No, that is about right. The FIVE YEAR RATE of liver transplant is 73% FIVE YEAR! If you are in the other 27% then you live shorter. Why does this not make sense to the media. The FIVE YEAR RATE??? Correct me if I'm wrong but it checks out with all the guys in the field I have talked to.
Transplants are overall a good thing but it only buys time, really. The risk of immune rejection, etc. is no joke.
Steve also would have to be on large doses of immunosuppressants, meaning his immune system is purposely lowered so as to prevent the body thinking the liver is a foreign object that needs to be attacked.
Steve said he was taking a break to get his weight back up.
Now 6 months later he's back at work but not full-time "in the office".
Plus he's had a major organ transplant.
I'm sure medical technology is fantastic but just wanted to point out I believe Steve is in a riskier position than about a year ago.
That said, I wish him all the best, and one can only imagine his next 3-5 years at Apple is to guide them as best he can and put all the long-term stuff in place to see Apple continue to do reasonably well over the next 10 years.
It also depends on the reason for the transplant - in this case it's metastatic cancer which is a lot different that a transplant due to cirrhosis of the liver.
You're original alright.
Anyways so where's the evidence on the cancer having metastasised? Not trolling, wondering if anyone has info on that.
So life expectancy of 5 years for 73%-78% and at 5 years and one day life expectancy drops to almost nothing?
Liver transplant patients have an average of 7 years total less life expectancy than "normal" people.
After 6 months, the average (some live more, some live less) liver transplant patient lives for 18 more years.
Yes, this 5 year survival rate is just a standard statistical measure used for many diseases. It says absolutely nothing about how long a person can survive after treatment, only what the statistics on previous patients indicate the odds are of a current patient surviving at least 5 years, the exact significance of which varies from condition to condition.
Hmm no offense brucep but you totally lack an understanding of what [medical] statistics are...!
No offence taken.
We simply just don't have enough info on steve's case to know whIch major medical survey to put him. So we take a weak guess from a survey that lumps everyone in together,When in reality there are more than a dozen variable's that can change his survival percentage .To boot these variables can change over time. For example the Drugs he takes can stop working or work not as well. We simply do not have enough data or a control group tp compare him against .
Anyway without writing a book, I looked into cancer survival rates because of my own illness. AND every doctor said 90 % cure rate BUT.
Its the BUT that can kill you.
So ignore these numbers folks until we have more and better info
From all the docs and surgeons I have talked to in my circle (Okay only 4 but still) they said that this is the beginning of the end. He will be lucky to live 5 years. 2 or 3 is most likely. Liver transplants, even on healthy people, only average a 5 year life span. You can get another liver at that point but the rejection process of they body goes up each time and the bucket of drugs you have to take every day is so hard on the body. So I am not really sure why they keep saying his prognosis is excellent...... It is far from excellent. He probably has enough time to wrap up the power transfer of Apple and live a little.
I wish you well Steve. God's best for you and your family
All of the statistics I am seeing have suggested that somewhere around 80 - 90% of liver transplant patients who make it beyond the first six months make it to somewhere between 18 and 23 years. That would bring SJ almost up to the average lifespan, so I do sincerely hope these statistics are correct.
Transplants are overall a good thing but it only buys time, really. The risk of immune rejection, etc. is no joke.
Steve also would have to be on large doses of immunosuppressants, meaning his immune system is purposely lowered so as to prevent the body thinking the liver is a foreign object that needs to be attacked.
Steve said he was taking a break to get his weight back up.
Now 6 months later he's back at work but not full-time "in the office".
Plus he's had a major organ transplant.
I'm sure medical technology is fantastic but just wanted to point out I believe Steve is in a riskier position than about a year ago.
That said, I wish him all the best, and one can only imagine his next 3-5 years at Apple is to guide them as best he can and put all the long-term stuff in place to see Apple continue to do reasonably well over the next 10 years.
