That was all over and mentioned by the press and the reason for the transplant . The cancer had spread to the liver- metastasised. That seriousness was also the main reason why he had jumped to the front of the list for the transplant- it had metastasised. Big diff than a trasnplant for cirhossis or liver damage.
According to a number of oncologists, pancreatic cancer of the type that SJ had (an islet cell carcinoma, I believe), when metastasizing to the liver, rarely spreads beyond the liver. Why that would be I do not know. However, if that is true, that would make it much like cirrhosis, and could be one of the reasons we are hearing that SJ's prognosis is excellent.
By the way, you cannot possibly know that the fact that the cancer had metastasized to his liver is why Steve was jumped to the top of the list. It is more likely that this is the reason he was on the list to begin with, as well as the reason for his weight loss, etc. As a matter of fact, you can't even know whether or not he was jumped to the top of the list at all, as you allege. Rather, he may have been the sickest guy with the right blood type to match the poor slob who just got terminally injured in some MVA.
According to a number of oncologists, pancreatic cancer of the type that SJ had (an islet cell carcinoma, I believe), when metastasizing to the liver, rarely spreads beyond the liver. Why that would be I do not know. However, if that is true, that would make it much like cirrhosis, and could be one of the reasons we are hearing that SJ's prognosis is excellent.
By the way, you cannot possibly know that the fact that the cancer had metastasized to his liver is why Steve was jumped to the top of the list. It is more likely that this is the reason he was on the list to begin with, as well as the reason for his weight loss, etc. As a matter of fact, you can't even know whether or not he was jumped to the top of the list at all, as you allege. Rather, he may have been the sickest guy with the right blood type to match the poor slob who just got terminally injured in some MVA.
All true- but neither do you know if it was his money or fame that influenced it.
By the way, you cannot possibly know that the fact that the cancer had metastasized to his liver is why Steve was jumped to the top of the list. It is more likely that this is the reason he was on the list to begin with, as well as the reason for his weight loss, etc. As a matter of fact, you can't even know whether or not he was jumped to the top of the list at all, as you allege. Rather, he may have been the sickest guy with the right blood type to match the poor slob who just got terminally injured in some MVA.
Frankly I'm not sure which scenario scares me more: Steve using his wealth to get a vital organ before someone less affluent, or Steve being virtually on his deathbed, and nobody outside of Apple knowing about it.
Frankly I'm not sure which scenario scares me more: Steve using his wealth to get a vital organ before someone less affluent, or Steve being virtually on his deathbed, and nobody outside of Apple knowing about it.
How about people believing they have the absolute "right" to know every little detail of your personal life? Now THAT should scare you.
This may be the internet but, typing in all caps still does not make you right. More often than not, it's over-compensation for being wrong. Loud, but wrong.
If I read the article you have cited fully and correctly:
"The state of Jobs' health has long been a subject of popular discussion, including his surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2004 and his widely observed weight loss that preceded his leave of absence. With that information in the public sphere, some experts say Apple fulfilled its legal obligation by saying that Jobs was on medical leave.
"His health is a matter of private information, which the board may be in possession of but has no affirmative obligation to disclose," said G. William Speer, a lawyer at Bryan Cave in Atlanta.
Sure i wrote in capitals, but that doesn´t make it wrong, as you could have seen, had you read the article fully. Rather a matter of debate even among legal experts. As a trauma and orthopaedic surgeon, I tend to side with the patient, as do a lot of lawyers. Where do you stand on that matter
What I wanted to call to everyone´s attention is the fact that patient confidentiality may only be breached by the patients themselves. If they don´t disclose the nature of their illness, then noone else is allowed to do so, no matter what the financial community thinks, wants, or wishes. But I´m sure that this is a well-known fact to you Dr. Millmoss.
You quoted it selectively. The article also says that Apple may have violated SEC disclosure regulations, which in fact it says right in the headline. Seems you didn't read the entire thing, or just decided to leave out everything that didn't validate your emotional argument.
As I have been saying about this from the very start, it is debatable whether Apple should have been more upfront about Steve's medical condition in order to comply with SEC requirements for the disclosure of material events. You and many others have tried to argue that it's not debatable, that under no circumstances is this reportable to the stockholders. This is not correct; this question is very much in play. I won't bother quoting the support for this view from the article, because it's plainly there for anyone with an interest in understanding the complexities of this issue, to see.
Comments
Jimzip
Yeah I thought that at first too. He's made some valid points despite the idiot+caps business though ... so I'm kinda confused.
Jimzip
You've quoted my post before I changed it. I got muddled. It's mclarenf1 who's been the biggest petulant, shouty child.
You've quoted my post before I changed it. I got muddled. It's mclarenf1 who's been the biggest petulant, shouty child.
Aye.
Jimzip
patroll, you are an idiot.
and yes, that says enough about me, it says i think you are an idiot and have the right to say so.
Telling someone else to be quiet just because you dont agree with him. !!!
its a public discussion forum.
Go beat up your wife because dinner is 5 minutes late or something...
idiot.
Anyway, great to Steve back, best wishes to him
You have the right, as a general rule, but this forum has one rule, no personal attacks. I suggest being more subtle with the insults.
