SEC looking into Apple's disclosures about Jobs' health

[AppleInsider]

Regulators from the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating Apple's disclosures about chief executive Steve Jobs' health problems, Bloomberg is reporting.

Citing a person familiar with the matter, the*financial publication*said the SEC wants to make sure investors weren't misled.* The probe isn't an indication that investigators have seen any evidence of misconduct.

"The good news flipped by the bad news makes one wonder what Apple knew," said James Cox, a law professor at Duke University quoted in the report.* "It's not surprising for the SEC to come in and look afterward, given the pressure and publicity regarding their handling of a lot of cases," he said, referring to Bernard Madoff's alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

Spokespeople for both Apple and the SEC declined to comment.

An SEC lawyer who teaches at Wayne State Law School said securities regulators would be hard pressed to build a case against the Cupertino-based company.

"It would be difficult, and certainly a new area of the law," said Peter Henning.* "You would have to pin down exactly what they knew, and with a health issue -- unlike a merger or a decline in revenue -- it's not subject to definitive answers."

On*January 5*Jobs disclosed that a hormone imbalance was causing him to lose weight but that he was undergoing treatment and planned to remaining as chief executive.* Shares rose 4.2 percent.* But just nine days later,*the Apple co-founder spooked industry watchers with his decision to take medical leave through June, saying his health problems turned out to be "more complex" than he thought.* Apple shares have since fallen 8.4 percent.

A corporate governance expert at Chadbourne & Parke told Bloomberg that Apple's board may have met its obligation to shareholders by announcing Jobs would be on leave.

"It's really an issue of the ability of the CEO during the period of his ill health to continue to advise and consult and manage the affairs of the company," said Edward Smith, who said the board isn't obligated to give specific details about Jobs' illness.* "Someone might be able to [consult] from a hospital bed for several weeks just as well as they may do it from the office."

It's been speculated that Apple will inevitably face lawsuits from shareholders unhappy with the company's recent secrecy over Jobs uncertain health. Such suits would be the first of their kind and represent uncharted territory for the US legal system.

Bloomberg on Friday cited "people who are monitoring [Jobs'] illness" as saying he is considering a liver transplant as a result of complications that followed his pancreatic cancer treatment in 2004.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[teckstud]

UH OH!

[ncee]

I hadn't thought of this before, but because Steve, makes, builds, designs, ships, creates collects funds, pays bills, schedules work loads, hires, fires, promotes, designs new stores, opens new stores, brokers deals, does all of the coding, concept work and SO MUCH more … I think everyone is right, we should sure Apple!

I have Apple stock!

I, like many others have seen the value go down (oh wait, ALL of my others stocks have gone down too … I have got one hell of a lawsuit to think about). But I like EVERYONE else, could have sold my shares of Apple stock at ANY time, I didn't - sue me for being stupid!

Oh, I forgot, Apple is going to close and fade into the sunset never to be heard from again, when Steve's gone!

Yeah right.

I like everyone agree this all could have all been handled better, but jesus, does that mean because it wasn't - we can sue Apple.

I was suppose to get a raise but I didn't … can I sue?

My marriage didn't go as planned … can I sue?

My car is not as nice as I'd hope … can I sue?

Mother nature as screwed things up more then once on me … can I sue.

Skip

[g3pro]

So Steve, how would you prefer your time in prison? Going forward or the other way?

I think we all know the answer to that one...

[ncee]

Also, did you see the piece that said "this is only possible, because Mr. Jobs is such a figure head for Apple" "if Mr Jobs wasn't such, none of this would matter".

So because he's popular … sue him?

Skip

PS Now I'm not sure what I would do with ALL of the money I'd get from this lawsuit? Oh, just the lawyers are going to get something, oh I see.

[nace33]

Originally Posted by ncee

I was suppose to get a raise but I didn't … can I sue?

My marriage didn't go as planned … can I sue?

My car is not as nice as I'd hope … can I sue?

Mother nature as screwed things up more then once on me … can I sue.

1. Raise - It depends on why you didn't get the raise.
2. Marriage, you have to if you want to end it.
3. Not unless someone else made your car "not as nice".
4. "Act(s) of God" lawsuits aren't well received, but given your lack of a question mark at the end of your sentence I will assume that was rhetorical.

[Mike Eggleston]

I think the main problem that most people have is that they see Apple and Jobs as the same entity. That just isn't the case. I would have to say that there is no way possible for this to go forward. After all, Steve's health is a private matter, no matter how public he is.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston

After all, Steve's health is a private matter, no matter how public he is.