Nvidia STUD! My thoughts exactly. Let me also stress again how upsetting this still is. I was pretty disturbed my MJ dying but it's wearing off. SJ's current condition upsets me on a daily basis. I wish him the best prognosis possible but for the media to keep saying his prognosis is excellent is absurd, at least in the light of what they "think" happened to him. I am really hoping he gets on his next stage and says "the media are crazy. They have it all wrong. I had partial liver transplant because of all the meds I was on and it has nothing to do with reoccuring cancer. My prognosis is excellent."
This is exactly the whole point of raising the discussion about Steve's health. Much better than "keep quiet" and eat whatever mainstream media spoon-feeds you, be it bad or good news.
Life expectancy after any type of illness or major surgery is dependant on a myriad of factors, most importantly the type of disease and its extent in the patient. Insofar, everyone is an individual and has their own personal prognosis. It´s what doctors are for (amongst other things) to weigh these individual factors and, in summary, come up with an "educated guess" (yep, exactly that and nothing else) as to how one can expect a patient´s course of health will go. Noone knows the exact diagnosis of SJ´s disease (afaik) and why he had to have the liver transplant. Maybe it was due to metastases, maybe not. If the liver was the sole organ affected, then he stands a pretty good chance of long-term (e.g. >5-year) survival. Why the 5 years always cited? Well it´s pretty much assumed for most malignancies that after 5 years of being disease-free, you´re pretty much cured (doesn´t count for breast cancer and some others where metastases can occur up to 20 years later!). That´s why a 5-year survival rate is usually calculated. This is done with so-called Kaplan-Meier curves, which "predict" survival based on statistical evidence. The longer you want to predict, the less accurate the values usually are, unless you have hard evidence (follow-up). But the follow-up will always lag behind new treatment options which can only be accurately evaluated once implemented for the said timespan. Therefore, having a 5-year survival rate of, let´s say, 80% only means that after 5 years, 80% of the patients whose observation began at day X are still alive. It doesn´t allow any definite prognosis about how many of those are going to still be alive at X+8 years. It might be that of those 80%, all are still alive after 9 years, or that all dead at that time.
That having been said, I wish SJ a fulfilling and healthy life, however long it may still be. I hope he stays productive for Apple (therefore all of us). AND I DO SINCERELY HOPE THAT HE IS ABLE TO KEEP ALL THE SCHEMING, INQUISITIVE, NAGGING, INANE AND INTRUDING IDIOTS OFF HIS BACK WHO ARE CONSTANTLY INVADING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PERSONAL AND PATIENT´S PRIVACY!!!!!!!!
IT´S NONE OF ANYONE´S F***ING BUSINESS WHAT HE´S DOING OR WHAT HIS HEALTH IS UNLESS HE WANTS IT TO BE, NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT HE MAY BE FOR APPLE!!!!!
In a weird way I am very exited about what Apple will do next with this. I mean, instead of NOT knowing when all of our respective 'game-overs will be, imagine knowing you had 5 years. As Gandalf said, "Its what we do with the time we have left". With a mind like Jobs would you not be like 'Gloves off-game on. You aint seen nothin yet. All the best Steve-o. Your my hero.
He has a 73-78% chance of living for FIVE YEARS!!!!! Then he is most likely to be dead!!! ...
The percentage is about surviving the first 5 years. It doesn't say anything about how many years you have after that. It could even be 30 years. Most of the time, the first few years are critical; later on chances improve. So it could even be that the 78% survival rate of the first 5 years is the total chance of dying because of a liver transplant.
I know this isn't the case, but I've read that it is certainly possible to live a 'natural' live after a liver transplant.
Another thing is that chance doesn't say anything about an individual. Doctors aren't to smart (in general) in this respect.
So, you could ask two question to your doctor friends:
1. what is the survival rate after the first 5 years.
2. what is the probability distribution of the 73-78% chance.
He has a 73-78% chance of living for FIVE YEARS!!!!! Then he is most likely to be dead!!! ...
