Merged Steve Jobs has died.

[Malfie Henpox]

I suppose it depends on how you interpret life. And that quote. I would consider myself living for someone else if all I did was slave for a wage whilst they got richer.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I am certain there are many people who have inappropriately attributed all of Apple's success to Steve Jobs, just as many today believe that Thomas Edison "invented the lightbulb." But I find it pretty amazing how many of the smartest people in Silicon Valley, in technology world-wide, and in the entertainment industry have such a uniquely high opinion of who Jobs was and what he did. This is not an argument by authority- these are legitimate experts in the same fields as Jobs. Either Steve Jobs was able to fool among the smartest people in the world (which takes some intelligence, right?), or he was indeed incredibly talented.

I'm not sure what your point is? I've never said Jobs didn't deserve plaudits and I've never said he wasn't a big factor in Apple's success. All I've disputed is idiotic claims like 'He invented the PC' and expressed my amazement at the amount of fuss at the passing of a CEO (agreed a very successful one) of a tech company. I've also suggested that Johnathan Ive deserves a considerable amount of success for his creative contribution to their flagship products...and totally accept that Jobs was clever enough to give him the environment to do so.

From your post, I can't see what we're in disagreement about. I could dispute your 'able to fool among the smartest people in the world (which takes some intelligence, right?)' bit, as actually people who are extremely intelligent in one field (academia, a particular branch of science / technology whatever) can be very easily 'fooled' or impressed by someone with a different skill-set - business acumen, salesmanship or indeed magicians (I think they've managed to fool some pretty clever scientists on occasion) - but I'm not suggesting that's what Jobs has done.

Anyway. I've had my say and I must admit that I've even moderated my view slightly in response to some of the excellent posts others have put up, but I'm about finished with this one now.

Just wish there'd been even a fraction of this fuss when Dio passed away - didn't even get a mention on the British news....

 

[kerikiwi]

I disagree. The diabetic died of diabetes, or complications from diabetes such as renal failure. He probably wouldn't have if he'd taken his insulin. You died of blood loss caused by a knife wound. You probably wouldn't have if you'd applied direct pressure.

You can't blame the death on the lack of an action. The action could have prevented the death, but lack of action was not the direct cause of death. Jobs died from cancer. He did not die from alternative medicine.

Yet the insulin, pressure and real medicine would mean the person was not dead and hence didn't die of renal failure or blood loss or cancer.
Ultimately we all die of heart failure.

 

[tyr_13]

So what? Orac certainly had no problem accepting trusting the professional journalists who worked on that article when he blogged about the story in 2008, and neither do I. It's a serious news organization with a reputation to protect. Can you find me a CNN/Forture article where total liars were taken seriously by the reporters? Then you'd have a point.

Nice uses of weasel words there buddy. One does not have to be a 'total liar' to be mistake about the treatment choices of someone who was very private about his illness. But even if the goal post is 'total liars taken seriously', then that's fairly easy to do as well. It's CNN, who have had Jenny McCarthy and every other Woowoo you can imagine on their shows and web sites at one point or another. But more than that, it's an opinion piece. Your appeal to authority is misplaced.

Really? Where? You didn't bother to share, so I imagine it's not a major news organization with a serious reputation to protect etc. It's not impossible for it to be poor reporting but there is no reason to doubt it since no one has ever publicly challenged this series of events three years later.

No, comments and blogs and such from people who 'worked with him' who say he never stopped conventional treatments. Which is why I've said that according to the best evidence we have, he was following only alt-med for nine months. If it weren't for the fact the the Fortune/CNN piece might have been vetted somehow, I would have said that we don't really know if it's true. If that were the case, I would have given both claims equal standing. Bloggers repeating things is not evidence.

And again, Jobs was fairly private about his illness, so no counter claims isn't surprising in the least.

It's possible the stock market will gain 1000 points tomorrow but it doesn't look good and to think it might would be wish thinking for real. That article is 3 years old and it has been blogged and written about by thousands of people. I can't find any dissenting views and you haven't offered anything.

This is absurd. One opinion piece about Jobs three years ago being possibly mistaken is in no way the same as the stock market gaining 1000 points. Stop being so childish.

It happened, it was absolutely brutal, and it needs to be part of the record so people know not to try stupid stuff like that themselves.

Whether or not is happened, such actions would be stupid. What will be really stupid is if it turns out that he wasn't on alt-med and was only on conventional so that he woo woos can turn the argument around and say, "See, it was modern medicine that killed him."

You could be wrong, stop being so blinded by passion against scam artists and woos that you don't consider it a reasonable possibility.

Once again, I believe the best evidence is correct this time, but that the best evidence so far isn't every good.

