Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized after fall breaks three ribs

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-undergoes-surgery/ar-BBRh3Kl?OCID=ansmsnnews11

There is no evidence of any remaining disease, says a court spokesperson, nor is there evidence of disease elsewhere in the body.

The 85-year-old justice was hospitalized last month after a fall in her office, in which she fractured three ribs.

In 1999, Ginsburg underwent surgery for colorectal cancer, and 10 years later she was treated for early stages of pancreatic cancer.

The senior-most liberal justice, Ginsburg has said that she'll continue to serve on the Supreme Court as long as she's able to do the job.

"I said I will do this job as long as I can do it full steam," Ginsburg said Sunday
 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-undergoes-surgery/ar-BBRh3Kl?OCID=ansmsnnews11

There is no evidence of any remaining disease, says a court spokesperson, nor is there evidence of disease elsewhere in the body.

The 85-year-old justice was hospitalized last month after a fall in her office, in which she fractured three ribs.

In 1999, Ginsburg underwent surgery for colorectal cancer, and 10 years later she was treated for early stages of pancreatic cancer.

The senior-most liberal justice, Ginsburg has said that she'll continue to serve on the Supreme Court as long as she's able to do the job.

"I said I will do this job as long as I can do it full steam," Ginsburg said Sunday
She is too old to survive much longer after having two major traumas so close together.
Remember that she fell while in her office NOT while going up or down stairs.
 
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted against President Donald Trump’s proposed immigrant asylum restrictions from the hospital where she had cancer surgery Friday, according to media reports.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-voted-hospital-084106767.html

How is that even legal?


225px-Ginsberg_and_Bjork.png
 
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted against President Donald Trump’s proposed immigrant asylum restrictions from the hospital where she had cancer surgery Friday, according to media reports.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-voted-hospital-084106767.html

How is that even legal?


Why did they need to do this?
They couldn't have waited a few days for her to leave the hospital?
Is she dying and this is their way of milking one last ruling out of her?
 
Why did they need to do this?
They couldn't have waited a few days for her to leave the hospital?
Is she dying and this is their way of milking one last ruling out of her?

No, as I stated before.
They are going to pretend she is in intensive care, and act outraged for proof of life.
Just like after Woodrow Wilson's stroke. Shadow government ran the show.
If she is not dead, she soon will be, and somebody will be writing her opinions for her.
 
No, as I stated before.
They are going to pretend she is in intensive care, and act outraged for proof of life.
Just like after Woodrow Wilson's stroke. Shadow government ran the show.
If she is not dead, she soon will be, and somebody will be writing her opinions for her.
I think you may be right, Trump needs to do something about this.
 
On Friday, surgeons in New York removed the lower lobe of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s left lung. According to a statement from the Supreme Court, two nodules—which had been discovered in a CT scan after Ginsburg broke three ribs last month—were determined to be malignant.

Images before the surgery showed no evidence of cancer elsewhere in her body, and doctors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center reported that there was “no evidence of any remaining disease” after the procedure. According to the statement, no further treatment is planned.

What does this mean?
First, there’s a mandatory caveat in any such circumstance: A prognosis is impossible even for Ginsburg’s doctors to predict perfectly, and very limited information has been made public. Nevertheless, Ginsburg is a public figure whose health status is of particular consequence to American citizens, and readers of the Supreme Court’s statement are likely to draw conclusions. It is possible to add some context to the statement and to determine that this is neither a clean bill of health nor a clear sign of imminent peril.

