I would submit it via "News" link but it doesn't work.
The encryption key for the storage isn't working how I expected it to. I can send a Remote Wipe to either iPhone model and have more than enough time after it recieves the command and starts the procedure to restart the devices, thereby canceling the wipe. Their are other issues with this new feature that need to be addressed, too.
The first thing the Remote Wipe should do is make the command an immediate part of the OS, so that when the device is turned back on it starts to wipe again. It also needs to be setup that you don't need to have Push mail or duration to grab mail setup for the command to work, and make it so the MobileMe account and Find My iPhone service require a password to be altered.
But it's a free service that wasn't in MM when I signed up and it's only been live for a week now I'm okay with a few growing pains.
The encryption key for the storage isn't working how I expected it to. I can send a Remote Wipe to either iPhone model and have more than enough time after it recieves the command and starts the procedure to restart the devices, thereby canceling the wipe. Their are other issues with this new feature that need to be addressed, too.
The first thing the Remote Wipe should do is make the command an immediate part of the OS, so that when the device is turned back on it starts to wipe again. It also needs to be setup that you don't need to have Push mail or duration to grab mail setup for the command to work, and make it so the MobileMe account and Find My iPhone service require a password to be altered.
But it's a free service that wasn't in MM when I signed up and it's only been live for a week now I'm okay with a few growing pains.
Issues to be fixed in the upcoming patch.
Looks like when sending a Remote Wipe, to do it during the middle of the night.
Suppose with 3Gs, all the data is encrypted, so only the key is wiped, unlike 3G where a scrub has to ensure a wipe.
I think media and such forums are giving too much attention to Steve's health. This is a private matter and should be left as such. I am very happy that Steve is feeling better and getting back to work soon. But, eventually we will all have accept Apple without Steve. Sure, Steve might be the driving factor behind various decisions made at Apple, but it is really all the people at Apple who make it happen and I am sure Steve agrees to that also. Obviously, the Palm Pre is certainly an example of that - "Ex-Apple employees minus Steve" created one find product!
Claiming as always to know people familiar with Apple's inner workings, the Wall Street Journal
WSJ using tabloid tactics. wow this is a whole new world. I really loved the use of doctors that have probably never met Jobs but are happy to make comments about his sitch
Quote:
Jobs' physicians have reportedly advised him
no way did his doctors make comment to anyone about this and Jobs have been too burned by the media and the meddling with stock prices to speak up until it can be done publicly and with a positive spin.
Quote:
The transplant, if true,
key words: If true.
Quote:
None of the hospitals committed to regularly performing liver transplants say they have Jobs as a patient.
If they had it would be a lawsuit that would make the whole Psystar thing look like a tea party. And there's no question of exactly what laws would be at issue on this one
And something else to keep in mind. Given what happened last year with the stocks tanking every time Jobs sneezed, giving a date -- even just a month -- of return from a medical leave would be PR suicide if they knew that a liver or partial liver transplant was happening. Jobs is in such a state of health that everything is totally unpredictable, which is why they didn't expect the hormonal etc issues that happened and started this. No way would they have made a firm statement and stuck to it.
oh and he has friends living in Tennessee. the kind of rich friends that would be happy for him to go there and hide from the media with his laptop for video chats and emails to the board. so just maybe that is why his jet supposed few there a couple of months ago. just saying
There are two possibilities here: either someone in the hospital sold their story to the Wall Street Journal, in which case, they are liable to dismissal and large fines. This is illegal under US law called HIPAA. Recently, a number of medical personel were caught selling medical information to the Enquirer, etc., about sick celebrities, and Mrs. Schwarzenegger's, medical conditions. They were caught and fired by the hospital, to escape liability. They could still be sued and fined. So, it's not anybody close to the operation, and a doctor or nurse could lose accreditation.
Possibly so, but hospital personnel are not the only potential source of this story, so it's premature to wave the HIPAA flag. Reporters find out things. This is their job.