 

[Joey McGee]

Nice uses of weasel words there buddy. One does not have to be a 'total liar' to be mistake about the treatment choices of someone who was very private about his illness.

It's quite clear that what they are saying is that he absolutely refused evidence-based treatment for nine months. Either that is true or it is not, there is no grey area there. btw wikipedia still states that quite clearly and anyone can edit it.

But even if the goal post is 'total liars taken seriously', then that's fairly easy to do as well. It's CNN, who have had Jenny McCarthy and every other Woowoo you can imagine on their shows and web sites at one point or another.

Having people on is a lot different from making a claim! In the article they make a specific claim about a fact. If CNN made a claim that McCarthy was right, then you would have a point. Having these people on is not endorsing their views or making a claim.

But more than that, it's an opinion piece. Your appeal to authority is misplaced.

You missed the point, in society these kinds of claims from major news services are taken seriously by serious people for a reason, we don't have access without unnamed sources. Think about the history of anonymous sources in events like Watergate. They are necessary and there is a trust there. Fine, you are suspicious of this process in society, but others are more realistic.

No, comments and blogs and such from people who 'worked with him' who say he never stopped conventional treatments.

Who? Why don't you share this with us?

Which is why I've said that according to the best evidence we have, he was following only alt-med for nine months. If it weren't for the fact the the Fortune/CNN piece might have been vetted somehow, I would have said that we don't really know if it's true. If that were the case, I would have given both claims equal standing. Bloggers repeating things is not evidence. And again, Jobs was fairly private about his illness, so no counter claims isn't surprising in the least.

You missed the point again, if this claim was not true, why wouldn't someone try to counter them before the lie was spread as far as it has? The fact that Jobs did this was kind of a shock to me actually, as it was for many people such as Orac, it was like "Say it ain't so" But no one has said it ain't so... I guess people in the know could be staying silent, but they wouldn't be doing the legacy of their friend a good service.

This is absurd. One opinion piece about Jobs three years ago being possibly mistaken is in no way the same as the stock market gaining 1000 points. Stop being so childish.

It seems like wish thinking to imagine that none of this is true at this point... on a serious level, to that degree.

You could be wrong, stop being so blinded by passion against scam artists and woos that you don't consider it a reasonable possibility.

Nice lecture. It's not reasonable, it's wish thinking. No matter how brilliant and scientific our minds are, we are still susceptible. If Jobs, then possibly me. That's a poignant lesson.

 

[tyr_13]

It's quite clear that what they are saying is that he absolutely refused evidence-based treatment for nine months. Either that is true or it is not, there is no grey area there.

Or the unnamed source mistook 'taking alt treatments' for 'refusing conventional medicine'. It's an easy mistake to make.

btw wikipedia still states that quite clearly and anyone can edit it.

Oh, well if wikipedia says it...

Having people on is a lot different from making a claim! In the article they make a specific claim about a fact. If CNN made a claim that McCarthy was right, then you would have a point. Having these people on is not endorsing their views or making a claim.

CNN didn't make the claim that Jobs refused conventional medical treatment. It's an opinion piece with full disclaimer.

You missed the point, in society these kinds of claims from major news services are taken seriously by serious people for a reason, we don't have access without unnamed sources. Think about the history of anonymous sources in events like Watergate. They are necessary and there is a trust there. Fine, you are suspicious of this process in society, but others are more realistic.

Complete trust for unnamed sources isn't realistic. Again you're completely ignoring the fact that I've given more weight to those unnamed sources for Fortune/CNN. Do you seriously think that I'm claiming with certainty that Jobs didn't forgo treatment for nine months?

Who? Why don't you share this with us?

Because the claims are in the comment section of every article linked to. If you want a more specific example, you're welcome to try to find it in the Skeptiod Blog. It's going to be harder now because of how expansive it's become. Again, I'm not giving these claims a lot of weight, but the claim is plausible.

You missed the point again, if this claim was not true, why wouldn't someone try to counter them before the lie was spread as far as it has?

I've addressed this several times.

The fact that Jobs did this was kind of a shock to me actually, as it was for many people such as Orac, it was like "Say it ain't so" But no one has said it ain't so... I guess people in the know could be staying silent, but they wouldn't be doing the legacy of their friend a good service.

Why were you surprised? Lots of smart people make lots of dumb mistakes. We all make dumb mistakes.

It seems like wish thinking to imagine that none of this is true at this point... on a serious level, to that degree.

You aren't even trying to address what I'm actually saying here.

Nice lecture. It's not reasonable, it's wish thinking. No matter how brilliant and scientific our minds are, we are still susceptible. If Jobs, then possibly me. That's a poignant lesson.

I've not made the argument that it's not believable because Steve Jobs was 'so brilliant' or any other vein thereof.