The percentage is about surviving the first 5 years. It doesn't say anything about how many years you have after that. It could even be 30 years. Most of the time, the first few years are critical; later on chances improve. So it could even be that the 78% survival rate of the first 5 years is the total chance of dying because of a liver transplant.
I know this isn't the case, but I've read that it is certainly possible to live a 'natural' live after a liver transplant.
Another thing is that chance doesn't say anything about an individual. Doctors aren't to smart (in general) in this respect.
So, you could ask two question to your doctor friends:
1. what is the survival rate after the first 5 years.
2. what is the probability distribution of the 73-78% chance.
This is exactly the whole point of raising the discussion about Steve's health. Much better than "keep quiet" and eat whatever mainstream media spoon-feeds you, be it bad or good news.
There is no correlation between keeping quiet on a private matter and "being spoon-fed". You imply falsely that there is.
If you read Chris_CA's excellent post carefully:
1) it provides neutral, de-personalised information (it does not talk about an individual in an intrusive manner) - and cites proper sources (no references to "doctor friends")
2) the conclusion implied by the information provided is positive (it is not extremely negative, nor is the conclusion personalised and accompanied by 5 exclamation marks ). The consequences of false negative information can be much more damaging to the individual concerned and the company.
3) it establishes that, for all that can be known, this matter is highly unlikely to have a pivotal influence on anything to do with Apple's short or medium term plans or performance
If you want to discuss this matter because you can't resist your personal curiosity, then go ahead. Do not, however, try and dress it up as something you are entitled to as shareholder or "concerned fan". It simply isn't so.
Comments
hope you continue to do well and keep appl at the top
Oh Kidneys! Of course! I'm always getting kidneys and eyes mixed up. Thank for helping me out there, Captain Obvious.
Laughed so hard I cried at this!
No, that is about right. The FIVE YEAR RATE of liver transplant is 73% FIVE YEAR! If you are in the other 27% then you live shorter. Why does this not make sense to the media. The FIVE YEAR RATE??? Correct me if I'm wrong but it checks out with all the guys in the field I have talked to.
Transplants are overall a good thing but it only buys time, really. The risk of immune rejection, etc. is no joke.
Steve also would have to be on large doses of immunosuppressants, meaning his immune system is purposely lowered so as to prevent the body thinking the liver is a foreign object that needs to be attacked.
Steve said he was taking a break to get his weight back up.
Now 6 months later he's back at work but not full-time "in the office".
Plus he's had a major organ transplant.
I'm sure medical technology is fantastic but just wanted to point out I believe Steve is in a riskier position than about a year ago.
That said, I wish him all the best, and one can only imagine his next 3-5 years at Apple is to guide them as best he can and put all the long-term stuff in place to see Apple continue to do reasonably well over the next 10 years.
I am the original.
It also depends on the reason for the transplant - in this case it's metastatic cancer which is a lot different that a transplant due to cirrhosis of the liver.
You're original alright.
Anyways so where's the evidence on the cancer having metastasised? Not trolling, wondering if anyone has info on that.
Oh Kidneys! Of course! I'm always getting kidneys and eyes mixed up. Thank for helping me out there, Captain Obvious.
We also have only 1 spleen, 1 gall bladder, 1 heart, if anyone's curious.
These number are not real numbers because >>>>
Each individual case is completely unique to the next unique case...
Hmm no offense brucep but you totally lack an understanding of what [medical] statistics are...!
So life expectancy of 5 years for 73%-78% and at 5 years and one day life expectancy drops to almost nothing?
Liver transplant patients have an average of 7 years total less life expectancy than "normal" people.
After 6 months, the average (some live more, some live less) liver transplant patient lives for 18 more years.
Yes, this 5 year survival rate is just a standard statistical measure used for many diseases. It says absolutely nothing about how long a person can survive after treatment, only what the statistics on previous patients indicate the odds are of a current patient surviving at least 5 years, the exact significance of which varies from condition to condition.