On the contrary: http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes....%20jobs&st=cse

[k2director]

My biggest fear is that Steve will leave Apple not because of his health, but because of the public scrutiny he is being placed under over this issue. Who wants to live like that?

I believe he and the board have been very forthcoming about this. He's made several public statements about his heatlh, and unfortunately, each statement only encourages people to demand to know even more. Pretty soon, they'll settle for nothing less than a by-the-minute report. Ridiculous.

[nizy]

Surely the only way anyone could prove any kind of misleading activity by Jobs and the Apple board would be to prove they knew of the extent of his condition earlier? And the only way to prove that would be through his medical records, which surely would be a breach of his right to doctor-patient confidentiality?

Also I don't see what benefit Apple would have got from the 2 announcements - surely both were very damaging to the companies stock?

[nagromme]

Question to the people who are so sure that Steve lied to Apple (or that Apple made Steve lie to the public) on January 5:

What is the motivation for telling people you WON'T be leaving your duties, if you actually KNOW that 9 days later you will be? What does that gain you?

Isn't it simpler to take off the tin foil hats and speculate that the decision to take time off was made DURING those 9 days? Call me crazy

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by k2director

I believe he and the board have been very forthcoming about this. He's made several public statements about his heatlh, and unfortunately, each statement only encourages people to demand to know even more. Pretty soon, they'll settle for nothing less than a by-the-minute report. Ridiculous.

Really? So the first time he was seen looking like he was 90lbs and sick they came out and said he had a cold and loss some weight due to that. Then a few weeks later it was revealed he had another procedure related to his cancer treatment years ago. Then a couple weeks ago he said they had figured out what the problem was and needed to rest and get his energy back. The following week it was revealed that he actually had more complicated problems. I'm sorry, as a shareholder that is not forth coming in a timely manor and smacks of either denial or the lawyers getting involved and telling him not to lie about it.

I'm surprised that people don't understand what impact he has on the stock.

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by nagromme

Question to the people who are so sure that Steve lied to Apple (or that Apple made Steve lie to the public) on January 5:

What is the motivation for telling people you WON'T be leaving your duties, if you actually KNOW that 9 days later you will be? What does that gain you?

Isn't it simpler to take off the tin foil hats and speculate that the decision to take time off was made DURING those 9 days? Call me crazy

Depends who sold the stock and when, doesn't it?

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by teckstud

On the contrary: http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes....%20jobs&st=cse

That Nocera blog is a travesty: Just read the (very highly informed) comments section, if you'd care to educate yourself.

[anantksundaram]

What a silly move on SEC's part: as though they don't have more important things to deal with in the midst of the macro-financial meltdown, and their own ineptness on matters such as Madoff.

This will go nowhere, fast.

[Lafe]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Regulators from the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating Apple's disclosures about chief executive Steve Jobs' health problems, Bloomberg is reporting.

Formality. SEC wants to show they aren't ignoring things. Move along. Nothing to see here.

[k2director]

Originally Posted by steviet02

Really? So the first time he was seen looking like he was 90lbs and sick they came out and said he had a cold and loss some weight due to that. Then a few weeks later it was revealed he had another procedure related to his cancer treatment years ago. Then a couple weeks ago he said they had figured out what the problem was and needed to rest and get his energy back. The following week it was revealed that he actually had more complicated problems. I'm sorry, as a shareholder that is not forth coming in a timely manor and smacks of either denial or the lawyers getting involved and telling him not to lie about it.

I'm surprised that people don't understand what impact he has on the stock.

You need to think things through a bit more before playing the blame-the-victim game like you do...

First of all, it's quite possible that Steve *did* initially feel he had a cold/flu, and that he attributed his gaunt look to that, along with his vegan diet. Depending on the health advice he was getting (remember, he's not a big fan of conventional medicine, and even tried to treat his cancer through diet in 2004), he may not have had an accurate idea himself over why he was losing weight. Weight loss can happen *very very quickly* in many cases....my brother had a form of liver disease (since beaten!), but when it came on strong, he dropped about 50 pounds in 6 weeks! Steve may have experienced a rapid weight loss, and chalked it up to feeling under the weather and his already sparse diet.

Secondly, he announced before Macworld Expo in 2009 that it was a "hormone imbalance" that was causing the problem. Did it occur to you that that was the most recent understanding he had, and he was sharing it the world, as you wanted him to? Then, the following week, after more tests and research, his doctors tell him that the problem is more complex, and so he reveals that to you, as you've loudly demanded.

