Steve Jobs suffering from a hormone imbalance, will remain CEO - Page 2

HAHA- if that's not the pot calling the kettle black!
I'm not claiming anything but simply question things that bare questioning. Who believes everything their told (especially anything that questionable) as fact? Only you obviously.

I know- right? He's like the Koolaid censorship police on here- whatever!

I'm glad Steve is ok and will be carrying on at Apple, I just think it is a bit sad that he had to make a statement like this in the 1st place and wasn't allowed privacy. I think it a fine line between responsibly to the company and the right to be a private individual, and in this case I think things have gone to far.

Get well soon Steve and hope you and the family had a good Christmas.

A voice a reason- thank you.
ALso why give out such ambiguous info the day before MacWorld? That fuels speculation as well.

Except with the original iPhone introduction where the stock quickly accelerated until gaining to an all-time high over the next week or two.

But then, we already had this discussion in another thread, now didn't we. . . .

There are some Krispy Kremes with SJ written all over it for my guy.

WOW, you are reading WAY too much into the article. "No More Steve Jobs" means he is not doing the keynotes anymore -- DUH.

Rapidly declining health -- again, DUH. Steve Jobs' health has been on the decline since January 2008. And he is still in poor health and won't be better until Spring 2009.

Again, I don't see what's up with all the Gizmodo bashing.

Ultimately nothing is more important than your health.

It's great to hear that the doctors know what the problem is and Steve is on the road to recovery. I wish him all the very best.

Now let's end the speculation and as Steve says just enjoy the show on Tuesday.

As has been pointed out by CNBC's Jim Goldman... APPLE HAD NO *LEGAL* OBLIGATION TO RELEASE ANYTHING ABOUT STEVE JOBS HEALTH, UNLESS IT MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES AS CEO! Sorry about the caps, but I'm getting sick and tired of all the IGNORANCE of the actual laws.

What people THINK is the law and what actually IS the law are two different things.

So no, Jobs was *NOT* obligated to say ANYTHING, unless his condition interfered with his ability to serve as CEO. It has not. He has remained actively in control, so he did not have to say anything. Period. End of story.

To those raising further questions... Jobs does NOT have to disclose the exact name of his illness or his treatment. That is private! He went on record saying he is fine. If he is lying, there will be legal consequences. Jobs is not stupid.

And for the person who thinks he is a doctor: Not all "hormone imbalances" are easily identified. The tests that Jobs did were probably very expensive. You don't start with the most expensive test first, when trying to figure out what a problem is. You go for the simple (and common) stuff first. Then look for more rare things. And taking steroids is NOT the way to go to gain weight (for most conditions). There are only a few, very defined conditions for which steroids are appropriate to use. And you certainly DON'T start using them unless you've got a confirmed diagnosis!

People bash Gizmodo for other reasons. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

So I take it - you are a doctor and a lawyer?

But that's not what Gizmodo said.

They didn't say "Jobs' health is poor and won't be better until Spring 2009."

They basically said "Jobs is on his deathbed and he won't be around any more come Spring 2009."

BIG DIFFERENCE between those two things.

Oh, and "one more thing," Gizmodo has been known to go back and edit articles after the fact, ESPECIALLY if they were wrong. If the article you're reading today says "won't be better until Spring 2009," that is NOT what it said originally.

I am a doctor, yes. I am not a lawyer, but I do know what the law states in this case. (And why would Jim Goldman, a writer who works for CNBC, which deals with business issues, say what he says about the law if it is not the case). I trust Mr. Goldman more than I trust someone else on the internet whose opinion is that the law states that he has to disclose everything.

But think about it. If the law said that CEOs had to disclose everything about their health, then CEOs would have to grant public access to their medical records. Or put out press releases like, "XYZ CEO John Smith has a cold." We would literally be inundated with stuff like that. But, just because the media puts its spotlight on Apple does not mean that Apple is an exception to the law as written.

And I have been known to get a little hot under the collar on teh Internets from time to time.

No offense intended.

But, if you would prefer, I can talk to my colleague who *IS* both a doctor and a lawyer...