Quote:
So I question the ethics of the reporters, getting information despite the HIPAA enforcement that guarantees privacy. Where did they get this from? Is it important that we know this? When or if he comes back, he owes his board, and the stockholders to some degree, an accounting of his health status. He owes the world nothing at all. And he especially owes nothing to the sharks of the WSJ, now working for Rupert, who may or may not have dug out facts -- for what purpose? These guys have been hot to get Jobs for years now. Little scoundrels of Wall Street, which evidently should be the ultimate purveyor of our morality, right?
Not right. Steve is the CEO of a public corporation, entrusted with the livelihoods of tens of thousands of employees, and by law is responsible to investors. it is these employees and investors who are responsible ultimately for Steve's prosperity. So the argument that he "owes the world nothing at all" rings false. That's just not how it works.
Quote:
The other possibility is that Apple itself floated the story to see how it would play just before Jobs' return. Or that it was floated by someone who wants his job, and doesn't want Jobs back. If that's the case, there's going to be one empty seat at Apple, and it won't be Steve's.
I'm skeptical about this "news". If he really did suffer a relapse of his cancer, the last thing he'd want to do would be to get any kind of transplant. Cancer cells are formed in our bodies all the time but fortunately we have immune systems which destroy most of them and protect us.
If you get a transplant and take the required immunosuppressants, that's probably the worst thing for your cancer since you're removing your only innate protection against cancer cells.
Another thing about the liver is that it is one of the few regenerative organs in the body. You can actually remove most of a person's liver and it will grow back. Which means Jobs had such invasive cancer that he needed a liver transplant (instead of just cutting out the diseased parts), and there's no way his doctors would have let cancer progress to that stage without taking action long before.
It makes much more sense to believe his story that it was a metabolic problem and his liver had stopped functioning. In that case, it would make sense to get a transplant and his prognosis, barring side effects from the immunosuppressants should be pretty good.
I just finished 8 months of chemo and radition for throat cancer. And dude shut the f up.
A single cancer cell ?? That is not how my cancer progresses. And every cancer is different . And different types of cancer can attack the same place of your body.
So you can't fucking generalize. You have to be specific to that cancer.
No doctor ever found a single cancer cell . They look for clumps of maybe 100 or 500 cells. No tests can show one call and every human alive has at least 20 cancer cells or more at anyone time. It is a problem when they grow and spread and after treatment like my throat cancer, they now look at my chest and head only. It does not jump all over, That's my type of cancer. Some other types of cancers can jump. They are the deadly ones. Pancreatic cancer is maybe the worst or if not one the worst its up there. Steve jobs went thru hell for a long time with his illness.
First of all, I must stress the fact that being polite is important and you cannot say to someone you don't know that he should "shut the f up".
Second, I am not an oncologist, but I am a general practitioner (GP). And I certainly know more about cancer than you do : even though you had one, this does obviously does not give you a diploma in oncology !
Yes, you are right : "no doctor ever found a single cancer cell". That is the problem, and that is why chemotherapy is used to treat cancer patients even when the cancer is thought to be local (not metastasized) : to kill this elusive cell that might be somewhere else in the body. Because, you know, it only takes a cell to make a clump -> a mass -> a whole new tumor.
The fact that "no doctor ever found a single cancer cell" and that doctors "look for clumps of maybe 100 or 500 cells" only shows the current limitation of the technologies available, not the fact that it is not true.
You will note that I never wrote that cancer cells "jump all over" : they do, however, follow certain paths, usually along the lymphatic drainage system (hence the lymph nodes often being metastastic sites) or the veins.
Of course, I was writing about cancers in general because the thread was in danger of being filled with gossips and beliefs about cancer and I wanted to avoid this. I am happy that agrothey could add more specific information about SJ's particular cancer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep
Chemo is an excellent killer of cancer cells when added with heavy radiation.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but if chemotherapy was that good, we would be able to cure cancer. The fact is, we cannot in most cases. In the current state of affairs, cancer treatment in 2009 is akin to damage control more than to a cure. Certain types of cancer have higher remission rates than other, and some are even curable (some types of leukaemia in children are a good example). Keep in mind however, that if chemotherapy was that good, we would not talk about "survival rates at 5 years" of various cancer, but about "cure rates". By the way, chemo is an excellent killer of cells - any cells - not just cancerous ones. And this is why certain chemotherapies will cause loss of hair for instance.