After the news, I tweeted: “If you’re 85 and you break a rib and get a CT, the radiologist will very likely find pulmonary nodules. Most aren’t removed. Since hers are now out and there’s apparently no evidence of metastatic disease, the primary issue is recovery from the procedure.”
Most readers took this as good news. Though I didn’t mean to imply that she’s cleared. It’s true that nodules are very common—and a nodule is different from a mass, the distinction being the size. A nodule is, by definition, fewer than 3 centimeters (around an inch) in diameter. These two nodules are now gone, and there are apparently no others remaining.
But the word that makes the statement more complicated and concerning is two.
Pulmonary nodules are indeed extremely common, and most are benign. To find two malignant nodules in a person who smokes would not be especially surprising. However, if you have two separate malignant nodules in your lung and you do not smoke, doctors worry that this means they represent metastatic disease from a cancer somewhere else.
This is especially true if the patient has a history of cancer, as Ginsburg does. She had early-stage colon and pancreatic cancers removed in 1999 and 2009, respectively.
Lung nodules are generally removed when they are deemed suspicious for malignancy, meaning they either showed signs of growth or were not seen on prior oncologic screening. “Growing pulmonary nodules can be primary lung cancers, and synchronous ones do appear,” says Howard Forman, a radiologist and professor at Yale. “But in a patient with two primary known malignancies, we would need to know the pathology of the nodules before believing she is cured.”
The pathology report can tell us if the malignant cells are lung cancer—meaning a rare case of two simultaneous new lung cancers in a nonsmoker—or if they represent a recurrence of metastatic colon or pancreatic cancer, or if they are of some other origin. If this is the case, it would raise concern that although current scans showed no evidence of metastatic disease elsewhere, there could be yet-undetectable cancer cells already seeded in Ginsburg’s body.
The fact that the statement says the nodules are indeed malignant means that at least a preliminary pathology report has been done, but this crucial detail—what type of malignancy?—was either unclear or withheld from the statement. It reads only: “According to the thoracic surgeon, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, FACS, both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant on initial pathology evaluation.” (I emailed Rusch, who told me, “We have no additional information on the pathology at the present time.”)
“It all depends on the pathology report,” says the pathologist Anirban Maitra, the scientific director of the Ahmed Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research at MD Anderson Cancer Center. “Cancer in the lung is not the same as primary lung cancer, especially in a person with a history of colon and pancreatic cancer. Right now it’s best for the medical community to wait for more details.”
“They might need to run special stains to distinguish lung versus colon versus pancreatic,” Maitra adds. “That could take a couple days and may or may not be conclusive.”
In any case, expect that Ginsburg will be monitored closely in coming years for metastatic disease. In the immediate term, recovery from a lobectomy can be a significant undertaking for an 85-year-old, and that is indeed the relevant health issue for the foreseeable future.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/12/rbg-cancer/578869/
 
Each and every person lives one moment at a time. The older one gets the more likely they will drop dead the next moment.
 
Well no new news. Based on Facebook memes, some people will be disappointed that their Christmas wish didn't come true. Others are probably praying she hangs on for two more years.

People live sad lives these days. Merry Christmas.
 
Ginsburg is just a hard working lady. She's got more knowledge in her pinky than we have in our entire bodies.
 
I hope this treasonous witch drops dead soon. She is a disgrace to this country and morality. She once argued that the age of consent should be lowered from 16 to 12. 6-3 sounds nice. Stephen Breyer is 80 years old.....so 7-2 sounds better!!
 
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is up and working as she recuperates from cancer surgery.A spokeswoman for the court, Kathy Arberg, also says that Ginsburg remained in New York at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center on Sunday. No information has been released on when Ginsburg might return home.

The court next meets on Jan. 7.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/court-says-justice-ginsburg-working-surgery-001307358--politics.html

The incredible power of prayer.
 
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg left the hospital on Christmas after doctors removed two cancerous nodules from her left lung last Friday.
The 85-year-old is now recuperating at home after spending the past several days at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
Ginsburg was treated for colon cancer in 1999 with chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. She was later diagnosed with
pancreatic cancer 10 years later which was removed surgically.
A surgery expert interviewed by CBS said it was possible that slow-moving cancer cells spread to her lungs from one of those cases.
“As Ginsburg does not have a history of smoking, he said a lung cancer diagnosis was unlikely,” CBS reported. “Pathology tests, which he said are typically complete within a couple of weeks after the procedure, will determine where the cancer came from.”

https://www.infowars.com/ginsburg-discharged-from-hospital-after-cancer-operation/
 
Q
!!mG7VJxZNCI
ID: 38db44
No.4627556

Jan 6 2019 12:32:35 (EST)
[RBG]
Why was she 'selected'?
Who appointed her?
Remember [her] history.
Ref: 230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Highlights:
>Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)
>Called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (Page 145)
>Insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (Page 169)
>Cast constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (Page 146)
>Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)
>Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)
>Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)
>Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)
>Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)
>An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)
>Wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)
>Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
http://humanevents.com/2005/08/23/senators-overlooked-radical-record-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/
Who are the doctors 'currently' treating [RBG]?
What other political [former/current] sr. political heads are they affiliated w/?
What 'off-market' drugs are being provided to [RBG] in order to sustain minimum daily function?
What is the real medical diagnosis of [RBG]?
Who is managing her care?
Who is 'really' managing her care?
The clock is ticking.
PANIC IN DC.

Q
 
Back
Top