheless, 65 is the age cutoff for Medicare eligibility, and this designation is concrete and less personal and facilitates our discussion. In my view, the information revealed to the public should consist of a thorough history and physical exam that includes specific comments on signs, symptoms and conditions more commonly seen in the elderly. These include movement disorders, cognitive disorders, gait, frailty and recent behavioral changes. Increasing age is the most important risk factor for cognitive decline, and a comprehensive exam should therefore also include cognitive tests that can be administered efficiently in approximately 60 minutes. These tests can detect early and subtle changes in cognitive domains including verbal and visual memory, and impairments in language and executive functions including impulse control and disinhibition. It is noteworthy that earlier in the last election cycle, both presidential candidates refused to undergo a cognitive exam despite great public interest in their mental abilities. The laboratory tests should include the standard blood panels and prostate specific antigen, which is a sensitive, albeit nonspecific, test of prostate pathology. I would also be inclined to include an MRI scan of the brain, and if the cognitive exam reveals metrics indicative of an early decline in cognition, the Food and Drug Administration's recently approved blood test for Alzheimer's disease would be helpful. A resting EKG is a bare minimum with an ultrasound of the heart (ECHO cardiogram) and a stress ECHO if indicated clinically. Whether additional tests are required will depend on the history and results of the physical exam. Further, information on chronic medical conditions including diabetes and hypertension should be included in the medical records that are released to the public. Higher standards of candor and transparency should be expected of candidates running for high office. Policy positions, sources of their financial support/conflict and relevant tax returns are now routinely expected as part of the disclosure process for political candidates. However, this expectation has not automatically translated to the health information space. Medical information relevant to the position should be available to voters well in advance for the sake of their decision-making. And while the health of all organs is vital to the presidency, brain health including cognition and behavior is particularly relevant and critical in the role of chief executive. It is better for the public to hear directly from candidates rather than through innuendo, leaks and hearsay — the 'drip, drip phenomenon.' Full disclosure, from the outset, is preferable to selective, partial disclosures designed to obfuscate and protect a candidate from public scrutiny. Past presidents, senators and other public officials in high elected office have hidden their frailties in attempts to avoid embarrassment and challenges to their position. In the long run, however, the truth emerges, and opacity and deception merely undermine trust and amplify cynicism in the political system. Higher standards of transparency early in the last presidential cycle might not have changed the outcome, but the process would have been more intellectually honest and smoother, and confidence in the democratic process would have been higher as a result. Close family members, staff and physicians — especially the White House physician — need to understand their responsibilities and take them seriously. The public interest should be prioritized above personal loyalty and all other considerations. At high levels of political leadership, especially at the level of 'leader of the free world,' when there is concern or even suspicion that frailties could adversely affect the core functions of the position, private health information can no longer remain private. There can be no compromises. The public has a right to know.
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
LAUSD confronts looming fiscal crisis in debate over $18.8-billion budget
The Los Angeles Board of Education on Tuesday is slated to vote on an $18.8-billion spending plan for the next school year that officials say will keep cuts and layoffs at bay for exactly one more year. Union leaders and activists, meanwhile, want more from a district reserve that still contains several billion dollars. This is evidence, they say, that L.A. Unified can pay higher wages and spend more to enhance programs for Black students and immigrants — efforts that defy President Trump's push to end programs that promote racial or ethnic diversity. The budget proposed last week would spend about $400 million more than the 2024-25 academic year — but about $200 million less than the year before that — when school systems were flush with one-time state and federal pandemic aid. For parents and workers, the big picture is that L.A. Unified services and staffing for next year will look a lot like the year that just ended — a better outlook than in some districts, including San Francisco Unified and Oakland Unified. However, L.A. officials said the fiscal 'planning year' ahead will focus on identifying future cuts. Revenue next year is currently calculated at $15.9 billion, nearly $3 billion less than what the district plans to spend. The district will continue to draw down an ending balance that stood at nearly $7 billion last year and now stands at about $4.8 billion. Absent cuts, by the end of 2027-28, the district will be financially underwater, officials say. With a spending outlook in the red, state law requires the Board of Education to approve a 'fiscal stabilization plan' and send it to the L.A. County Office of Education, which is responsible for oversight to keep school systems from going bankrupt. But the district's workers also face financial pressures. They want raises and preserved health benefits. The district has offered a 2% raise to one of its largest unions, which union leaders say is not nearly enough. That 2% offer has not yet been incorporated into the district's budget projection. Just like other school systems, L.A. Unified has had to deal with the end of pandemic relief aid that was paying for added staff and recovery programs. Among the factors that helped L.A. Unified more than other school systems was a nearly $500-million boost to L.A. from the Biden administration. This was reimbursement for a comprehensive and costly COVID-19 testing program that other school systems did not undertake. In addition, L.A. Unified never hired hundreds, maybe thousands, of people it had hoped to bring on via pandemic relief aid, including mental health workers, nurses and counselors — mainly because of shortages in those high-demand fields. The state has helped by delaying the financial hit of having fewer students. L.A. Unified — like many school systems — has declining enrollment, which eventually will