• 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

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.

This could again be similar to what happened with my father. Dad's tumor was the size of a grapefruit. But a biopsy that was done came back as inconclusive for cancer. The size alone caused them to want to remove it even if it would not have turned out to be a cancer. Tests after removal were conclusive.
 
Not sure, guessing.

Your "guesses" are worthless. You have demonstrated in NUMEROUS posts that you haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.

Bottom line, Jobs succumbed to wooish thinking...it killed him.


It's one of those sad but true stories...
 
Bottom line, Jobs succumbed to wooish thinking...it killed him.


It's one of those sad but true stories...
A cancer surgeon thinks probably not:
So, until I can get my hands on the book (and actually have time to read it, or at least the chapters on Jobs' illness), what can we reasonably conclude based on what is known now? First, my assessment changes only slightly. Based on this new information, it appears likely that Jobs did indeed decrease his chances of survival through his nine month sojourn into woo. On the other hand, it still remains very unclear by just how much he decreased his chances of survival. My best guesstimate is that, thanks to the indolent nature of functional insulinomas and lead time bias, it was probably only by a relatively small percentage. This leads me to point out that accepting that Jobs' choice probably decreased somewhat his chances of of surving his cancer is a very different thing than concluding that "alternative medicine killed Steve Jobs." The first statement is a nuanced assessment of probabilities; the latter statement is black-and-white thinking, in essence the mirror image of Nicholas Gonzalez's claim that if only Jobs had come to see him he could have been saved.
 
Anderson Cooper using Dr Gupta is discussing Jobs on CNN right now. Sounds like Jobs was reluctant to have that first surgery. Knowing the nursing side of this, patients often react that way. It's scary to go from mostly healthy one day to someone telling you that you need major surgery the next.

There are three possibilities here to sort out.

1) Did some promise of an alt med cure actually fool jobs?

2) Did it tempt him with an excuse to act on his innate reluctance.

3) Or was it irrelevant and would Jobs have delayed treatment regardless due to the denial phenomena we in the medical field are very familiar with?
 
Patrick1000 gave a thorough and expert description of what could be concluded at the data at hand. Without a tissue sample the best you can do is an educated guess.
 
From Jobs' biographer:

For months after his pancreatic cancer diagnosis in 2004, Steve Jobs decided to try to treat his illness with eastern-style remedies, rather than surgery. But delaying that surgery may have cost him his long-term health -- and it was a decision he regretted.

This comes from Jobs' biographer, Walter Isaacson, who will appear in an interview this weekend on "60 Minutes" to discuss Jobs and his upcoming book, "Steve Jobs."

According to Isaacson, Jobs had a "very slow growing" type of pancreatic cancer "that can actually be cured," but still opted not to get the surgery until nine months had gone by and it may have been too late.

"I've asked him" why he didn't get the operation, Isaacson told Steve Kroft of "60 Minutes." "And he said, 'I didn't want my body to be opened. … I didn't want to be violated in that way.' I think that he kind of felt that if you ignore something, if you don't want something to exist, you can have magical thinking. It'd work for him in the past. He'd regret it."

Soon, Isaacson says, Jobs' wife and everyone around him convinced him to "quit trying to treat it with all these roots and vegetables and things," he said. But by then it may have been too late, as the cancer had spread to surrounding tissues.



Seems pretty straight forward to me.
 
^Denial. One thing that often occurs to a person when diagnosed is, "Heck, I have zero control over what happens in my body and that freaks me out." Rather than dealing with that horrible reality, it is sometimes followed by immediate, intense delusion about being able to control what happens in one's body, and actions in accordance with that delusion.

Unwillingness to undergo radical, difficult medical treatments is another possibility. Surgery sucks. Chemo sucks. Radiation sucks. Taking herbs, positive thinking and getting enemas doesn't suck as much.
 
How can someone so intelligent be so, don't want to say stupid as that sounds harsh!

The answer is more complex than one would think. I read a good and detailed analysis some time ago, but I can't locate it right now. But here is the gist of it:

INDIVIDUAL REASONS:
1) Some decide to give it a try, and believe his/her personal experience is adequate to decide if it has worked or not. Various judgmental biases and errors have a strong tendency to make even the most worthless interventions seem valid.
2) Some choose altmed out of a broader philosophical commitment. Their cosmological outlook differs substantially from the rationalist-empiricist worldview that underlies scientific biomedicine. They disagree not only about the basic constituents of the universe and the nature of the forces that govern them, but also about what are valid methods for settling the issue.

CULTURAL FACTORS:
1) Low level of scientific literacy – It is possible to go through school with very little exposure to science. Some years ago a Canadian survey found that only 52% knew how long it takes the earth to orbit the sun. Consequently, most people lack the basic knowledge and critical thinking skills to make an informed choice when they must decide whether a highly touted health care product is a sensible buy or not. When consumers haven't the foggiest idea how bacteria, viruses, prions, oncogenes, carcinogens,etc. works in the body, various types of alt med seem no more magical than the latest breakthrough from conventional medicine.
2) An increase in anti-intellectualism and antiscientific attitudes. Just take a look around this board, and you will see the point.
3) Clever marketing of extravagant claims by the alt med community. Routinely, promises are made that no ethical scientifically trained practitioner could or would make. In addition, new diseases of dubious scientific status are invented-and treated.
4) Inadequate media scrutiny
5) An assertion that "natural" remedies are necessarily safer, gentler, and more efficacious than those of technological origin.

PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS:
1) The will to believe
2) Logical errors – We as humans have a tendency to mistake correlation for causation. The disease may have just run its natural course, or it maybe cyclical with waxing and waning. Some people see the used alt med as an explanation for their recovery rather than these possibilities. Sometimes alt med and conventional treatment are both used, and quite often we see alt med getting credit for something achieved through conventional medicine.
3) The placebo effect is a strong convincer.
 
How can someone so intelligent be so, don't want to say stupid as that sounds harsh!

"After being diagnosed with cancer, Steve ignored the protests of family, friends and doctors for nine months and tried to fight his illness with a vegan diet, acupuncture and herbal remedies."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3905636/Last-words-of-dying-br-Steve-Jobs-Oh-wow.html



I often wonder that too. Someone I worked with died recently of cancer and they too delayed conventional treatment while they explored alternatives.

If someone diagnosed me with a potentially fatal disease my immediate response would be "hit it with everything you have, starting right now".

Having said that, saying what you think you'd do in such a situation is very different to actually being in that situation. I honestly can't say for sure how I'd respond if someone told me I had cancer.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom