He started with the alternative, and then he had proper surgery. And right after surgery, there was no sign of residual cancer. Later on the cancer recurred. The recurrence was only treated the conventional way.
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Ed Steve Jobs cancer story/alternative medicine
- Thread starter Susan Gerbic
- Start date
He started with the alternative, and then he had proper surgery. And right after surgery, there was no sign of residual cancer. Later on the cancer recurred. The recurrence was only treated the conventional way.
bit_pattern
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,406
Steve Jobs: skeptic... Or not?
So I was reading an article today aboput a new biography on Steve Jobs and was informed in the first sentence that:
Fair enough. But then in the very same paragraph:
And further down:
http://www.theage.com.au/technology...ermonuclear-war-on-google-20111021-1mbaq.html
How does this in anyway portray Steve Jobs as a sceptic?
So I was reading an article today aboput a new biography on Steve Jobs and was informed in the first sentence that:
A new biography portrays Steve Jobs as a sceptic all his life
Fair enough. But then in the very same paragraph:
- giving up religion because he was troubled by starving children, calling executives who took over Apple "corrupt" and delaying cancer surgery in favour of cleansings and herbal medicine.
And further down:
The book delves into Jobs's decision to delay surgery for nine months after learning in October 2003 that he had a neuroendocrine tumour - a relatively rare type of pancreatic cancer that normally grows more slowly and is therefore more treatable.
Instead, he tried a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbal remedies and other treatments he found online, and even consulted a psychic. He went to a clinic that advised juice fasts, bowel cleansings and other unproved approaches before having surgery in 2004.
Isaacson, quoting Jobs, writes in the book: "'I really didn't want them to open up my body, so I tried to see if a few other things would work,' he told me years later with a hint of regret."
Instead, he tried a vegan diet, acupuncture, herbal remedies and other treatments he found online, and even consulted a psychic. He went to a clinic that advised juice fasts, bowel cleansings and other unproved approaches before having surgery in 2004.
Isaacson, quoting Jobs, writes in the book: "'I really didn't want them to open up my body, so I tried to see if a few other things would work,' he told me years later with a hint of regret."
http://www.theage.com.au/technology...ermonuclear-war-on-google-20111021-1mbaq.html
How does this in anyway portray Steve Jobs as a sceptic?
Last edited:
John Albert
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2010
- Messages
- 3,425
That sounds pretty woo-minded to me, but it might be considered "skeptical" from a Northern California perspective.
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
While it really doesn't portray Jobs as a skeptic, there's the possibility that Jobs WAS a skeptic who grasped at straws in his battle to beat cancer and regretted doing so.
sounds like maybe he either dropped or was dropping the new age healing BS after it failed him. Learned the hard way I guess. Perhaps he started out skeptical of western religion and the established dogma of his native culture and then moved through new age/eastern stuff and finally ended up more or less sober - not an uncommon course for people of his generation. I do agree that you could hardly call someone a true skeptic who believes in accupuncture and the like. I tend to think the author is using the term 'skeptic' in a somewhat different sense than we use it. I'd lean toward putting Jobs in a sort of gray area here.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Homeopathic Medicine and Steve Jobs
Reuters published this today:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/21/us-apple-jobs-idUSTRE79J7RB20111021
Did Steve Jobs really die because of an over-reliance on Homeopathic or other alternative mediceines?
Reuters published this today:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/21/us-apple-jobs-idUSTRE79J7RB20111021
Did Steve Jobs really die because of an over-reliance on Homeopathic or other alternative mediceines?
Humes fork
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2011
- Messages
- 3,358
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Steve Jobs: Victim of Alternative Medicine?
Smart guy, but maybe not so smart about medicine.
Jobs Tried Exotic Treatments to Combat Cancer, Book Says
Smart guy, but maybe not so smart about medicine.
Jobs Tried Exotic Treatments to Combat Cancer, Book Says
Locknar
Sum of all evils tm
There were 4 seperate threads dealing with Steve Jobs & his use of alternative medince; they have all been merged into this single thread.
Posted By: Locknar
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
Your Body Is A Sacred Trust
SMART BUT, NOT SO SMART?
In a sense yes. But then again no. It is complicated, and without question, more of a cultural problem than a Steve Jobs problem Puppychow. Allow me to explain if I may be so bold. I'll open with a statement that will seem like it is coming from even further out than left field. As I continue, it's relevance should began to sink in.