lead to decreased funding. Senior officials say no services to students are being cut and no full-time workers are losing employment and benefits — although some people are changing jobs and making less money. This will not be the story in the 2026-27 academic year. Other school districts have not been so fortunate. The Santa Ana Unified School hasapproved 262 layoffs, including teachers, counselors and other staff. The district has experienced a 28% enrollment decline over the last decade and has had to confront a $154-million budget deficit. Other districts with layoffs include Berkeley Unified, Pasadena Unified, Coachella Valley Unified and San Ramon Valley Unified. Still, other school systems made steep budget cuts last year. For L.A. Unified, significant cuts are targeted to start July 1, 2026. Schools are likely to lose workers — possible examples would be teacher aides or supervision aides — when the individual school is limited by its own budget restraints. These workers had been funded by the central office. This is expected to save at least $60 million a year. As many as 10 schools or, at the very least, underused buildings at various campuses would be closed — saving $30 million per year. Shrinking central and regional offices is expected to save $325 million over two years. The projected budget cuts add up to $1.6 billion over two years — which is not enough to end the deficit spending but keeps the district out of the red for three years, which is all that state law requires. L.A. Unified hired permanent employees with one-time COVID-19 relief funding that exceeded $5 billion. Without additional funding, workers will be laid off. There have been no specific discussions about which workers would lose jobs, but Supt. Alberto Carvalho said the goal would be to keep cuts as far away from the classroom as possible. A major — and largely unaccounted for — cost in the last year has been payouts related to sexual misconduct claims dating back as far as the 1940s. Last year alone, L.A. Unified paid out more than $300 million in claims. These claims will be funded through special bonds to stretch the financial burden across 15 years, but the cost still could be $50 million per year or more. Declining enrollment means state funding will decrease. At the same time, many costs have risen. This year, the district had about 408,083 students in transitional kindergarten through 12th grade. Next year's number is expected to be about 396,070, and then about 385,091 the year after that. The school system also approved larger wage packages for employees than many other districts. Another cost is unfunded retiree health benefits. There are more than 35,000 district retirees covered by post-retirement benefits. In 2023-24, for example, these expenses added up to about $331.8 million. The budget is a complex document — with money streaming in or drying up from sources with different spending rules. So, although an elementary school with declining enrollment is struggling to hold on to all of its teachers, funding for after-school programs and field trips is enormously expanded compared with a decade ago. But in the main, the district's priorities and spending are fairly consistent. At this time of year, the Board of Education is under tremendous salary pressure from unions. No employee group is satisfied with the 2% wage increase offer. Local 99 of Services Employees International Union says the district has been underhanded by keeping many employees working fewer than four hours per day. When workers reach four hours per day, they qualify for health benefits. United Teachers Los Angeles says early-career teachers need a major pay hike. A coalition of advocates wants more money targeted toward schools that have the highest needs — even if that means less money for other schools. District spending already works this way, but the advocates say the current distribution does not go far enough. The teachers union and a coalition of allies are especially pushing for a pro-immigrant, pro-Black student agenda, leaning hard on school board members they helped elect. Last week, Carvalho tried to placate them — and his board — by putting an additional one-time augmentation of $50 million into the Black Student Achievement Plan, or BSAP, for the 2025-26 school year, bringing funding to $175 million. BSAP provides extra psychiatric social workers and academic counselors, among other enhancements. Under an agreement with the Biden administration, the benefits of BSAP have to be available to all students with similar needs, not just Black students. Some of the activists want the district to return BSAP to a Black-only focus. Immigrant families are expected to benefit from $4 million more for student centers, whose services can include legal referrals and other family support. Activists wants more. There's already a sizable budget for making campuses greener, but Carvalho has agreed to add an additional $1 million a year over the next three years. So far, Carvalho's budget moves have been met with uneven support from school board members — a slim majority of four voted last week to approve the fiscal stabilization plan. Former L.A. schools Supt. Austin Beutner is leading a group that is suing L.A. Unified, accusing the district of violating voter-approved Proposition 28 — which he wrote and which provides new arts funding for every public school in California. That infusion for arts instruction was supposed to begin in the 2023-24 school year. Under the rules, the new money had to be added to arts instruction funding on top of what a school already was providing. But L.A. Unified parents and staff noticed no change in the level of arts instruction at many schools. Under pressure, Carvalho set aside more money for the arts — and he said he's also adding more in the proposed budget. The critics are not satisfied — and said it's likely that the district either must return millions of dollars in arts funding to the state or use it as intended. District officials insist that their use of arts money has been legal and appropriate. Separately, a group of student, parent and union activists continues to call for the elimination of the school police force — which a different and large contingent of parents wants to maintain and even expand. Projecting ahead three years takes in many uncertainties — including potential cuts from Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress. Trump's proposed education budget lays out cuts that would affect L.A. Unified. At-risk programs or grants include those for teacher training, and those helping students who are learning English, who are children of migrant workers or who are experiencing homelessness. The district has set aside $46 million for that possibility. A revived state economy could erase the need for cuts. At the moment, however, the state budget appears to be trending in the wrong direction.