Same thing about radiotherapy. It is a nice component of our arsenal against cancer, but this weapon cannot be used against every cancer, because it is not always useful. It was in your type of cancer, yes, but it is not always the case.
It is important to realize that cancers vary in severity and in responsiveness to the various treatment available depending on the original cell that went bad. A squamous cell cancer of the larynx - like you most likely had - will not be treated like a glioblastoma (a type of brain cancer) neither will it be treated like the type of pancreatic cancer SJ had. In the case of your particular cancer, you are right to say that a certain protocol of chemotherapy and radiation is the treatment. But not for all the cancers that exist.
Finally, note that a single organ may be the site of different kinds of cancers (not all at once, of course) and the various types of cancer will not be treated in the same way. In the larynx, there are squamous cell cancers, but there are various other too. And each of those won't be treated the same way.
Despite all their difference however, the inner working of all cancers is the same : a cell somehow goes bad, our defence (immune) system does not recognize it as bad and the cell is allowed to live, the bad cell multiplies itself and eventually seeds elsewhere. Since cancerous cell replicate without any limitation, they eventually invade all the body, eventually encroaching on some vital organ's space thus causing death by the dysfunction of that vital organ. (Hence the goal of limiting the spread of the cells.)
First of all, I must stress the fact that being polite is important and you cannot say to someone you don't know that he should "shut the f up".
Second, I am not an oncologist, but I am a general practitioner (GP). And I certainly know more about cancer than you do : even though you had one, this does obviously does not give you a diploma in oncology !
Yes, you are right : "no doctor ever found a single cancer cell". That is the problem, and that is why chemotherapy is used to treat cancer patients even when the cancer is thought to be local (not metastasized) : to kill this elusive cell that might be somewhere else in the body. Because, you know, it only takes a cell to make a clump -> a mass -> a whole new tumor.
The fact that "no doctor ever found a single cancer cell" and that doctors "look for clumps of maybe 100 or 500 cells" only shows the current limitation of the technologies available, not the fact that it is not true.
You will note that I never wrote that cancer cells "jump all over" : they do, however, follow certain paths, usually along the lymphatic drainage system (hence the lymph nodes often being metastastic sites) or the veins.
Of course, I was writing about cancers in general because the thread was in danger of being filled with gossips and beliefs about cancer and I wanted to avoid this. I am happy that agrothey could add more specific information about SJ's particular cancer.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but if chemotherapy was that good, we would be able to cure cancer. The fact is, we cannot in most cases. In the current state of affairs, cancer treatment in 2009 is akin to damage control more than to a cure. Certain types of cancer have higher remission rates than other, and some are even curable (some types of leukaemia in children are a good example). Keep in mind however, that if chemotherapy was that good, we would not talk about "survival rates at 5 years" of various cancer, but about "cure rates". By the way, chemo is an excellent killer of cells - any cells - not just cancerous ones. And this is why certain chemotherapies will cause loss of hair for instance.
Same thing about radiotherapy. It is a nice component of our arsenal against cancer, but this weapon cannot be used against every cancer, because it is not always useful. It was in your type of cancer, yes, but it is not always the case.
It is important to realize that cancers vary in severity and in responsiveness to the various treatment available depending on the original cell that went bad. A squamous cell cancer of the larynx - like you most likely had - will not be treated like a glioblastoma (a type of brain cancer) neither will it be treated like the type of pancreatic cancer SJ had. In the case of your particular cancer, you are right to say that a certain protocol of chemotherapy and radiation is the treatment. But not for all the cancers that exist.
Finally, note that a single organ may be the site of different kinds of cancers (not all at once, of course) and the various types of cancer will not be treated in the same way. In the larynx, there are squamous cell cancers, but there are various other too. And each of those won't be treated the same way.