YOUR BODY IS A SACRED TRUST
Steve Jobs was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the endocrine cell type, in 2003. Jobs was 47 or 48 years old at the time and DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT HIS PANCREAS WAS, had no clue as to its function, let alone know how its dysfunction/malfunction might make him ill. If you are unaware as well, I'll say a few words before moving on to give my views on our community's situation generally, and Jobs in particular.
Your pancreas sits in a place called your retroperitoneum. The best way to think of that for openers is simply to think of it as a place/cavity "behind" that space where your intestines formed.
Your pancreas makes 2 things primarily. The exocrine glands(a gland secreting into a system of ducts) of the pancreas produce the enzymes/chemicals that digest food, break it down so that it may be absorbed. The endocrine(a gland secreting hormones into the blood stream to have effects on cells throughout the body) portion of your pancreas makes insulin and glucagon. Insulin is the hormone which "turns the key" allowing for entry of sugar in to your body cells, and once inside, for that sugar to be used in anabolism. The latter term meaning "to build things up". Glucagon sends a signal to cells to release sugar and is "catabolic" in its effects. "Catabolic" meaning to break tissue down.
Insulin/glucagon are "counter regulatory hormones". That is, they work in opposition to one another, opposing forces. One hormone, insulin, pushing sugar in and building things up. The other hormone, glucagon, releasing sugar into the blood and breaking things down. In human physiology, indeed in biologic systems generally, this "opposing forces" scenario is common and to be expected. For example, we have a native blood clotting system, and in opposition, a native blood dissolving system, opposing forces. These clotting/blood dissolving systems are beyond delicate, breathtaking, systems of awe inspiring beauty, systems of immense and quite literally incomprehensible complexity. We feebly try to manipulate the clotting system in "modern medicine's" context, such as when we give blood clot dissolving chemicals to patients in the "middle of a stroke". Don't get me wrong, this helps a lot of people, but at the same time, it is indeed fairly primitive when you get down to it. I like to think of modern medicine at times as a situation in which doctors have to decide whether or not they really do want to try fixing a torn spider's web with their fingers. "Hey doc, sure you ain't gonna' mess that spider web up more than you're gonna' put it back in working order? Them hands of yours look pretty clumsy to me." I work in a hospital where we make the attempt to treat the "sickest" stroke patients in northern California. We of course do other things too, in addition to making feeble attempts at patching up this particular variety of a broken spider's web. Back to the pancreas.
Because the pancreas is where it is, in a place behind your intestines/stomach, with lots of room around it, if you start to develop a cancer there, a cancer that will take your life, more likely than not, you will not "feel it", or know it for any reason until it is way way way too late, curtain time folks. Matter of fact, not infrequently, patients with pancreatic cancer "present" with painless jaundice. That is, out of the clear blue, they turn yellow. The tumor at the head of the pancreas finally gets so big that the bile drainage system is blocked. The bile that is supposed to go into your intestine to dissolve fat, winds up in your blood and turns your eyes and skin yellow.
Pancreatic cancer, as is the case with most cancers, is more common as one gets older. The median age at diagnosis is about 72 years old. There are roughly 44,000 cases of pancreatic cancer diagnosed every year. The one year survival rate is 25%, and five year survival rate is 5%. So that means of the 44,000 diagnosed with pancreatic cancer here in the USA in 2011, there will only be 11,000 survivors when 2012 comes to a close, and 220 survivors when 2016 comes to a close. Pretty sobering.
When I was a medical student, there was this very famous 50ish year old general surgeon/teacher/professor that used to say, "The only way to treat a cancer is to cut it out and throw it in the garbage can". He was an old Alabama boy, and in his inimitable southern way, he would "drawl" each of those words out slowly and with consummate derision. His drawl's implied criticism and contempt were intended for the ears of any medical student idiotic enough to consider a career in oncology, a discipline in which cancers are treated with chemical poisons, the tumors being been left in the patients' bodies and not thrown in the garbage can where they belong.
Of the 44,000 cases of pancreatic cancer diagnosed this year in the US, only 20 %, one in five are addressable by way of surgery. The operation is called a "Whipple Procedure", AKA pancreaticoduodenectomy. An Italian, Codivilla, came up with the idea for the operation over a hundred years ago. However, it was the insanely talented American surgeon Allen Whipple who relatively early on in the 20th century, 1935 or so, fully elucidated the best techniques. In this procedure, the patient loses his/her stomach, the first part of the small intestine, gall bladder, pancreas/part of it at least, lymph nodes. It is a radical operation, very difficult to do WELL technically and results in the up front survival of only 20% of those receiving the operation. So even if you are lucky enough to be offered a "Whipple", as most physicians refer to them, more likely than not you will still die from the cancer. Some tumor will be left despite the surgeon's best efforts and its recurrence will be no fun for not a one, least of all the patient.