That was all over and mentioned by the press and the reason for the transplant . The cancer had spread to the liver- metastasised. That seriousness was also the main reason why he had jumped to the front of the list for the transplant- it had metastasised. Big diff than a trasnplant for cirhossis or liver damage.
According to a number of oncologists, pancreatic cancer of the type that SJ had (an islet cell carcinoma, I believe), when metastasizing to the liver, rarely spreads beyond the liver. Why that would be I do not know. However, if that is true, that would make it much like cirrhosis, and could be one of the reasons we are hearing that SJ's prognosis is excellent.
By the way, you cannot possibly know that the fact that the cancer had metastasized to his liver is why Steve was jumped to the top of the list. It is more likely that this is the reason he was on the list to begin with, as well as the reason for his weight loss, etc. As a matter of fact, you can't even know whether or not he was jumped to the top of the list at all, as you allege. Rather, he may have been the sickest guy with the right blood type to match the poor slob who just got terminally injured in some MVA.
According to a number of oncologists, pancreatic cancer of the type that SJ had (an islet cell carcinoma, I believe), when metastasizing to the liver, rarely spreads beyond the liver. Why that would be I do not know. However, if that is true, that would make it much like cirrhosis, and could be one of the reasons we are hearing that SJ's prognosis is excellent.
By the way, you cannot possibly know that the fact that the cancer had metastasized to his liver is why Steve was jumped to the top of the list. It is more likely that this is the reason he was on the list to begin with, as well as the reason for his weight loss, etc. As a matter of fact, you can't even know whether or not he was jumped to the top of the list at all, as you allege. Rather, he may have been the sickest guy with the right blood type to match the poor slob who just got terminally injured in some MVA.
All true- but neither do you know if it was his money or fame that influenced it.
However, there was that magnificent one night stand in Bumfork, Idaho several years ago....
You have the right, as a general rule, but this forum has one rule, no personal attacks. I suggest being more subtle with the insults.
What a stupid rule.
Is that subtle enough?
By the way, you cannot possibly know that the fact that the cancer had metastasized to his liver is why Steve was jumped to the top of the list. It is more likely that this is the reason he was on the list to begin with, as well as the reason for his weight loss, etc. As a matter of fact, you can't even know whether or not he was jumped to the top of the list at all, as you allege. Rather, he may have been the sickest guy with the right blood type to match the poor slob who just got terminally injured in some MVA.
Frankly I'm not sure which scenario scares me more: Steve using his wealth to get a vital organ before someone less affluent, or Steve being virtually on his deathbed, and nobody outside of Apple knowing about it.
What a stupid rule.
Is that subtle enough?
I think personal attacks on the rule is fine.
I think personal attacks on the rule is fine.
So we don't mind if the rule is offended?
BTW, "are" fine.
Frankly I'm not sure which scenario scares me more: Steve using his wealth to get a vital organ before someone less affluent, or Steve being virtually on his deathbed, and nobody outside of Apple knowing about it.
How about people believing they have the absolute "right" to know every little detail of your personal life? Now THAT should scare you.
How about people believing they have the absolute "right" to know every little detail of your personal life? Now THAT should scare you.
Since that's not at issue and never has been, the question doesn't even rise to the rhetorical level.
Since that's not at issue and never has been, the question doesn't even rise to the rhetorical level.
Well then let me put in context for you. Does the Schiavo case ring a bell?
We also have only 1 spleen, 1 gall bladder, 1 heart, if anyone's curious.
And one brain, but sometimes I wonder if that's being generous...
This may be the internet but, typing in all caps still does not make you right. More often than not, it's over-compensation for being wrong. Loud, but wrong.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,1155506.story
"The state of Jobs' health has long been a subject of popular discussion, including his surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2004 and his widely observed weight loss that preceded his leave of absence. With that information in the public sphere, some experts say Apple fulfilled its legal obligation by saying that Jobs was on medical leave.
"His health is a matter of private information, which the board may be in possession of but has no affirmative obligation to disclose," said G. William Speer, a lawyer at Bryan Cave in Atlanta.
Sure i wrote in capitals, but that doesn´t make it wrong, as you could have seen, had you read the article fully. Rather a matter of debate even among legal experts. As a trauma and orthopaedic surgeon, I tend to side with the patient, as do a lot of lawyers. Where do you stand on that matter
What I wanted to call to everyone´s attention is the fact that patient confidentiality may only be breached by the patients themselves. If they don´t disclose the nature of their illness, then noone else is allowed to do so, no matter what the financial community thinks, wants, or wishes. But I´m sure that this is a well-known fact to you Dr. Millmoss
As I have been saying about this from the very start, it is debatable whether Apple should have been more upfront about Steve's medical condition in order to comply with SEC requirements for the disclosure of material events. You and many others have tried to argue that it's not debatable, that under no circumstances is this reportable to the stockholders. This is not correct; this question is very much in play. I won't bother quoting the support for this view from the article, because it's plainly there for anyone with an interest in understanding the complexities of this issue, to see.
But I´m sure that this is a well-known fact to you Dr. Millmoss
Bah. Don't give them that much credit. A Phd is not an MD.
And please don't ever ask them about Steve Job's house, or you'll never here the end of it.