Despite all their difference however, the inner working of all cancers is the same : a cell somehow goes bad, our defence (immune) system does not recognize it as bad and the cell is allowed to live, the bad cell multiplies itself and eventually seeds elsewhere. Since cancerous cell replicate without any limitation, they eventually invade all the body, eventually encroaching on some vital organ's space thus causing death by the dysfunction of that vital organ. (Hence the goal of limiting the spread of the cells.)
Thankyou sir, for putting the insanely delusional and IN DENIAL cultists like brucep in their place about the SERIOUS state and POOR prognosis of Job's Health with what is essentially now TERMINAL FULLY BLOWN MALIGNANT CANCER no matter how "rare and exotic" they like to deviously dress it up.
The fact that they were SO unaccepting of the evidence strongly suggesting his cancer RETURN with ADVANCED stage gluconomas (ie irreversible terminal metastasis of his liver pre-transplant) but now accept it as a convincing reason for a SELFISH,GREEDY(as per) pointless, desperate grab at life elongation when a liver transplant could have benefited countless other individuals with a MUCH a greater chance of quality of life extension than he will ever gain from it - which is why practically all centres ( except for Tennessee one..."LIGHTBULB!" ) haves rules that ensure cancer (of ANY with malignant (ie metastatic) potential) victims NEVER receive such a transplant - as many people have pointed out NOT only will his severely cancer riddled chronically sick body have to deal with the immensely harsh TRAUMA of preventing tissue rejection, his resulting half dead immune system will vastly reduce his chances/longevity of survival from the original MALIGNANT cancer in the first place...goodbye medical triage hello $$$$$...DOH!
JUST as stupid/ignorant/delusional as HIS decision as the delay of URGENTLY recommended surgery to removal the initial tumour to try "alternative" therapy (no doubt why his cancer had chance to become malignant in the first place) EXCEPT this time he's completely screwed over someone else's chance of long term quality life for his own repugnant self.
The sites of metastasis of islet cell tumors most commonly are the liver AND the lymph nodes in the vicinity of the pancreas.
ie This is only re the primary metastasis, given how long Jobs has had a diseased liver , cancer cells will have spread to other parts of the body by now - WHAT next - is he going to have every (major) organ transplanted or will he just find himself some poor suitable (unwilling) younger victims body to transfer his brain (assuming the cancer hasn't already spread their) to or WHAT?
As a GI medical oncologist, I can assure you that a liver transplantation is one of the options to treat a metastatic neuroendocrine cancer of the pancreas. What most people do not realize is that SJ did NOT suffer from a "normal" pancreatic cancer, but from a rare tumor called "islet cell cancer", which is associated with a much better prognosis than pancreatic cancer. These tumors unfortunately commonly metastasize (seed) into the liver - but a liver transplant can cure patients.
The WSJ story is perfectly plausible and explains some of the issues I was wondering about, e.g. the predefined set time frame of SJ's return to work.
A GI medical oncologist (failed student) MORE LIKE! You can't even name the specific type of the (original) islet cell tumour ie glucagonomas with mild diabetes (ie wasting as Jobs lost actual body tissue) presenting from the over excretion glucagon ( the ambiguous "hormonal imbalance" Jobs quoted in his CAREFULLY Apple PR prepared "speech") from metastasis at the original site (ie so MALIGNANT original tumour)
As if any such competent medical professional would quote;
Quote:
Originally Posted by agrothey
but a liver transplant can cure patients
A cure for CANCER ???!!!? What next dear Dr., the world is flat?
No the only thing U R a specialist of is being on Apple's payroll spreading their FUD to burry their previous FUD etc etc...but DECEPTION always leaves such BLATANT indications as your highly revealing MAJOR GAFF!
Apple routinely mentioned an "hormonal imbalance" as reason for SJ's weight loss. Now, islet cell cancers can produce certain hormones (such as glucagon, somatostatin, vasoactive-intestinal peptide (VIP) etc) which can interfere with a normal gastrointestinal function and the way a body utilizes nutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fat). When an islet cell cancer recurs and produces liver metastases, these hormonal effects can lead to significant and rapid weight loss.
.