Steve Jobs as it turns out had a better chance than most to survive his "pancreatic cancer". The description/discussion provided above refers for the most part to pancreatic cancers that arise from the exocrine cells. That is the portion of the pancreas that makes the digestive enzymes. Jobs' cancer cells were the endocrine cell misbehaving descendants of the insulin/glucagon secreting family of cells he was born with.
Jobs is no one's fool, and though he did not know what his pancreas was to begin with, he learned. Though 44,000 people are diagnosed annually with PANCREATIC EXOCRINE CELL CANCER, only 3,000ish are diagnosed annually with PANCREATIC NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS. Generally speaking, these tumors behave much differently than the mainstream, more common, exocrine tumors that I discussed rather thoroughly already. These tumors, the Steve Jobs variety, generally speaking are not as aggressive. They are much more benign than the deadly garden variety exocrine cell derived pancreatic cancers.
Reading between the lines, one would assume that Job's cancer was identified as neuroendocrine from the get go and NOT the more common, conventional, and conventionally deadly, exocrine cell adenocarcinoma, the latter being the one with the horrendous prognosis as discussed above. As such, and despite surgery presumably having been recommended when initially diagnosed in 2003, Jobs took his chances, relatively speaking. It should also be pointed out, the surgery at that time, say 2003, when Jobs was initially diagnosed would NOT have been a "Whipple". Such an extensive radical surgery is NOT typically done in the case of the more benign neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas that Jobs had. He may have "gotten off easy", had he opted for surgery right then and there in 2003, right out of the blocks.
Knowing what he knew, and he probably read a lot, Jobs figured there was wiggle room. Many neuroendocrine tumors are not malignant, that is, they will grow locally, but will not spread through the blood, lymphatic system and so forth. They will stay put and remain relatively well behaved, perhaps indefinitely so. Presumably, Jobs thought he was in such a situation. He did not want to be cut open some say. He treated himself with a special diet, and after 9 months, the tumor was bigger and now clearly was a big time threat to him. As such, Jobs underwent a Whipple Procedure. That's a bad sign in a sense. It means the surgeon is going after EVERYTHING, the same way he or she would in the case of the more common and deadly exocrine variety of a pancreatic tumor.
Jobs' then requiring a liver transplant meant the tumor had spread to that major organ. In a very real sense, this is a desperate move medically. The tumor is now confirmed to be malignant. One does not treat malignant cancers with organ transplantation. It cannot go well.
So here is a wickedly smart guy that at age 47 knows everything in the world about computers, but absolutely nothing with regard to what it is that his pancreas actually does for a living. Sure Jobs learned, but learned very late, and guessed wrong for himself with regard to his chances. There is no need for this. Children should learn about their bodies in grade school. It is even more fundamental than 1,2,3……..
We live inside of bodies and not recognizing this hurts us badly in many many ways. I am not advocating people study medicine in grade school, but I do advocate the teaching of basic anatomy and physiology starting from grade one. By the time young people finished high school, they would have a good sense as to what they were about, and a have a good practical appreciation for the grand machine providence has entrusted to them, a practical appreciation and a sense for themselves they hopefully would act on, and act on early in life, continuing until they died.
The last situation one wants to be in is the desperate one where doctors are trying to fix spider webs with their fingers. It tends to not go well. That is not to say doctors can't help and don't want to, but we'd rather never see you make it to us. We'd rather see you not in need of repair.
Jobs certainly did not do this to himself, he is a super cool guy. I am typing on an Apple now. But he was NAIVE, and this naivety is a cultural problem. Somehow I think if he started earlier he would have done a better job making decisions for himself about his body. But he was busy. We are are all too busy to take care of that which is most important.
What concern could remotely approach in importance the truth behind our marvelous physicality? NOTHING!
YOUR BODY IS A SACRED TRUST!
SMART BUT, NOT SO SMART?
In a sense yes. But then again no. It is complicated, and without question, more of a cultural problem than a Steve Jobs problem Puppychow. Allow me to explain if I may be so bold. I'll open with a statement that will seem like it is coming from even further out than left field. As I continue, it's relevance should began to sink in.