So what do you do? You kick him for not being able to, in one single moment, give you a 100% accurate picture of his condition that's guaranteed to *not* change at any time in the foreseeable future. You hypocritical bozos can't have it both ways--you can't demand that Steve updates you constantly on his health, but then blame him as he gets more and sometimes contradictory information about said health.

P.S. Yes, Steve's health affects Apple's stock. So do 1000 other factors. The Palm Pre, Windows 7, the Blackberry storm, the overall economy, iPod sales #s, the rumors printed on this web site, etc. etc. etc. Welcome to the real world. If investors want a totally predictable ride, they should buy a nice conservative bond instead of Apple's stock (or any company's stock for that matter).

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

That Nocera blog is a travesty: Just read the (very highly informed) comments section, if you'd care to educate yourself.

So you think he made it up? It all lies- right? I think you just spilled some kool-aid on that post of yours because you're only reading or listening to what you want to hear in the comments section.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

This will go nowhere, fast.

Richard Nixon is alive!

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

What a silly move on SEC's part: as though they don't have more important things to deal with in the midst of the macro-financial meltdown, and their own ineptness on matters such as Madoff.

This will go nowhere, fast.

What if that was the point? I wouldn't object if someone suggested that this may be a deliberate means to distract people from the ineptitude of SEC oversight, such as your Madoff example.

[Rot'nApple]

Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston

I think the main problem that most people have is that they see Apple and Jobs as the same entity. That just isn't the case. I would have to say that there is no way possible for this to go forward. After all, Steve's health is a private matter, no matter how public he is.

While I agree that Steve's health IS a private matter. I disagree with the premise that the main problem is that most people see Apple and Jobs as the same entity. I think Steve Jobs is the reason why most people see Apple and Jobs as the same entity, at least those of us in the know and who keep up with the tech world. I mean, go do a man on the street interview with a picture of an iPod or an iPhone and ask what company created it. Then ask who is the CEO of that company. I am sure that the answers would be as interesting as the answers that Jay Leno gets from his "Man on the Street" interviews of the most informed, American public schooled, citizenry.

[Rot'nApple]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Richard Nixon is alive!

Too bad that Ron Howard's movie "Frost/Nixon" isn't!

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple

Too bad that Ron Howard's movie "Frost/Nixon" isn't!

Don't be dissin' "O"pie from Happy Dayz!

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by k2director

You need to think things through a bit more before playing the blame-the-victim game like you do...

First of all, it's quite possible that Steve *did* initially feel he had a cold/flu, and that he attributed his gaunt look to that, along with his vegan diet. Depending on the health advice he was getting (remember, he's not a big fan of conventional medicine, and even tried to treat his cancer through diet in 2004), he may not have had an accurate idea himself over why he was losing weight. Weight loss can happen *very very quickly* in many cases....my brother had a form of liver disease (since beaten!), but when it came on strong, he dropped about 50 pounds in 6 weeks! Steve may have experienced a rapid weight loss, and chalked it up to feeling under the weather and his already sparse diet.

Secondly, he announced before Macworld Expo in 2009 that it was a "hormone imbalance" that was causing the problem. Did it occur to you that that was the most recent understanding he had, and he was sharing it the world, as you wanted him to? Then, the following week, after more tests and research, his doctors tell him that the problem is more complex, and so he reveals that to you, as you've loudly demanded.

So what do you do? You kick him for not being able to, in one single moment, give you a 100% accurate picture of his condition that's guaranteed to *not* change at any time in the foreseeable future. You hypocritical bozos can't have it both ways--you can't demand that Steve updates you constantly on his health, but then blame him as he gets more and sometimes contradictory information about said health.

P.S. Yes, Steve's health affects Apple's stock. So do 1000 other factors. The Palm Pre, Windows 7, the Blackberry storm, the overall economy, iPod sales #s, the rumors printed on this web site, etc. etc. etc. Welcome to the real world. If investors want a totally predictable ride, they should buy a nice conservative bond instead of Apple's stock (or any company's stock for that matter).

What a crock of nonsense, you should take a step back and think about what you're writing. You're telling us that a CEO who has drastic weight loss (which doesn't happen overnight) has the PR dept release information that he had a cold?

2nd, as a CEO and figure head of a company that fluctuates on his health he should not have been giving any updates on his health unless it was to say he no longer could perform his duties and was taking a leave of absence. The updates that turned out to be wrong, are what is in question. And why all of the sudden after months of 'mind your own business' was there a need to post that message to the public?

