‘Scrubs’ actor Sam Lloyd diagnosed with lung cancer, brain tumor weeks after welcoming son

Scrubs” actor Sam Lloyd has been diagnosed with lung cancer just weeks after his wife Vanessa gave birth to their first child together.

A GoFundMe page for the actor, 55, said Lloyd was diagnosed in January after welcoming a son named Weston.

According to the page, Lloyd began experiencing headaches and suddenly lost 10 pounds which he initially attributed to his busy schedule and sleepless nights taking care of his newborn son. But after going to the doctor, a CT scan revealed a brain tumor.


His doctors ordered immediate surgery to remove the tumor but found that the cancer had spread to his lungs, spine, jaw, liver and brain.

A GoFundMe page is asking for $  100,000 to cover medical and childcare expenses for actor Sam Lloyd and his wife Vanessa who recently gave birth to their son, Weston.

A GoFundMe page is asking for $ 100,000 to cover medical and childcare expenses for actor Sam Lloyd and his wife Vanessa who recently gave birth to their son, Weston. (GoFundMe)

“In the face of this devastating news, Sam and Vanessa have been incredibly strong and positive. Humor and laughter, which have been a huge part of Sam’s life, will undoubtedly help him with what lies ahead,” the GoFundMe page, which was created by “Scrubs” executive produce Tim Hobert, said.

The page noted that Lloyd was cheering his “beloved New England Patriots in his hospital room” just after his diagnosis. His cheering was so loud he was asked by a nurse to “cheer quieter.”


“Sam politely nodded. When the nurse left the room, Sam turned to Vanessa and his friends and said, ‘What are they gonna do? Kill me?'”

The GoFundMe page is asking for $ 100,000 for medical and childcare expenses. As of Wednesday morning, more than $ 73,000 has been raised.

Lloyd is best known for portraying Sacred Heart lawyer Ted Buckland on the sitcom “Scrubs.” He is also the nephew of actor Christopher Lloyd.

Madeleine Albright and David Miliband: Welcoming refugees makes total economic sense

Syria's lost generation


    Syria’s lost generation


Syria’s lost generation 01:51

Madeleine Albright is a former US secretary of state. David Miliband is president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee and a former UK foreign secretary. The opinions in this article are those of the authors.

(CNN)In 1956, András Gróf decided to start walking. At 20, he had survived Hungarian fascism, Nazi occupation, and the invasion of the Soviet Red Army. To escape the crossfire of a bloody counterrevolution, he walked from Budapest to Vienna, where he reached the offices of the International Rescue Committee (IRC): an organization founded by Albert Einstein to help people fleeing violence and persecution.

The IRC put Gróf on a boat to the United States. When he arrived at Ellis Island, he took the name Andy Grove.
Andy Grove went on to become co-founder and CEO of Intel. He is recognized today as one of the people who profoundly shaped Silicon Valley and the digital transformation of the world economy. The decision to admit this one refugee created immense prosperity for America.
Not every person fleeing violence is the next Andy Grove, but his story represents a basic truth: when given the opportunity to rebuild their lives in a welcoming country, refugees make enormous contributions. Despite being among the most vulnerable and destitute when they arrive, the data shows that refugees work hard and quickly become net economic contributors in their host societies. In other words, resettling refugees is not just the right thing to do — it’s the smart thing, too.
    Yet today, the global refugee resettlement system is breaking down. There are approximately 1.4 million refugees worldwide who are in need of urgent resettlement — either because of their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or poor health. But in 2018, just 100,000 refugees were resettled, down from the previous year’s 180,000. Countries that once proudly welcomed refugees are closing their doors. Under the Trump administration, the United States is less welcoming to the international homeless now than at any time in modern memory.
    This moment demands bold action — not only to revive the bipartisan American tradition of resettling refugees, but to broaden the coalition of countries accepting the world’s most vulnerable people.

    White House slashes refugee cap to new low

    White House slashes refugee cap to new low


      White House slashes refugee cap to new low


    White House slashes refugee cap to new low 02:16

    At the IRC, we have concluded that persuading more countries to accept refugees requires a new coalition of actors — from the private sector, philanthropy and civil society — to address three constraints that hold countries back from doing more.
    First, we need to address the concern that refugees represent a cost, rather than an asset. In the United States, refugees become net economic contributors — contributing more to the economy than they have taken out — after eight years. The European Commission estimates that for every euro spent on refugees, two euros is generated within five years.
    We can make the economic argument even more compelling. Right now, when a refugee is resettled, agency representatives decide which town or city to send them to, based on a wide range of criteria. Our partners at Stanford University have developed an algorithm to improve placement decisions by harnessing employment data — the skills and characteristics of refugees, available jobs in a community, housing costs and other local factors. If we applied the algorithm to the 25 cities where we work today in the US, the employment rate of refugees after three months could be 40% higher. In Switzerland, the algorithm yields a 70% improvement.
    Second, while refugees go on to become economic contributors, they require up-front investment of between $ 10,000 and $ 20,000 to cover the costs of plane tickets, the first few months of housing, and language training. In some countries, enough political will exists to resettle refugees, but not enough to win spending battles at a time of tight public finances.
    An answer to this problem is to borrow from the models developed in global health, climate finance, and social impact bonds, which have harnessed private finance for public good. At the IRC, we are exploring the possibility of creating a financial facility that pays for the initial cost of resettling refugees. This investment would then be paid back using the refugees’ tax contributions as they work.
    Finally, we have to deal with the more intangible concern that refugees often face a backlash from local communities. When a refugee is resettled in Canada, a few members of the public — from a church or local organization — come together to act as their legal sponsors. This group finds housing, gets children into school, connects them with local jobs, and, like volunteers in the US, provides guidance on everything from transportation to financial literacy. Two million Canadians, or 7% of the adult population, have now sponsored a refugee.
      By using a digital platform, we believe we can spread the sponsorship model, so that it is much easier to recruit sponsors, match them to refugees, and provide sponsors with the information and support needed to help refugees.
      Taken together, these three solutions can change the way governments make decisions. There is no easy fix to the current global refugee crisis. But if people see that refugees will be an economic asset, at no up-front cost, with an army of citizens prepared to integrate them and support the cause, we believe the political dynamic around refugee resettlement will begin to shift — offering hope to millions of refugees around the world who carry the same dreams that Andy Grove once did.