YOUR BODY IS A SACRED TRUST
Steve Jobs was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, the endocrine cell type, in 2003. Jobs was 47 or 48 years old at the time and DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT HIS PANCREAS WAS, had no clue as to its function, let alone know how its dysfunction/malfunction might make him ill. If you are unaware as well, I'll say a few words before moving on to give my views on our community's situation generally, and Jobs in particular.
Your pancreas sits in a place called your retroperitoneum. The best way to think of that for openers is simply to think of it as a place/cavity "behind" that space where your intestines formed.
Your pancreas makes 2 things primarily. The exocrine glands(a gland secreting into a system of ducts) of the pancreas produce the enzymes/chemicals that digest food, break it down so that it may be absorbed. The endocrine(a gland secreting hormones into the blood stream to have effects on cells throughout the body) portion of your pancreas makes insulin and glucagon. Insulin is the hormone which "turns the key" allowing for entry of sugar in to your body cells, and once inside, for that sugar to be used in anabolism. The latter term meaning "to build things up". Glucagon sends a signal to cells to release sugar and is "catabolic" in its effects. "Catabolic" meaning to break tissue down.
Insulin/glucagon are "counter regulatory hormones". That is, they work in opposition to one another, opposing forces. One hormone, insulin, pushing sugar in and building things up. The other hormone, glucagon, releasing sugar into the blood and breaking things down. In human physiology, indeed in biologic systems generally, this "opposing forces" scenario is common and to be expected. For example, we have a native blood clotting system, and in opposition, a native blood dissolving system, opposing forces. These clotting/blood dissolving systems are beyond delicate, breathtaking, systems of awe inspiring beauty, systems of immense and quite literally incomprehensible complexity. We feebly try to manipulate the clotting system in "modern medicine's" context, such as when we give blood clot dissolving chemicals to patients in the "middle of a stroke". Don't get me wrong, this helps a lot of people, but at the same time, it is indeed fairly primitive when you get down to it. I like to think of modern medicine at times as a situation in which doctors have to decide whether or not they really do want to try fixing a torn spider's web with their fingers. "Hey doc, sure you ain't gonna' mess that spider web up more than you're gonna' put it back in working order? Them hands of yours look pretty clumsy to me." I work in a hospital where we make the attempt to treat the "sickest" stroke patients in northern California. We of course do other things too, in addition to making feeble attempts at patching up this particular variety of a broken spider's web. Back to the pancreas.
Because the pancreas is where it is, in a place behind your intestines/stomach, with lots of room around it, if you start to develop a cancer there, a cancer that will take your life, more likely than not, you will not "feel it", or know it for any reason until it is way way way too late, curtain time folks. Matter of fact, not infrequently, patients with pancreatic cancer "present" with painless jaundice. That is, out of the clear blue, they turn yellow. The tumor at the head of the pancreas finally gets so big that the bile drainage system is blocked. The bile that is supposed to go into your intestine to dissolve fat, winds up in your blood and turns your eyes and skin yellow.
Pancreatic cancer, as is the case with most cancers, is more common as one gets older. The median age at diagnosis is about 72 years old. There are roughly 44,000 cases of pancreatic cancer diagnosed every year. The one year survival rate is 25%, and five year survival rate is 5%. So that means of the 44,000 diagnosed with pancreatic cancer here in the USA in 2011, there will only be 11,000 survivors when 2012 comes to a close, and 220 survivors when 2016 comes to a close. Pretty sobering.
When I was a medical student, there was this very famous 50ish year old general surgeon/teacher/professor that used to say, "The only way to treat a cancer is to cut it out and throw it in the garbage can". He was an old Alabama boy, and in his inimitable southern way, he would "drawl" each of those words out slowly and with consummate derision. His drawl's implied criticism and contempt were intended for the ears of any medical student idiotic enough to consider a career in oncology, a discipline in which cancers are treated with chemical poisons, the tumors being been left in the patients' bodies and not thrown in the garbage can where they belong.