It's completely reasonable to allow the possibility of better evidence coming forward when there is so little evidence in the first place. All the evidence that has been brought forward so far are unnamed sources from an opinion piece. While better than none, one family member coming forward would be worth much more.

 

[Joey McGee]

Or the unnamed source mistook 'taking alt treatments' for 'refusing conventional medicine'. It's an easy mistake to make.

If you simply read the article, it is quite clear that he could have had the surgery without waiting 9 months.

Oh, well if wikipedia says it...

You missed the point again. Why are you bothering arguing with me on these little websites when you could be setting the record straight for a much larger audience?

CNN didn't make the claim that Jobs refused conventional medical treatment. It's an opinion piece with full disclaimer.

No it says that nowhere on the page and they are clearly standing behind the source with their reputation on the line. Zero ambiguity.

Complete trust for unnamed sources isn't realistic.

Complete trust isn't necessary, no one has disputed it, and their reputation is on the line, it's good enough to work with.

Because the claims are in the comment section of every article linked to.

Wow... comments... Are you Seraphim? I noticed other people also used the arguments about reputation and Watergate refuting that poster...

Why were you surprised? Lots of smart people make lots of dumb mistakes. We all make dumb mistakes.

It's just an extraordinarily stupid mistake by a rather intelligent man, it was the size of the mistake that surprised me given his connections and abilities.

It's completely reasonable to allow the possibility of better evidence coming forward when there is so little evidence in the first place. All the evidence that has been brought forward so far are unnamed sources from an opinion piece. While better than none, one family member coming forward would be worth much more.

It's not impossible it's incredibly unlikely.

Ok we hashed it out I think, there is much more about Jobs legacy that is far more important, I'm done. Happy Thanksgiving

 

[tyr_13]

If you simply read the article, it is quite clear that he could have had the surgery without waiting 9 months.

Which isn't the same as forgoing conventional treatment altogether, although it does say the he didn't have specific other conventional treatments that one might expect him to be undergoing. I read the article, I know what it claims. Unless the source had access to his medical records or Jobs told them directly, they couldn't know that the reason he didn't have the surgery was to try alt med instead and not for some other medical reason.

You missed the point again. Why are you bothering arguing with me on these little websites when you could be setting the record straight for a much larger audience?

Because the people with the most direct access to the needed information don't want to comment at all. Others might not want to come forward officially or edit the wiki. But even if they did want to edit the wiki, it would just be changed back especially if they don't have an external source. Did you even check the talk pages? I'm getting the feeling that you're not familiar with the way Wikipedia actually works. It's a great starting point of information. An excellent tool. It isn't evidence in and of itself.

No it says that nowhere on the page and they are clearly standing behind the source with their reputation on the line. Zero ambiguity.

All opinion pieces are understood to be the opinion of the author, although obviously the claim about the nine months of putting off the surgery is not an opinion. And needless to say, there are other reasons one might put off a surgery other than they believe alt-med can work. Not many of the good reasons mind you.

Complete trust isn't necessary, no one has disputed it, and their reputation is on the line, it's good enough to work with.

That's a foolish line of reasoning. No one disputing it is not evidence that it's indisputable. It's almost the same as saying, 'they couldn't sell this if it didn't work, they'd be sued.' No one yet has come forward with good evidence, but that's not evidence they can't.

Wow... comments... Are you Seraphim? I noticed other people also used the arguments about reputation and Watergate refuting that poster...

No, I'm Brandon on that comment section. Watergate is a great example. The insider's word wasn't good evidence there either. It led to good evidence. Seraphim had exactly one good point, and the rest is knee jerk 'defense' of Jobs, as if Mr. Dunning's piece was an attack or something. I'm in general agreement with Mr. Dunning except on a couple of details.

It's just an extraordinarily stupid mistake by a rather intelligent man, it was the size of the mistake that surprised me given his connections and abilities.

Yeah, well he did OK those completely round mice, so the precedent was there.

It's not impossible it's incredibly unlikely.

I simply refuse to put that much stock into what is basically hearsay. I'm going to stick with discussing and speculating on the assumption that the reports are accurate, but I'm not going to ignore the large lack of good evidence or the plausibility of alternate explanations for putting off the surgery for nine months.

Ok we hashed it out I think, there is much more about Jobs legacy that is far more important, I'm done. Happy Thanksgiving

Have fun.

 

[h.g.Whiz]

Steve Jobs 2 http://www.theonion.com/video/last-bastion-of-us-economy-succumbs-to-pancreatic,26285/

 

[This is The End]

Or the unnamed source mistook 'taking alt treatments' for 'refusing conventional medicine'. It's an easy mistake to make.

