Skip to comments.BYRANT [sic] GUMBEL'S LUNG CANCER IS FALSE: News anchorís friend disputes reports
Posted on 12/11/2009 5:13:22 PM PST by BykrBayb
BYRANT GUMBEL'S LUNG CANCER IS FALSE: News anchors friend disputes reports
Sean Cassidy says condition would be 'much more aggressive' than what Gumbel had
By Chris Richburg
(December 10, 2009)
*News of Bryant Gumbels battle with lung cancer may have been premature, according to a friend of the television personality who says Gumbel donesn't have the condition. Despite Gumbels admission to going under the knife, Sean Cassidy revealed the former Today Show hosts situation would have been more serious had he actually been a lung cancer victim.
"A tumor was removed from his chest cavity. It was malignant. It was adjacent to his lung. Lung cancer is much more aggressive than what Bryant had," Cassidy shared in Richard Princes online Journal-isms column. "There's a very big difference between Bryant Gumbel's condition and what has been reported in the press."
Cassidys revelation comes days after Gumbel opened up about his surgery on Tuesdays edition of Live With Regis and Kelly. According to reports, the 61-year-old journalist said the operation took place two months ago as a malignant tumor and part of his lung were removed. Gumbel co-hosted the show with Ripa in place of Regis Philbin, who is recovering from recent hip replacement surgery.
"It's nothing to hide from, Gumbel said. They opened up my chest, they took out a malignant tumor, they took out part of my lung and they took out some other goodies. Even with the surgery, some aggressive cancer cells had escaped, 'so I went through some treatment and it's done now.
Why Gumbels lung had to be partially removed was something Cassidy said he could not explain. As he told Journal-isms, he's not a doctor.
Despite his medical status, Gumbel continued to play an active role on his HBO sports newsmagazine, Real Sports. So much so, the newsman said he kept the shows staff in the dark about what he went through. Gumbels efforts proved successful as he ended up taping shows on September 15 and October 27, without missing an episode.
Gumbels willingness to share his situation soon became a double-edged sword as speculation over the cancer increased after he said "'We hope. We hope, it's over. The remark resulted in rumblings that the cancer, which was assumed to be in Gumbels lung, was still active.
Media outlets later picked up on the story, with headlines stating that Gumbel did indeed have lung cancer. Even NBC, the network Gumbel formerly called home, acknowledged the story as it reported that Gumbel had lung cancer.
Upon seeing the news reports, Cassidy, who serves as president of the New York-based public relations firm DKC, became determined to set the record straight on Gumbels medical standing.
"When you're diagnosed with cancer, it has to be monitored, the executive maintained. His prognosis is very good."
I wonder what other "goodies" they removed besides the malignant (cancerous) tumor and part of his lung. My guess would be they took some surrounding lymph nodes, and that's how he knew "some aggressive cancer cells had escaped."
It sounds to me like he naively thought he could go public with the news of his lung cancer, without serious backlash or loss of income. Now his friend is trying to cover for him.
Personally, I have no interest in the details of My Gumbal’s private medical condition, nor do I expect him to publish his private medical records.
If it was me, I’d tell everyone to mind their own damned bidnez...
Yeah, he should have realized lung cancer is a dirty little secret and kept his mouth shut.
Think I’d just trust Gumble on this one.
He looked GREAT and HEALTHY!! I was channel surfing and saw some of it! I couldn’t believe the lung cancer because he looked GREAT!
Can’t say I blame you there. I didn’t post it to garner any sympathy for him. I just thought it was interesting, and might open up conversation about lung cancer. The information in the article is so contradictory. I’m curious what more knowledgeable FReepers might add, to clear things up.
You know, I’m not comfortable with the title atop of this article “...Gumbels Lung Cancer is False...”. It was absolutely cancer, a malignant cancer...so if it was 2mm or 2 inches from his lung, who cares? They obviously removed the part of his lung that was in the path of the malignancy to check for invasion.
Quite possibly people think he’s exaggerating the danger he’s in...& that’s ok too. I don’t prefer Bryant Gumble, but I sympathize with anyone who gets cancer. All these years of drinking the chemicals in the water, & the pesticides in the produce, & God knows what other man made synthetic crap we’ve consumed...because everyone will probably have a bout with a form of cancer some time in their lives. It seems like everyone is getting it lately...& the people I know who are getting it are not smokers. They did not inherit it genetically either.
Cancer is just showing up everywhere - especially in the reproductive organs of men & women.....hmmmm, anyone know what John Holdren has been up to for the last 12 years? I was just recalling his words regarding population control...
It makes me wonder how it is possible that so many people are experiencing cancer - & of course this will be one of the main things that gets rationed, or cut out completely under the new death care.
Anyway, my prayers go out to Bryant, & anyone else who has to face the fear of cancer.
Yeah, it’s amazing how well some people handle cancer treatment.
Yeah its bad news to beat up on a guy because a friend says his diagnosis is false.
I’ll miss “Gumbel to Gumbel”.
Right. The malignant tumor was cancer, whether it was inside his lung, or outside.
His friend makes the erroneous claim that if it was lung cancer, it would necessarily be more aggressive than whatever Gumbel has, which the friend never does name. Lung cancer is sometimes very aggressive, but not always.
Sarah Brady had lung cancer several years ago.
Everyone does not die following this diagnosis.
Brother in law had lung cancer surgery over a year ago. He’s doing fine with no return of the cancer at this time.
I thought corrections went out that day regarding this.
The statistics for lung cancer are grim, but people are not statistics. There are many variables. That’s good news about your bil’s recovery. I’ll pray for continuing clean scans.
Really? This is the first I’ve heard of any “corrections.” I put that in quotes, because I’m not convinced this version is correct.
Any word on what type of cancer he had, if not lung cancer?
Looking back, found a USA Today and Newsday story from December 8th. But, Cassidy, identified as Gumbel’s “spokesman” in USA Today is the source for both. In the short paragraph available from Newsday without a subscription it says another source confirmed a “friend”.
Thanks so much.
There have been many advances in previously terminal cancers.
Pancreatic cancer is treatable now and many have survived for quite a while.
The writer of this article seems way off base here.
I doubt anyone here is a big (or even little) Gumbel fan. For me, the interesting thing about this story is the cancer itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.