Of the 44,000 cases of pancreatic cancer diagnosed this year in the US, only 20 %, one in five are addressable by way of surgery. The operation is called a "Whipple Procedure", AKA pancreaticoduodenectomy. An Italian, Codivilla, came up with the idea for the operation over a hundred years ago. However, it was the insanely talented American surgeon Allen Whipple who relatively early on in the 20th century, 1935 or so, fully elucidated the best techniques. In this procedure, the patient loses his/her stomach, the first part of the small intestine, gall bladder, pancreas/part of it at least, lymph nodes. It is a radical operation, very difficult to do WELL technically and results in the up front survival of only 20% of those receiving the operation. So even if you are lucky enough to be offered a "Whipple", as most physicians refer to them, more likely than not you will still die from the cancer. Some tumor will be left despite the surgeon's best efforts and its recurrence will be no fun for not a one, least of all the patient.
Steve Jobs as it turns out had a better chance than most to survive his "pancreatic cancer". The description/discussion provided above refers for the most part to pancreatic cancers that arise from the exocrine cells. That is the portion of the pancreas that makes the digestive enzymes. Jobs' cancer cells were the endocrine cell misbehaving descendants of the insulin/glucagon secreting family of cells he was born with.
Jobs is no one's fool, and though he did not know what his pancreas was to begin with, he learned. Though 44,000 people are diagnosed annually with PANCREATIC EXOCRINE CELL CANCER, only 3,000ish are diagnosed annually with PANCREATIC NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS. Generally speaking, these tumors behave much differently than the mainstream, more common, exocrine tumors that I discussed rather thoroughly already. These tumors, the Steve Jobs variety, generally speaking are not as aggressive. They are much more benign than the deadly garden variety exocrine cell derived pancreatic cancers.
Reading between the lines, one would assume that Job's cancer was identified as neuroendocrine from the get go and NOT the more common, conventional, and conventionally deadly, exocrine cell adenocarcinoma, the latter being the one with the horrendous prognosis as discussed above. As such, and despite surgery presumably having been recommended when initially diagnosed in 2003, Jobs took his chances, relatively speaking. It should also be pointed out, the surgery at that time, say 2003, when Jobs was initially diagnosed would NOT have been a "Whipple". Such an extensive radical surgery is NOT typically done in the case of the more benign neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas that Jobs had. He may have "gotten off easy", had he opted for surgery right then and there in 2003, right out of the blocks.
Knowing what he knew, and he probably read a lot, Jobs figured there was wiggle room. Many neuroendocrine tumors are not malignant, that is, they will grow locally, but will not spread through the blood, lymphatic system and so forth. They will stay put and remain relatively well behaved, perhaps indefinitely so. Presumably, Jobs thought he was in such a situation. He did not want to be cut open some say. He treated himself with a special diet, and after 9 months, the tumor was bigger and now clearly was a big time threat to him. As such, Jobs underwent a Whipple Procedure. That's a bad sign in a sense. It means the surgeon is going after EVERYTHING, the same way he or she would in the case of the more common and deadly exocrine variety of a pancreatic tumor.
Jobs' then requiring a liver transplant meant the tumor had spread to that major organ. In a very real sense, this is a desperate move medically. The tumor is now confirmed to be malignant. One does not treat malignant cancers with organ transplantation. It cannot go well.
So here is a wickedly smart guy that at age 47 knows everything in the world about computers, but absolutely nothing with regard to what it is that his pancreas actually does for a living. Sure Jobs learned, but learned very late, and guessed wrong for himself with regard to his chances. There is no need for this. Children should learn about their bodies in grade school. It is even more fundamental than 1,2,3……..
We live inside of bodies and not recognizing this hurts us badly in many many ways. I am not advocating people study medicine in grade school, but I do advocate the teaching of basic anatomy and physiology starting from grade one. By the time young people finished high school, they would have a good sense as to what they were about, and a have a good practical appreciation for the grand machine providence has entrusted to them, a practical appreciation and a sense for themselves they hopefully would act on, and act on early in life, continuing until they died.
The last situation one wants to be in is the desperate one where doctors are trying to fix spider webs with their fingers. It tends to not go well. That is not to say doctors can't help and don't want to, but we'd rather never see you make it to us. We'd rather see you not in need of repair.
Jobs certainly did not do this to himself, he is a super cool guy. I am typing on an Apple now. But he was NAIVE, and this naivety is a cultural problem. Somehow I think if he started earlier he would have done a better job making decisions for himself about his body. But he was busy. We are are all too busy to take care of that which is most important.
What concern could remotely approach in importance the truth behind our marvelous physicality? NOTHING!
YOUR BODY IS A SACRED TRUST!
Last edited:
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
And that has what to do with his status as a skeptic?
