Give me a break. Investors in Apple have absolutely NO SAY in what jobs does in his private life, even if that means making a questionable decision about his health. Yes, Jobs is key to the success of Apple at this point, but when I bought stock in Apple I didn't buy stock in Steve Job's personal affairs.
I'm a physician, and certainly am glad SJ had his surgery, which is likely to be curative (I'm not sure where the previous comment is coming from in asserting that this form of cancer almost always recurs). That said, it's his own business whether or not to undergo surgery. And let's put it in perspective: with an initial diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (the one that is most commonly fatal in the end, although it is curable when caught early), it's not entirely unreasonable to consider other approaches simply because the standard curative therapy, a pancreaticoduodenostomy (Whipple procedure) often times is not feasible as the tumor has spread beyond the pancreas by the time of surgery.
When a Whipple procedure is feasible, then many patients can indeed be cured, although there is not insignificant morbidity associated with the operation. In many cases, surgeons may end up doing what we call a “peek and shriek,” in which the abdomen is opened, it becomes obvious that the tumor is not resectable (ie, the cancer is not curable with surgery), and the best option is to just close the patient and consider a clinical protocol that might or might not help prolong life somewhat.
In retrospect, it was critical that SJ had his operation, since there would have been no way for anyone to know that this was indeed resectable and curable without a Whipple procedure. The sad reality is that many patients with panceatic cancer in general have few options for beneficial treatment, so while my physician side is skeptical, my nonphysician side can certainly understand where Jobs was coming from by initialy declining surgery. Also, please realize that no one can or should judge someone until that person has been in the same shoes. No one on this forum, myself included, has had pancreatic cancer, and so cannot judge the actions of others like Steve Jobs in this regard.
Don't have time to look closely, but the median survival for a localized tumor of this type (which I'm assuming is the category Jobs fell under) is 10 years.
It's been 4 years since his surgery, and if you've made it 4 years, I'm sure the median survival is > 10.
Since when is Steve Jobs' medical condition anyone else's business but his? Sure, investors would have been skittish... (they always are at the drop of a hat) but, Steve is entitled to privacy.
Why do we look at medicine as only "science" or "alternative", why can't we use both.
Excellent point. I too have seen several family member go through the hell-on-earth that is our current "scientific" treatment for cancer. Modern medicine considers a lot of homeopathic regimens to be barbaric - but the same could be said of bombarding the body with slightly less-than-lethal amounts of radiation.
Doctors used to prescribe blood-letting as a treatment for certain illnesses which often led people's deaths.. so no popular treatment is infallible.
As for Job's health problems... I agree that they aren't anyone else's business. No one can make those kinds of choices for anyone else... If Steve had died from using a diet only regimen... would the shareholders sue his family?
I'm a physician, and certainly am glad SJ had his surgery, which is likely to be curative (I'm not sure where the previous comment is coming from in asserting that this form of cancer almost always recurs). That said, it's his own business whether or not to undergo surgery. And let's put it in perspective: with an initial diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (the one that is most commonly fatal in the end, although it is curable when caught early), it's not entirely unreasonable to consider other approaches simply because the standard curative therapy, a pancreaticoduodenostomy (Whipple procedure) often times is not feasible as the tumor has spread beyond the pancreas by the time of surgery.
When a Whipple procedure is feasible, then many patients can indeed be cured, although there is not insignificant morbidity associated with the operation. In many cases, surgeons may end up doing what we call a ?peek and shriek,? in which the abdomen is opened, it becomes obvious that the tumor is not resectable (ie, the cancer is not curable with surgery), and the best option is to just close the patient and consider a clinical protocol that might or might not help prolong life somewhat.
In retrospect, it was critical that SJ had his operation, since there would have been no way for anyone to know that this was indeed resectable and curable without a Whipple procedure. The sad reality is that many patients with panceatic cancer in general have few options for beneficial treatment, so while my physician side is skeptical, my nonphysician side can certainly understand where Jobs was coming from by initialy declining surgery. Also, please realize that no one can or should judge someone until that person has been in the same shoes. No one on this forum, myself included, has had pancreatic cancer, and so cannot judge the actions of others like Steve Jobs in this regard.
