Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Well This Explains A Lot

******Clarification - Barb (who knows and likes me, go figure) left a comment "I don't agree with the Senator's politics, but I wouldn't wish a brain tumor (or any cancer) on anyone."
Just to be clear - me neither. I just think he has gotten even nuttier in the recent past and a brain tumor would explain it.*******
Sen. Kennedy has brain tumor
By Glen Johnson
AP Political Writer / May 20, 2008

BOSTON—Sen. Edward Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor.

Doctors for the Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday that preliminary biopsy results showed a malignant glioma in the left parietal-lobe. It was detected after Kennedy, 76, was airlifted to Boston on Saturday after having a seizure at his Cape Cod home.

The usual course of treatment includes combinations of radiation and chemotherapy, but Kennedy's treatment will be decided after more tests.

"He has had no further seizures, remains in good overall condition, and is up and walking around the hospital," said a joint statement issued by Dr. Lee Schwamm, vice chairman of the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Dr. Larry Ronan, Kennedy's primary care physician.

Kennedy's wife and children have been with him each day since he was hospitalized but have made no public statements.

Malignant gliomas are a type of brain cancer diagnosed in about 9,000 Americans a year -- and the most common type among adults. It's a starting diagnosis: How well patients fare depends on what specific tumor type is determined by further testing.

Average survival can range from less than a year for very advanced and aggressive types -- such as glioblastomas -- or to about five years for different types that are slower growing.


Barb said...

I don't agree with the Senator's politics, but I wouldn't wish a brain tumor (or any cancer) on anyone.

BostonMaggie said...

Me neither. Maybe I wasn't clear. I'll fix that now. I only meant he has been getting crazier and crazier and a brain tumor explains a lot.

Barb said...

Actually - I totally missed the title of the post ;-) But I think it fails to explain his views 20 years ago ... so nothing has really changed, has it?