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
Just a few notes. As stated in another thread, my father has the same from of cancer Jobs had. My father was diagnosed with it before Jobs and continues to live with it.
Unlike Jobs, my father did undergo surgery shortly after the tumor was found. They did not do chemotherapy on my father at that time. No chemo is the norm with this cancer. The surgery is risky and does have a high failure rate. It is called a Whipple procedure and involves dismantling parts of the stomach, pancreas and the complete removal of the duodenum. The stomach, liver and what is left of the pancreas get reconnected to the remainder of the large intestine.
In my father's case, there was a problem with the bile duct being kinked. This led to two years of miserable complications before the doctors decided to surgically redo that connection. He had three very good years after that before the cancer showed up in his liver. The doctors have been working with mixed success to keep the newer tumors in check for over ten years. But he is still here.
Job's effort at using alternatives was a waste of time. But given how slowly the tumor tends to grow, I would not be so sure the delay shortened his life. Given the risks involved in the Whipple procedure, I would not have blamed him for taking a few weeks to see what else was out there. 9 months? Well, that was not a good idea.
Unlike Jobs, my father did undergo surgery shortly after the tumor was found. They did not do chemotherapy on my father at that time. No chemo is the norm with this cancer. The surgery is risky and does have a high failure rate. It is called a Whipple procedure and involves dismantling parts of the stomach, pancreas and the complete removal of the duodenum. The stomach, liver and what is left of the pancreas get reconnected to the remainder of the large intestine.
In my father's case, there was a problem with the bile duct being kinked. This led to two years of miserable complications before the doctors decided to surgically redo that connection. He had three very good years after that before the cancer showed up in his liver. The doctors have been working with mixed success to keep the newer tumors in check for over ten years. But he is still here.
Job's effort at using alternatives was a waste of time. But given how slowly the tumor tends to grow, I would not be so sure the delay shortened his life. Given the risks involved in the Whipple procedure, I would not have blamed him for taking a few weeks to see what else was out there. 9 months? Well, that was not a good idea.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I think people who were reading threads which have been merged should review earlier posts here. The accusation that Jobs did himself any harm by exploring alternative approaches has been seriously criticised.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Both points can be caused by the same, wrong, world view. Both also have other possible causes.
Similarily: jumping off a high bridge will result in an adrenaline rush and a death. Both can also be achieved through other means, e.g. a roller coaster and a Katana, of course.
McHrozni
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
That's Not What The "Economics" Says
That's Not What The "Economics" Says.
Depending on the day, some days, Apple is the most valued company in the world.
AND for what it is worth, both Microsoft and Apple got their chops from the guys at Xerox. Not only did they get their ideas, but they got the Xerox personal as well.
Gates is wicked smart, no denying! and so was Jobs!, but in a different sense.
That's Not What The "Economics" Says.
Depending on the day, some days, Apple is the most valued company in the world.
AND for what it is worth, both Microsoft and Apple got their chops from the guys at Xerox. Not only did they get their ideas, but they got the Xerox personal as well.
Gates is wicked smart, no denying! and so was Jobs!, but in a different sense.
Number Six
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,016
As far as the book calling Steve Jobs a sceptic and how it jives with him doing woo stuff, I'd say the simple answer is that the word "sceptic" has different meanings. When people here hear "sceptic" they think of one thing or of people like Randi but I think most people elsewhere don't think that. I think that to others the meaning of the word "sceptic" more aligns with being a contrarian.
Note that it said that Steve Jobs ditched religion because of all the starving children in the world. If he were a sceptic like we think of it then the number of starving children in the world would be irrelevant to whether you believe in religion. If there's evidence then you buy into it and if there's not then you don't and starving children is irrelevant to the matter.
Steve Jobs sounds like he was like a lot of people in the US (and maybe Europe too but I don't know). Namely, he left behind some of the old ways of conventional society because the saw they weren't very useful but not being a critical thinker in the way we'd define it he just replaced old ways he didn't like with new ones he did, without regard to critical analysis.
Note that it said that Steve Jobs ditched religion because of all the starving children in the world. If he were a sceptic like we think of it then the number of starving children in the world would be irrelevant to whether you believe in religion. If there's evidence then you buy into it and if there's not then you don't and starving children is irrelevant to the matter.
Steve Jobs sounds like he was like a lot of people in the US (and maybe Europe too but I don't know). Namely, he left behind some of the old ways of conventional society because the saw they weren't very useful but not being a critical thinker in the way we'd define it he just replaced old ways he didn't like with new ones he did, without regard to critical analysis.