I'm a physician, and certainly am glad SJ had his surgery, which is likely to be curative (I'm not sure where the previous comment is coming from in asserting that this form of cancer almost always recurs). That said, it's his own business whether or not to undergo surgery. And let's put it in perspective: with an initial diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (the one that is most commonly fatal in the end, although it is curable when caught early), it's not entirely unreasonable to consider other approaches simply because the standard curative therapy, a pancreaticoduodenostomy (Whipple procedure) often times is not feasible as the tumor has spread beyond the pancreas by the time of surgery.
The biopsy revealed Jobs did not have the common form of pancreatic cancer. As Jobs himself informed the public and as reported in the article, he had a relatively rare pancreatic islet cell carcinoma, that is typically curable through surgical resection. However, Jobs did not necessarily undergo a Whipple. The reporter provides no source or expert opinion for this claim and appears to have only one unconfirmed, anonymous source for the matter of Jobs hiding the diagnosis for 9 months.
It just dawned on me the other day that nothing has really changed since I first started using a Mac.
It's still a W.I.M.P. environment, and I still have to wade through nested folders that are presented in exactly the same way as they were in System 7. Okay there is a lot more eye-candy, the icons now bounce and there's now a neat little sidebar running down the side of the Finder window, but in the years that have passed since System 7 there haven't been any fundamental breakthroughs ? no paradigm shifts.
I don't believe that the future of computing lies with Apple. Yes they are the best of a bad bunch, and yes SJ has had an incredible impact on the industry whilst it was his turn to run with the baton. But it's almost time for him to hand on the baton, and I suspect that it'll be a company like Perceptive Pixel that picks it up... if Apple go round the track for another lap we'll only end up with another generation of machines that do exactly what the previous generation of machines did.
It just dawned on me the other day that nothing has really changed since I first started using a Mac.
It's still a W.I.M.P. environment, and I still have to wade through nested folders that are presented in exactly the same way as they were in System 7 ... there haven't been any fundamental breakthroughs ? no paradigm shifts..
You certainly can if you want, but Spotlight?a find-as-you-type, dynamic index?allwos you to locate items easily. Perhaps what hasn't changed is the way you use a computer.
The biopsy revealed Jobs did not have the common form of pancreatic cancer. As Jobs himself informed the public and as reported in the article, he had a relatively rare pancreatic islet cell carcinoma, that is typically curable through surgical resection. However, Jobs did not necessarily undergo a Whipple. The reporter provides no source or expert opinion for this claim and appears to have only one unconfirmed, anonymous source for the matter of Jobs hiding the diagnosis for 9 months.
1.) dtoub realizes that and did not claim otherwise
2.) I read the article, and it sounded like the author had multiple sources. I don't doubt it's credibility.
I find it appalling that the head of a company that depends totally on science and reason would even consider abandoning it for unproven (AKA "alternative") methods
No one would want toxic levels of poisons coursing through their bodies if there was an alternative that could help.[/QUOTE]
If there a better method don't you think the doctors would have recommended it? Quacks have often derided cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation as "poison, cut, and burn" while offering only magical thinking in return.
Would you try to solve a computer problem by placing your computer facing a certain direction or moving your furniture around (absent electromagnetic interference problems)?
I suspect that it'll be a company like Perceptive Pixel that picks it up... if Apple go round the track for another lap we'll only end up with another generation of machines that do exactly what the previous generation of machines did.
Maybe not Perceptive Pixel... using a fully multi-touch computer is a huge energy waster. With a keyboard and mouse your movement is minimal and largely efficient. Spend 30 minutes using one of Jeff Han's computer interfaces and you'll need a gallon of Gatorade.