And not a moment too soon. Just in time to release the iPad with all the fanfare that only he can bring to its release.
Welcome back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsjU0K8QPhs
Hmm no offense brucep but you totally lack an understanding of what [medical] statistics are...!
No offence taken.
We simply just don't have enough info on steve's case to know whIch major medical survey to put him. So we take a weak guess from a survey that lumps everyone in together,When in reality there are more than a dozen variable's that can change his survival percentage .To boot these variables can change over time. For example the Drugs he takes can stop working or work not as well. We simply do not have enough data or a control group tp compare him against .
Anyway without writing a book, I looked into cancer survival rates because of my own illness. AND every doctor said 90 % cure rate BUT.
Its the BUT that can kill you.
So ignore these numbers folks until we have more and better info
9
Transplants are overall a good thing but it only buys time, really.
Sure, it only buys time, but doesn't that make it kind of like eating and breathing and ...
From all the docs and surgeons I have talked to in my circle (Okay only 4 but still) they said that this is the beginning of the end. He will be lucky to live 5 years. 2 or 3 is most likely. Liver transplants, even on healthy people, only average a 5 year life span. You can get another liver at that point but the rejection process of they body goes up each time and the bucket of drugs you have to take every day is so hard on the body. So I am not really sure why they keep saying his prognosis is excellent...... It is far from excellent. He probably has enough time to wrap up the power transfer of Apple and live a little.
I wish you well Steve. God's best for you and your family
All of the statistics I am seeing have suggested that somewhere around 80 - 90% of liver transplant patients who make it beyond the first six months make it to somewhere between 18 and 23 years. That would bring SJ almost up to the average lifespan, so I do sincerely hope these statistics are correct.
Transplants are overall a good thing but it only buys time, really. The risk of immune rejection, etc. is no joke.
Steve also would have to be on large doses of immunosuppressants, meaning his immune system is purposely lowered so as to prevent the body thinking the liver is a foreign object that needs to be attacked.
Steve said he was taking a break to get his weight back up.
Now 6 months later he's back at work but not full-time "in the office".
Plus he's had a major organ transplant.
I'm sure medical technology is fantastic but just wanted to point out I believe Steve is in a riskier position than about a year ago.
That said, I wish him all the best, and one can only imagine his next 3-5 years at Apple is to guide them as best he can and put all the long-term stuff in place to see Apple continue to do reasonably well over the next 10 years.
Nvidia STUD! My thoughts exactly. Let me also stress again how upsetting this still is. I was pretty disturbed my MJ dying but it's wearing off. SJ's current condition upsets me on a daily basis. I wish him the best prognosis possible but for the media to keep saying his prognosis is excellent is absurd, at least in the light of what they "think" happened to him. I am really hoping he gets on his next stage and says "the media are crazy. They have it all wrong. I had partial liver transplant because of all the meds I was on and it has nothing to do with reoccuring cancer. My prognosis is excellent."
So life expectancy of 5 years for 73%-78% and at 5 years and one day life expectancy drops to almost nothing?
Liver transplant patients have an average of 7 years total less life expectancy than "normal" people.
After 6 months, the average (some live more, some live less) liver transplant patient lives for 18 more years.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1421181
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17008365
This is exactly the whole point of raising the discussion about Steve's health. Much better than "keep quiet" and eat whatever mainstream media spoon-feeds you, be it bad or good news.