We all take a risk when we purchase stock, but what should not be at risk is direct manipulation of the stock by the company. If it happens there should be a price to pay for it.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by steviet02

... the first time he was seen looking like he was 90lbs and sick they came out and said he had a cold and loss some weight due to that ...

Just to point out at least one flaw in the conspiracy theory you are weaving here....

No one actually said he had a cold. They said he had a "common bug" which is vague enough to be interpreted various ways. For instance diarrhoea or "the runs" is often referred to as a "common bug."

[Eduararipe]

The same old thread again, just newer dates.

[paxman]

Originally Posted by steviet02

What a crock of nonsense, you should take a step back and think about what you're writing. You're telling us that a CEO who has drastic weight loss (which doesn't happen overnight) has the PR dept release information that he had a cold?

2nd, as a CEO and figure head of a company that fluctuates on his health he should not have been giving any updates on his health unless it was to say he no longer could perform his duties and was taking a leave of absence. The updates that turned out to be wrong, are what is in question. And why all of the sudden after months of 'mind your own business' was there a need to post that message to the public?

We all take a risk when we purchase stock, but what should not be at risk is direct manipulation of the stock by the company. If it happens there should be a price to pay for it.

True enough, but when it comes to health issues it is a difficult call. Should Apple have kept the world up to date on issues that were un-clear? I can just see the rambling ambiguous statements. SJ is loosing weight and goes to the doctor - what are the chances he gets an instant clear diagnosis? If the diagnosis is anything else than crystal clear and verified should SJ or Apple say anything or keep schtum? The latest announcements are a case in point. SJ is told that he has a hormone imbalance and there are a lot of uncertainties and a lot of tests that need to be done over time. The consensus however, is that the hormone imbalance is easy to deal with. Relieved SJ and Apple make an announcement to appease the world. Shortly there after more tests show that the problem might be more serious. A further operation may or may not be required. Best case and worst case scenarios are discussed. More tests are ordered. The advice is to take time off to recuperate, however. This could be over in a couple of months but there are possible complications and we don't want to aggravate the already tested immune system. The stress of long days at the office should be avoided. SJ announces that is exactly what he will do . The world cries CONSPIRACY! How can he win? At what point should he or Apple make announcements?

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

What if that was the point? I wouldn't object if someone suggested that this may be a deliberate means to distract people from the ineptitude of SEC oversight, such as your Madoff example.

Heh heh. Of course. You didn't suggest it. Nor did I.

[charlituna]

the key and most important bits of information.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"You would have to pin down exactly what they knew, and with a health issue -- unlike a merger or a decline in revenue -- it's not subject to definitive answers."

A corporate governance expert at Chadbourne & Parke told Bloomberg that Apple's board may have met its obligation to shareholders by announcing Jobs would be on leave.

the board isn't obligated to give specific details about Jobs' illness.* "Someone might be able to [consult] from a hospital bed for several weeks just as well as they may do it from the office."

Bloomberg on Friday cited "people who are monitoring [Jobs'] illness" as saying he is considering a liver transplant as a result of complications that followed his pancreatic cancer treatment in 2004.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

that last one is important because Bloomberg is losing all cred in this matter. 'people who are monitoring' and doctors 'who hasn't ever treated Jobs' etc sources. My fav is the Judge that says that they aren't required to say squat about Jobs private matters, but in his opinion they should. like that suddenly makes it a law.

geesh. like Fake Steve Jobs said, leave him alone.

Originally Posted by ncee

I, like many others have seen the value go down

what's interesting is to go back and look at all the times that the stock has dropped and how many times it was at the same time as a batch of reports about Jobs Health and how many times was it due to a massive failure with a new product, a patent lawsuit etc.

my guess, you'll find that the death rumors out number the rest 2 to 1 if not more.

so yeah, perhaps there are some lawsuits needed. against every publication with the Bloomberg esque sources that has claimed he is dying, he has cancer again etc. Send the SEC to investigate these reporters over attempting to drive the prices down before Apple can release the next big thing and make some folks a lot of money cause they bought when it was low.

Originally Posted by teckstud

On the contrary: http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes....%20jobs&st=cse

One man's opinion. Nothing more. It is not backed by law.