Comments
When a Whipple procedure is feasible, then many patients can indeed be cured, although there is not insignificant morbidity associated with the operation. In many cases, surgeons may end up doing what we call a “peek and shriek,” in which the abdomen is opened, it becomes obvious that the tumor is not resectable (ie, the cancer is not curable with surgery), and the best option is to just close the patient and consider a clinical protocol that might or might not help prolong life somewhat.
In retrospect, it was critical that SJ had his operation, since there would have been no way for anyone to know that this was indeed resectable and curable without a Whipple procedure. The sad reality is that many patients with panceatic cancer in general have few options for beneficial treatment, so while my physician side is skeptical, my nonphysician side can certainly understand where Jobs was coming from by initialy declining surgery. Also, please realize that no one can or should judge someone until that person has been in the same shoes. No one on this forum, myself included, has had pancreatic cancer, and so cannot judge the actions of others like Steve Jobs in this regard.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2077912
Don't have time to look closely, but the median survival for a localized tumor of this type (which I'm assuming is the category Jobs fell under) is 10 years.
It's been 4 years since his surgery, and if you've made it 4 years, I'm sure the median survival is > 10.
Ive has none of the business experience and company-building experience Jobs has.
And Al Gore does? -
Since when do shareholders have a stake in someones private life???
They don't but they'd panic and the share/stock price would go down.
Why do we look at medicine as only "science" or "alternative", why can't we use both.
Excellent point. I too have seen several family member go through the hell-on-earth that is our current "scientific" treatment for cancer. Modern medicine considers a lot of homeopathic regimens to be barbaric - but the same could be said of bombarding the body with slightly less-than-lethal amounts of radiation.
Doctors used to prescribe blood-letting as a treatment for certain illnesses which often led people's deaths.. so no popular treatment is infallible.
As for Job's health problems... I agree that they aren't anyone else's business. No one can make those kinds of choices for anyone else... If Steve had died from using a diet only regimen... would the shareholders sue his family?
I'm a physician, and certainly am glad SJ had his surgery, which is likely to be curative (I'm not sure where the previous comment is coming from in asserting that this form of cancer almost always recurs). That said, it's his own business whether or not to undergo surgery. And let's put it in perspective: with an initial diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (the one that is most commonly fatal in the end, although it is curable when caught early), it's not entirely unreasonable to consider other approaches simply because the standard curative therapy, a pancreaticoduodenostomy (Whipple procedure) often times is not feasible as the tumor has spread beyond the pancreas by the time of surgery.
When a Whipple procedure is feasible, then many patients can indeed be cured, although there is not insignificant morbidity associated with the operation. In many cases, surgeons may end up doing what we call a ?peek and shriek,? in which the abdomen is opened, it becomes obvious that the tumor is not resectable (ie, the cancer is not curable with surgery), and the best option is to just close the patient and consider a clinical protocol that might or might not help prolong life somewhat.
In retrospect, it was critical that SJ had his operation, since there would have been no way for anyone to know that this was indeed resectable and curable without a Whipple procedure. The sad reality is that many patients with panceatic cancer in general have few options for beneficial treatment, so while my physician side is skeptical, my nonphysician side can certainly understand where Jobs was coming from by initialy declining surgery. Also, please realize that no one can or should judge someone until that person has been in the same shoes. No one on this forum, myself included, has had pancreatic cancer, and so cannot judge the actions of others like Steve Jobs in this regard.
Excellent information. Thanks.
He's a Crook just as Bill Gates, there both ripping the world off.
Anyone who makes massive profits like them two don't deserve any praise.
Apple is good but its never ever gonna catch up with Microsoft and if it was Bill Gates who had Cancer you wouldn't give a shit.
And Al Gore does? -
Fer Chrissakes, I'm not the one who suggested Al Gore.
Come on Guys don't think he's a God just because he owns Apple.
He's a Crook just as Bill Gates, there both ripping the world off.
Anyone who makes massive profits like them two don't deserve any praise.