While the Gizmodo story read more like an opinion piece (a bad one at that), the larger truth still remains that Apple lied about the real reason Jobs backed out of Macworld. This is Apple's second lie about his health if you remember the "common bug." The fact is, by Steve's own words now, he is unhealthy. Perhaps not at death's door, but hardly "fit as a fiddle" as some were saying who bashed the Gizmodo story.

I respectfully disagree. Medical conditions are private matters and no individual should be under duress to make his medical condition a public matter under any circumstances.

You obviously have not seen Jobs' medical records. Maybe you read a paragraph on WebMD, but it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. Someone should sue you for giving medical advice without a license.

Just read over that piece. Very well written.

Here's a link for anyone interested:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/28504425

Just curious...what are shorts? Short sellers? If so, what are those?

Apple did not give a reason for Jobs non-appearance at Macworld. They said they would not do trade shows in the future, but that was not the reason for Jobs' absence. They didn't say anything about it.

Gizmodo was totally irresponsible for printing what it did. The source in their article said clearly that Jobs would probably be dead by this spring. Obviuosly the Gizmodo source had not access to Jobs' doctors or his medical records, and Gizmodo was wrong to print it.

None of us have- have you? But some of us know of similar cases. I am not giving out advice - merely questioning the information I've been told. Having said that - I would not be mentioning lawsuits as I do know people get sued all the time for lying/slander about what others say.

Also I've always thought that steroids can be carcinogenic, surely not a good thing to give to someone with a previous history of cancer?

Ugh, so tiring.

What reason did they give for Jobs not doing the keynote in the first place? Right, they didn't give any.

In what court was it declared that Jobs' common bug was found to be a lie? Right, that never happened either because you're speaking out of...ignorance.

If you haven't seen his medical records, how would you "know of similar cases?"

I don't want to start a flame war, but ... this is also not true.

There is no way you can know that his sickness is the "real" reason Phil is doing MacWorld, no one has said anything of the sort. There is no way you can know that the story about the "common bug" was a lie either. If reports are correct, he has massive diarrhoea from time to time. If that isn't a "common bug" at least in the everyday vernacular, I don't know what is.

He is probably being typically cagey Steve Jobs, and he's certainly not handing over his medical records on a silver platter, but you are spinning a massive conspiracy here that simply doesn't exist.

More likely reason for Steve *not* to do keynotes even though he is healthy?? Because idiots are making such a big deal about his health that it is affecting the health of the company. He has no choice but to "step back" because of rumour mongers and alarmists like many people posting here.

if you've seen his medical records, you were allowed to and should be smart enough to not talk about it...

Steve's letter is very direct and enough information to see whats going on, without the need to think hes lying. Most people who think hes lying aren't medical professionals. Do you really expect anyone who has had parts of his pancreas, small intestines, and stomach removed is NOT going to have some hormone and weight problems?

I do stand corrected on that. Apple did not give a reason for Job's absence. The statement did not even mention Job's absence and went on and on about Apple no longer needing trade shows and scaling back. So the posters went wild and some said he was okay and some said he was not healthy.

Gizmodo was totally irresponsible for printing what it did. However, It's not a defense of the article to be writing here for the last month that the man is not healthy. Those who believed he was sick were proven right today.

As I stated in the last post, I do stand corrected. Apple never officially gave a reason for Jobs not doing the keynote. However, The Apple press statement did go on an on about trade shows. Those here that refused to believe that the man was unhealthy kept offering that up as the real reason Jobs was going to be a no show.

To your second point, Jobs himself acknowledged today that he has been losing weight for a year. (This we all saw with our own eyes) We all get the common bug and we do not look like him when we get the common bug. Please, don't call it ignorance to look at a man and know he is not well. If anything, ignorance is to look at an unhealthy man and insist that he is well. Apple wanted the reality distortion field to include Jobs appearance. I and others believed our eyes and we were proven right.

And, this is not to endorse the god awful article about him dying.

It was never about whether Jobs was sick or well, but whether he was well enough to fulfill his duties as Apples CEO. Nothing has changed in that regard that we know of.