Originally Posted by nizy

Surely the only way anyone could prove any kind of misleading activity by Jobs and the Apple board would be to prove they knew of the extent of his condition earlier? And the only way to prove that would be through his medical records, which surely would be a breach of his right to doctor-patient confidentiality?

you are correct about the timings. and actually one could argue that if Apple and Jobs were legally required to say something, the failure to do so trumps his D-P C claims

Originally Posted by steviet02

I'm sorry, as a shareholder that is not forth coming in a timely manor and smacks of either denial or the lawyers getting involved and telling him not to lie about it.

have you ever had a major illness. Say something you thought was a stomach bug. but then it wasn't. then you thought maybe it was food poisoning from some bad sushi. but then it turned out it was a food allergy. you thought it was milk, then you thought it was fish, but then you found out that it was guten.

or thought you were just having an allergy attack and some sniffles but then you thought it was the flu, then a sinus infection, then it turns out it was walking pneumonia.

take that times 100 cause Steve's problems are with a major system of the body. problems are going to happen, sometimes just when you think you had it figured out.

Originally Posted by steviet02

And why all of the sudden after months of 'mind your own business' was there a need to post that message to the public?

because the public wasn't listening or rather the media wasn't and they were ruining the value of the stock. but no one is threatening them. no one is suing Bloomberg etc. It has to be Apple that takes on all the blame for trying to show their CEO some respect.

[jdavy]

Apple and SJ are doing what they have to do and no more. Apple is a great company and SJ is a great CEO. (Perhaps the best) As long as he can do his job, Apple has nothing more to say about his health. That is a personal matter. Now that SJ has told the board he needs six months of sick leave to deal with his health, the only thing that Apple needs to do is let investors know the CEO is on sick leave. Why and what is ailing him, is personal. If SJ needs another six months after this, it is still personal. From what I have read, Tim Cook is very capable. We all need to just breath and let things happen as they happen. With SJ or without, Apple will release Snow Leopard and updates to their array of quality products. Life must and will go on. For those of us who care about SJ and Apple just pray for better days. All will be O.K. IMHO.

[Dorotea]

Don't you remember the Bloomberg gaff from last year. They published his obituary and the man wasn't dead. I don't believe much from Bloomberg

[zoetmb]

This is totally absurd. First of all, I bet you can't find any pattern to Apple stock rises and falls (except when the Jobs death rumor was announced.) Frequently, Apple announces a record quarter or a great new product and the stock falls. They announce nothing and the stock rises. Is Apple worth half what it was six months ago? There is no logic behind it. Why is the stock up 5% today?

Secondly, of all the things SEC SHOULD be investigating, this is not one of them. Apple did not manipulate the profits of the company by creating phony investment packages, shell companies, pyramid schemes, etc. like the banks, Enron, Madoff, etc. And Apple doesn't keep three sets of books like the film companies do where there's one set for the stockholders, one for taxes and one for revenue participants. Every film company is enormously profitable but every picture loses money and backend particpations are never paid. How does that add up?

Every CEO is important to their company, but does anyone obsess over the fact that Ballmer is terribly overweight and obviously excitable and therefore prone to a heart attack? Or that Gates (at least in his younger days) didn't bathe very often and therefore was prone to bacterial infection?

The fact is that we knew Steve had cancer and ANYONE who has had cancer in the past is subject to getting cancer again and therefore, almost by definition, has their health at risk. What's happened since is almost beside the point. It seems to me that Steve's pancreatic cancer has already been factored into the stock price and even if it wasn't, anyone investing with Apple has to have been aware. If someone is so concerned that Apple's success (and stock price) is based around one person, then they were stupid to invest in Apple in the first place because Steve could get hit by a truck or be in an air crash at anytime.

IMO, the SEC is way off-base here. Go after companies who have told bold-faced lies about their profits or where executives have skimmed profits from the company or where bonuses were made on profits that didn't really exist. There's plenty of those.

If you don't like the way a company is run, don't buy the stock (or dump it if you already have it). These class action lawsuits against companies that I get all the time are ridiculous: the lawyers usually get a few hundred million dollars and the shareholders get 7 cents a share. Most of the time, it's not even worth the time to fill out the forms.

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

Just to point out at least one flaw in the conspiracy theory you are weaving here....

No one actually said he had a cold. They said he had a "common bug" which is vague enough to be interpreted various ways. For instance diarrhoea or "the runs" is often referred to as a "common bug."

Yeah, you got me there...

First of all, I didn't sue anyone for anything, I'm not going to and I'm not looking for money. I do think the SEC has a right to look into it considering the manor in which this was handled. And if you objectively follow the cookie trail back it does seem suspicious.