Life expectancy after any type of illness or major surgery is dependant on a myriad of factors, most importantly the type of disease and its extent in the patient. Insofar, everyone is an individual and has their own personal prognosis. It´s what doctors are for (amongst other things) to weigh these individual factors and, in summary, come up with an "educated guess" (yep, exactly that and nothing else) as to how one can expect a patient´s course of health will go. Noone knows the exact diagnosis of SJ´s disease (afaik) and why he had to have the liver transplant. Maybe it was due to metastases, maybe not. If the liver was the sole organ affected, then he stands a pretty good chance of long-term (e.g. >5-year) survival. Why the 5 years always cited? Well it´s pretty much assumed for most malignancies that after 5 years of being disease-free, you´re pretty much cured (doesn´t count for breast cancer and some others where metastases can occur up to 20 years later!). That´s why a 5-year survival rate is usually calculated. This is done with so-called Kaplan-Meier curves, which "predict" survival based on statistical evidence. The longer you want to predict, the less accurate the values usually are, unless you have hard evidence (follow-up). But the follow-up will always lag behind new treatment options which can only be accurately evaluated once implemented for the said timespan. Therefore, having a 5-year survival rate of, let´s say, 80% only means that after 5 years, 80% of the patients whose observation began at day X are still alive. It doesn´t allow any definite prognosis about how many of those are going to still be alive at X+8 years. It might be that of those 80%, all are still alive after 9 years, or that all dead at that time.
That having been said, I wish SJ a fulfilling and healthy life, however long it may still be. I hope he stays productive for Apple (therefore all of us). AND I DO SINCERELY HOPE THAT HE IS ABLE TO KEEP ALL THE SCHEMING, INQUISITIVE, NAGGING, INANE AND INTRUDING IDIOTS OFF HIS BACK WHO ARE CONSTANTLY INVADING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PERSONAL AND PATIENT´S PRIVACY!!!!!!!!
IT´S NONE OF ANYONE´S F***ING BUSINESS WHAT HE´S DOING OR WHAT HIS HEALTH IS UNLESS HE WANTS IT TO BE, NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT HE MAY BE FOR APPLE!!!!!
He has a 73-78% chance of living for FIVE YEARS!!!!! Then he is most likely to be dead!!! ...
The percentage is about surviving the first 5 years. It doesn't say anything about how many years you have after that. It could even be 30 years. Most of the time, the first few years are critical; later on chances improve. So it could even be that the 78% survival rate of the first 5 years is the total chance of dying because of a liver transplant.
I know this isn't the case, but I've read that it is certainly possible to live a 'natural' live after a liver transplant.
Another thing is that chance doesn't say anything about an individual. Doctors aren't to smart (in general) in this respect.
So, you could ask two question to your doctor friends:
1. what is the survival rate after the first 5 years.
2. what is the probability distribution of the 73-78% chance.
He has a 73-78% chance of living for FIVE YEARS!!!!! Then he is most likely to be dead!!! ...
The percentage is about surviving the first 5 years. It doesn't say anything about how many years you have after that. It could even be 30 years. Most of the time, the first few years are critical; later on chances improve. So it could even be that the 78% survival rate of the first 5 years is the total chance of dying because of a liver transplant.
I know this isn't the case, but I've read that it is certainly possible to live a 'natural' live after a liver transplant.
Another thing is that chance doesn't say anything about an individual. Doctors aren't to smart (in general) in this respect.
So, you could ask two question to your doctor friends:
1. what is the survival rate after the first 5 years.
2. what is the probability distribution of the 73-78% chance.
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
This is exactly the whole point of raising the discussion about Steve's health. Much better than "keep quiet" and eat whatever mainstream media spoon-feeds you, be it bad or good news.
There is no correlation between keeping quiet on a private matter and "being spoon-fed". You imply falsely that there is.
If you read Chris_CA's excellent post carefully:
1) it provides neutral, de-personalised information (it does not talk about an individual in an intrusive manner) - and cites proper sources (no references to "doctor friends")
2) the conclusion implied by the information provided is positive (it is not extremely negative, nor is the conclusion personalised and accompanied by 5 exclamation marks ). The consequences of false negative information can be much more damaging to the individual concerned and the company.
3) it establishes that, for all that can be known, this matter is highly unlikely to have a pivotal influence on anything to do with Apple's short or medium term plans or performance
If you want to discuss this matter because you can't resist your personal curiosity, then go ahead. Do not, however, try and dress it up as something you are entitled to as shareholder or "concerned fan". It simply isn't so.