Just to be clear here, tyr_13. Are you maintaining that Jobs did seek and follow conventional treatment during that first 9 months?

 

[tyr_13]

Just to be clear here, tyr_13. Are you maintaining that Jobs did seek and follow conventional treatment during that first 9 months?

No. I know my other posts were hard to follow because of the cut up nature of the back and forth, but I made it very clear that I believe the best evidence we have indicates that he didn't.

My point is that the best evidence we have in this case isn't very strong. We don't know that he didn't have conventional treatment during the first nine months. And if he didn't, we don't know it was because he thought alt-med would help more.

I believe he was misled into thinking he could diet and cleanse the cancer away. I believe the people who push that kind of useless (or nearly useless in the case of diet as sometimes one does need to do such things to prepare for surgery) are doing great harm. I believe some of the people pushing such things know that they can't help, and are scamming people for money, blood money in fact. Those people sicken me. However, that first sentence in this paragraph is on weak evidence and I'm prepared to reverse my position should better evidence come to light.

 

[Bob001]

Non-health-related Steve Jobs question ...

Many of the stories about Steve Jobs, and his own account in his Stanford commencement address, say that he dropped out of Reed College after a few months in part because it was wiping out his parents' life savings. Smart move. But as a California resident in the early '70s, he could have gone to Berkeley, UCLA or anywhere else in the vast University of California/Cal. State system for no more than a few hundred dollars a year. And if his grades were good enough to get into Reed, he probably could have gotten a scholarship to a state school or many private ones. Has he ever told anyone why he chose a very expensive, very exclusive, very small private school? Did he not know how much it would cost (I suppose his parents could have said "Let us deal with the money")? Was there some particular program or professor that he wanted to connect with? Did he expect a scholarship that didn't come through? Did he have some prior connection with Portland? Usually deciding "How will we pay for it?" is part of the going-to-college process for almost anyone.

 

[Ocelot]

Your chances of getting an answer to that question would have been significantly greater if you'd asked it early last week.

Personally I couldn't care less if the truth of the matter was that he was kicked out and covered it up with a cock and bull story about the expense.

 

[elgarak]

Excellent article by David Gorski, summarizing Steve Jobs' unfortunate medical history based on the publicly available information.

Two things I take out of this:

1) Steve had a complex, and rare, medical problem. Decisions made at the time based on available data may appear weird, bizarre and wrong in hindsight.

2) Woos and quacks be damned. STFU.

 

[tyr_13]

Well it looks like it's pretty much going to be completely answered. From a CNET article.

In the clip, which is embedded below, Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes" gets Isaacson to discuss Jobs' handling of a tumor, which Isaacson says Jobs attempted to treat with alternative medicine versus having it surgically removed.

"You know, I've asked him about that," Isaacson told Kroft. "He said 'I didn't want my body to be opened, I didn't want to be violated in that way,' he's regretful about it," Isaacson remembers.

 

[Joey McGee]

also

"I think that [Jobs] kind of felt that if you ignore something, if you don't want something to exist, you can have magical thinking, it had worked for him in the past. He regretted it."

Such a powerful lesson, I'm glad they are running with this first.

I catch myself thinking magically from time to time, less and less but it's always disconcerting. What's for sure is that this event, this news and knowledge will resonate with society for a very long time.

Since we spent so much time talking about it I thought I'd reproduce the comment someone posted on skeptoid for a laugh

I worked at Apple most of the last 10 years and we saw a lot of misinformation in the press regarding Steve’s medical history and treatment, and that includes your one source, the Forbes article. You’ll see in his upcoming biography that Steve never left science-based medicine. But I guess using poor, unconfirmed sources for your arguments is ok when YOU do it, Brian. So disappointing.

Another interesting article on the subject

Harvard Cancer Expert: Steve Jobs Probably Doomed Himself With Alternative Medicine

I have done 1.5 years of research on the type of tumor that affected Steve Jobs and have some strong opinions on his case

 

[tyr_13]

Yeah, exactly the opposite of what that poster said would happen. The biographer confirms from Jobs himself that he put off the surgery for non-medical reasons. Not only non-medical, but magical thinking reasons.

Just finished watching 'iGenius' on Discovery on his life. It was fairly good, but knowing more of the actual details than they had time to go over, it seems a little off in some places.

 

[Darat]

Wow- Job's death may have been a blessing for Apple: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15400984

 

[tyr_13]

Wow- Job's death may have been a blessing for Apple: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15400984

Holy Hats, that's pretty crazy.

 

[Furcifer]

The biographer confirms from Jobs himself that he put off the surgery for non-medical reasons. Not only non-medical, but magical thinking reasons.

Yah on 60 Minutes the biographer just got done saying that. It's such a pity.