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by charlituna

have you ever had a major illness. Say something you thought was a stomach bug. but then it wasn't. then you thought maybe it was food poisoning from some bad sushi. but then it turned out it was a food allergy. you thought it was milk, then you thought it was fish, but then you found out that it was guten.

or thought you were just having an allergy attack and some sniffles but then you thought it was the flu, then a sinus infection, then it turns out it was walking pneumonia.

take that times 100 cause Steve's problems are with a major system of the body. problems are going to happen, sometimes just when you think you had it figured out.

Yes I have had a major illness before. And every time I get a headache I think the tumor is back, not that I just have a mild headache. Your analogy is ass backwards. You don't think you have a stomach ache when you drop 40 pounds and you're eating as much food as you can. And you definitely don't think it's a great diet plan especially when you have had pancreatic cancer and have had half of your digestive system removed. Some of you guys are in lala land.

[iPeon]

Originally Posted by steviet02

Yes I have had a major illness before. And every time I get a headache I think the tumor is back, not that I just have a mild headache. Your analogy is ass backwards. You don't think you have a stomach ache when you drop 40 pounds and you're eating as much food as you can. And you definitely don't think it's a great diet plan especially when you have had pancreatic cancer and have had half of your digestive system removed. Some of you guys are in lala land.

Yea! Shame on Steve for not knowing exactly what is physically wrong with him.

Some of you guys are in lala land.

You can say that again and don't look too far.

[aresee]

Originally Posted by steviet02

You don't think you have a stomach ache when you drop 40 pounds and you're eating as much food as you can. And you definitely don't think it's a great diet plan especially when you have had pancreatic cancer and have had half of your digestive system removed.

That's exactly what I would expect from a homeopathic practitioner. "Mainstream doctors and the drug companies are to be avoided at all costs." "Herbs and diets are the best for you because they are natural." It would take a complete failure of the herb and diet approach to drive a homeopathic person to mainstream medicine. With his vegan background and initial diet approach to his cancer I would guess that Steve is a homeopathic practitioner. My guess is that Steve wasn't feeling well when he first noticed he was loosing weight. When it continued over a long period of time he went to his medical advisor who blamed the problem on hormonal unbalanced. When he failed to respond to herbal medication he finally went to a mainstream doctor who gave him a different diagnosis during the week of MacWorld. -- But then this is a total uneducated guess.

Some of you guys are in lala land.

That's what the rest of the world calls California.

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by iPeon

Yea! Shame on Steve for not knowing exactly what is physically wrong with him.

You can say that again and don't look too far.

Yea, thats what I worte, he should ahve known exactly what was wrong with himself. Your a peon all right.

[steviet02]

Originally Posted by aresee

That's exactly what I would expect from a homeopathic practitioner. "Mainstream doctors and the drug companies are to be avoided at all costs." "Herbs and diets are the best for you because they are natural." It would take a complete failure of the herb and diet approach to drive a homeopathic person to mainstream medicine. With his vegan background and initial diet approach to his cancer I would guess that Steve is a homeopathic practitioner. My guess is that Steve wasn't feeling well when he first noticed he was loosing weight. When it continued over a long period of time he went to his medical advisor who blamed the problem on hormonal unbalanced. When he failed to respond to herbal medication he finally went to a mainstream doctor who gave him a different diagnosis during the week of MacWorld. -- But then this is a total uneducated guess.


That's what the rest of the world calls California.

Thats exactly what he did the first time, even after being diagnosed with the cancer. It didn't work, do you think he was still playing that game?

[aresee]

Originally Posted by steviet02

Thats exactly what he did the first time, even after being diagnosed with the cancer. It didn't work, do you think he was still playing that game?

Sure, why not. While homeopathic practitioners avoid mainstream doctors and the artificial drugs they dispense they do understand the need for surgeries. And they will not shy away from the knife when cancer is the problem. It may even had been his homeopathic practitioner who initially suspected cancer and sent him to the surgeon who cut it out. In which case homeopathic medicine worked and was not a failure. So why not follow the same path for this follow-up problem.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by aresee

Sure, why not. While homeopathic practitioners avoid mainstream doctors and the artificial drugs they dispense they do understand the need for surgeries. And they will not shy away from the knife when cancer is the problem. It may even had been his homeopathic practitioner who initially suspected cancer and sent him to the surgeon who cut it out. In which case homeopathic medicine worked and was not a failure. So why not follow the same path for this follow-up problem.

It was reported that Steve tried alternative medicine, not necessarily homeopathy.

The only way homeopathy can work is because it is the equivalent of a placebo. Placebos cannot remove cancer.