Apple is good but its never ever gonna catch up with Microsoft and if it was Bill Gates who had Cancer you wouldn't give a shit.
Who peed in your Cheerios?
The only successor I could see after Jobs is Al Gore.
HAHA
Macs made from recycled corrugated paper would be great!
That would be craptastic.
There is only one good choice
I think Ive is best where he is. I think Cook may be the next dog.
I'm a physician, and certainly am glad SJ had his surgery, which is likely to be curative (I'm not sure where the previous comment is coming from in asserting that this form of cancer almost always recurs). That said, it's his own business whether or not to undergo surgery. And let's put it in perspective: with an initial diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (the one that is most commonly fatal in the end, although it is curable when caught early), it's not entirely unreasonable to consider other approaches simply because the standard curative therapy, a pancreaticoduodenostomy (Whipple procedure) often times is not feasible as the tumor has spread beyond the pancreas by the time of surgery.
The biopsy revealed Jobs did not have the common form of pancreatic cancer. As Jobs himself informed the public and as reported in the article, he had a relatively rare pancreatic islet cell carcinoma, that is typically curable through surgical resection. However, Jobs did not necessarily undergo a Whipple. The reporter provides no source or expert opinion for this claim and appears to have only one unconfirmed, anonymous source for the matter of Jobs hiding the diagnosis for 9 months.
It's still a W.I.M.P. environment, and I still have to wade through nested folders that are presented in exactly the same way as they were in System 7. Okay there is a lot more eye-candy, the icons now bounce and there's now a neat little sidebar running down the side of the Finder window, but in the years that have passed since System 7 there haven't been any fundamental breakthroughs ? no paradigm shifts.
I don't believe that the future of computing lies with Apple. Yes they are the best of a bad bunch, and yes SJ has had an incredible impact on the industry whilst it was his turn to run with the baton. But it's almost time for him to hand on the baton, and I suspect that it'll be a company like Perceptive Pixel that picks it up... if Apple go round the track for another lap we'll only end up with another generation of machines that do exactly what the previous generation of machines did.
I think Cook may be the next dog.
Almost certainly.
It just dawned on me the other day that nothing has really changed since I first started using a Mac.
It's still a W.I.M.P. environment, and I still have to wade through nested folders that are presented in exactly the same way as they were in System 7 ... there haven't been any fundamental breakthroughs ? no paradigm shifts..
You certainly can if you want, but Spotlight?a find-as-you-type, dynamic index?allwos you to locate items easily. Perhaps what hasn't changed is the way you use a computer.
The biopsy revealed Jobs did not have the common form of pancreatic cancer. As Jobs himself informed the public and as reported in the article, he had a relatively rare pancreatic islet cell carcinoma, that is typically curable through surgical resection. However, Jobs did not necessarily undergo a Whipple. The reporter provides no source or expert opinion for this claim and appears to have only one unconfirmed, anonymous source for the matter of Jobs hiding the diagnosis for 9 months.
1.) dtoub realizes that and did not claim otherwise
2.) I read the article, and it sounded like the author had multiple sources. I don't doubt it's credibility.
I find it appalling that the head of a company that depends totally on science and reason would even consider abandoning it for unproven (AKA "alternative") methods
No one would want toxic levels of poisons coursing through their bodies if there was an alternative that could help.[/QUOTE]
If there a better method don't you think the doctors would have recommended it? Quacks have often derided cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation as "poison, cut, and burn" while offering only magical thinking in return.
Would you try to solve a computer problem by placing your computer facing a certain direction or moving your furniture around (absent electromagnetic interference problems)?
I suspect that it'll be a company like Perceptive Pixel that picks it up... if Apple go round the track for another lap we'll only end up with another generation of machines that do exactly what the previous generation of machines did.
Maybe not Perceptive Pixel... using a fully multi-touch computer is a huge energy waster. With a keyboard and mouse your movement is minimal and largely efficient. Spend 30 minutes using one of Jeff Han's computer interfaces and you'll need a gallon of Gatorade.