Patrick1000
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,039
This was my point more or less
This was my point more or less. Most patient's with NONMALIGNANT neuroendocrine tumors don't have Whipple Procedures. A Whipple is not necessary in those cases.
They did not come at Jobs in 2003 and say, "surgery or else", Whipple or else, at least trying to read between the lines, I don't think they did. Jobs was diagnosed by way of a scan. If he was then biopsied(non surgically, say by way of ERCP or IR) and the tumor was found to have malignant potential or be frankly malignant, they probably would have come at him and said, "surgery or else buddy. We ain't letting you play with fire".
My guess is they did NOT have a tissue diagnosis. Not sure, guessing. If they did NOT have tissue for whatever reason, or did have tissue but did not know with certainty whether the tumor had malignant potential or not, then odds are the tumor would have been viewed as biologically active and probably not malignant. If on the other hand they did have tissue and knew it was cancer with a big "C ", the tumor would more likely than not have been biologically inactive(NOT made insulin or NOT made any other hormone) and they would have "insisted on surgery", figure of speech.
My point is that most pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are NOT CANCERS. They won't kill you straight away by growing all over the place. They may make you sick by producing insulin or another biologically active substance, but they won't kill you by way of invading your liver. They stay local. NEUROENDOCRINE CANCERS tend to not make anything. They don't make insulin or anything else. This is why they are cancers. They "forgot" how to be pancreatic neuroendocrine cells and are just growing blindly. Once you've found the tumor, benign or malignant, with a scan, even if one gets a piece of it, biopsy the thing outside the context of removing it by way of surgery, being sure it is or is not malignant is not always easy. My guess is the docs weren't completely sure (malignant vs benign) and probably offered Jobs surgery in 2003 as the best way to deal with the problem regardless. He made an informed decision of sorts based on what he was told and what he learned, and I am guessing in 2003 he is not told this thing is stone cold malignant, so he takes his chances which is not unreasonable, at least for some it would not be.
On the other hand, if the tumor was identified by biopsy, however they got tissue, as one with definite malignant potential, then Jobs decision to wait 9 months does seem reckless to me. His docs should have held a gun to his head.
This was my point more or less. Most patient's with NONMALIGNANT neuroendocrine tumors don't have Whipple Procedures. A Whipple is not necessary in those cases.
They did not come at Jobs in 2003 and say, "surgery or else", Whipple or else, at least trying to read between the lines, I don't think they did. Jobs was diagnosed by way of a scan. If he was then biopsied(non surgically, say by way of ERCP or IR) and the tumor was found to have malignant potential or be frankly malignant, they probably would have come at him and said, "surgery or else buddy. We ain't letting you play with fire".
My guess is they did NOT have a tissue diagnosis. Not sure, guessing. If they did NOT have tissue for whatever reason, or did have tissue but did not know with certainty whether the tumor had malignant potential or not, then odds are the tumor would have been viewed as biologically active and probably not malignant. If on the other hand they did have tissue and knew it was cancer with a big "C ", the tumor would more likely than not have been biologically inactive(NOT made insulin or NOT made any other hormone) and they would have "insisted on surgery", figure of speech.
My point is that most pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are NOT CANCERS. They won't kill you straight away by growing all over the place. They may make you sick by producing insulin or another biologically active substance, but they won't kill you by way of invading your liver. They stay local. NEUROENDOCRINE CANCERS tend to not make anything. They don't make insulin or anything else. This is why they are cancers. They "forgot" how to be pancreatic neuroendocrine cells and are just growing blindly. Once you've found the tumor, benign or malignant, with a scan, even if one gets a piece of it, biopsy the thing outside the context of removing it by way of surgery, being sure it is or is not malignant is not always easy. My guess is the docs weren't completely sure (malignant vs benign) and probably offered Jobs surgery in 2003 as the best way to deal with the problem regardless. He made an informed decision of sorts based on what he was told and what he learned, and I am guessing in 2003 he is not told this thing is stone cold malignant, so he takes his chances which is not unreasonable, at least for some it would not be.
On the other hand, if the tumor was identified by biopsy, however they got tissue, as one with definite malignant potential, then Jobs decision to wait 9 months does seem reckless to me. His docs should have held a gun to his head.
Last edited:
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
My post was merged here from another thread.