First, it's not as easy as you make out. There's a bunch of hormones, and you would have had to have checked the specific hormone he's talking about. Also, there's a bunch of things that aren't hormones, but which people tend to refer to as such, broadening the field of possibilities further. And as to your question about why people didn't give him steroids to make him gain weight, that's like saying I've had a fever of unknown origin for months, so why weren't people giving me Tylenol. If you have a problem, to try and discover & fix the underlying issue, not mask it. And steroids are considerably less benign that Tylenol. Finally, your comment that '"bad" blood throws off the hormones- not the other way around' is gibberish. (And yes, I am a doctor).

Second, it's worth keeping in mind that just because you find an abnormal lab, that doesn't establish causality. If you find an abnormality, and that abnormality is known to be able to cause a given syndrome, then you fix the abnormality and the syndrome remits, that constitutes reasonably compelling evidence. There's a tendency for excessively willful patients to try and take control of a medical workup and guide it in the direction they see it as needing to go. Hopefully that's not what's happening here.

I had a girlfriend once who was a vegetarian. She became ill. The illness wasn't directly due to being a vegetarian. On the other hand, her diet definitely made it much harder for her to recover. But yet, she wouldn't believe it, wouldn't even consider it. She had a very unhealthy diet, and insisted on viewing it as the cornerstone of her health. Hopefully her situation isn't analogous to Mr Jobs'.

Wishing you a very speedy recovery Steve.
Now hopefully we can draw a line under all this nonsense.

PS: For all you blood hounds who like to speculate about his future with Apple should remember this.
People like Steve Jobs are not that difficult to get rid of. They simply walk away if they feel they can't give 100%. There not there for the politics or solely for financial rewards, just the love of what they do. And as long as they can still do that and keep moving forward they remain where they are and the companies that employ them want that to remain.

Get well soon Steve! You inspire many of us.

Then all will be right with the world.

Apple was just experimenting with their new model of CEO, the Steve Jobs Air™. Turns out the public didn't like it.

Wishing you and your family well, Steve.

That's just not true. The health and well-being of the president of a corporation is legally no one's business. It'll be a sad day if this were to become another asinine legal requirement (in addition to Sarbanes-Oxley).

Wow.. care to explain how? teckstud can accuse SJ of lying, and play doctor on a forum, but I am not allowed to express my views in reaction to such a post, since it might be distasteful to someone like you?

I agree, that the statement is saying a lot by what it is not saying. Weight loss (cachexia) can be caused by many things. It may be a completely benign cause. However, it is common in cancer (occurs in ~80% of patients in advance-stage cancer) and/or chemotherapy. It can also be caused by chronic inflammation. It would have be better to state that currently there is no evidence of cancer.
It is interesting that the diagnosis needed 'sophisticated' blood test; perhaps his has a pathology in his peptide YY, ghrelin or melanocortin secretion. It is possible that abnormal levels of these hormones are due to problems with his pancreas (his neuroendocrine tumor was pancreatic).

Steve Jobs is a remarkable CEO, but during 2009 he needs to delegate many of his roles to others, even if is is in perfect health. Apple Inc., will survive and prosper without him, but a leadership change needs to be gradual.

they do, but they're never satisfied. it's a size thing.

I think we would agree with your last comments Paul, and thanks for the medical diagnosis and theories... it'll make it's way into the sweaty palms of Shaw Wu and his ilk in minutes and give them more fodder for their idiotic prognostications.

'Shorts' are short-sellers. They bet on a price decline, and make money if that expectation is borne out. Essentially, they sell stock that they do not own, by borrowing it from someone who owns it; if the short-sellers' expectation proves correct and the price falls, they buy it at the lower market price and return it to the person that they originally borrowed the stock from, thereby making a profit. If the price goes up instead, they lose money since they have to buy it at a price higher than at which they sold. See, for instance, http://www.sec.gov/answers/shortsale.htm

You can make a similar bet with put options and protect yourself on the downside (but options cost you money up front).

Some people blame short-sellers for stock price manipulation since they believe they have the incentive to leak adverse news to the market to drive down share prices. Others vehemently disagree.

What is inarguable is: (i) Short selling is perfectly legal; (ii) It is a necessary component of information flows that helps to make the market efficient since it provides the counterpoint to unduly optimistic and rose-colored views that might otherwise prevail, driving the value of the stock away from its fundamentals in the other direction.

...yes, I'm sorry about that

It's starting...


... what a blowhard.