What!? YET MORE GAPING HOLES in your medical knowledge Dr. Apple PR employee
Aswell as the "LIVER being the ONLY site for metastasis" taking huge LIBERTY with truth we have;
Quote:
When an islet cell cancer recurs and produces liver metastases, these hormonal effects can lead to significant and rapid weight loss.
These hormonal effects ??? Perhaps U need to read some accurate medical literature to make your cover more believable next time (undoubtedly) Apple wants its despicable malignancy buried.
A liver transplant to fight against pancreatic cancer's metastasis is pretty an oncologic nonsense and I guess almost any expert would discourage it.
INDEED but what else would you expect from the same clueless dope that used alternative therapy, wasting MONTHS of precious time BEFORE an URGENTLY (relating to chance of survival) recommended surgery to remove the initial neuroendocrine tumour?
INDEED but what else would you expect from the same clueless dope that used alternative therapy, wasting MONTHS of precious time BEFORE an URGENTLY (relating to chance of survival) recommended surgery to remove the initial neuroendocrine tumour?
Be careful here : this is a very common reaction in newly diagnosed cancer patients. There is a very complex reaction to this terrible news that causes many conflicting realities to emerge, based on past experiences and cultural background of the person.
1- Denial : "maybe if I change me habits it will go away".
2 - Fear of suffering : "cancer is pain ; chemo is pain ; I don't want to suffer"...
3 - Christian cultural background. Cancer = sin -> sin requires redemption -> purification of the self is required -> a drastic change of lifestyle is performed as a show of redemption. (The idea of redemption exist in most religion, and similar reasoning can be found.)
Nearly every recently diagnosed person with cancer will go through this. Some will accept to start a treatment immediately. Others need time with themselves before accepting all the harsh treatments medicine offers today. It is very easy to dismiss those people. There is no need to be angry at them: instead, we must accompany them in their process. Steve Jobs, for instance, has very strong hindu-type beliefs. We also know he is vegetarian (if not vegan). If it is true that he did not accept treatments right away, we could surmise that he needed to reconcile the terrible news with the lifestyle he had chosen probably to avoid this type of destiny. There is no need to laugh at the man : he needed to digest the news, that is all.
Now of course, if cancer treatment was efficient and offered a cure, it would be criminal to wait for someone to be "ready". But considering the success rate and the consequences of cancer treatment on quality of life, it is totally ethical to accompany a person without insisting on injecting all sorts of poison right away.
Because human psychology is often weird, someone may have been very much in denial at first, but when he finally accepts the diagnosis, he may suddenly accept or even request even the most uncertain treatment protocols, just to stay alive. This is where we may be. Although I am not a specialist in neuroendocrine tumours of the pancreas (so maybe it is after all a pretty standard procedure ?). If we are bordering on futile treatment, then of course it is not ethical to give them only because they are requested : in those care psychological help is required.
Comments
http://www.networkworld.com/communit...comment-210663
I would submit it via "News" link but it doesn't work.
iPhone 3.0 fixes 47 security issues, iPhone 3Gs offers faster "secure wipes" and encrypts entire data. and a lot more info here
http://www.networkworld.com/communit...comment-210663
I would submit it via "News" link but it doesn't work.
The encryption key for the storage isn't working how I expected it to. I can send a Remote Wipe to either iPhone model and have more than enough time after it recieves the command and starts the procedure to restart the devices, thereby canceling the wipe. Their are other issues with this new feature that need to be addressed, too.
The first thing the Remote Wipe should do is make the command an immediate part of the OS, so that when the device is turned back on it starts to wipe again. It also needs to be setup that you don't need to have Push mail or duration to grab mail setup for the command to work, and make it so the MobileMe account and Find My iPhone service require a password to be altered.
But it's a free service that wasn't in MM when I signed up and it's only been live for a week now I'm okay with a few growing pains.
The encryption key for the storage isn't working how I expected it to. I can send a Remote Wipe to either iPhone model and have more than enough time after it recieves the command and starts the procedure to restart the devices, thereby canceling the wipe. Their are other issues with this new feature that need to be addressed, too.
The first thing the Remote Wipe should do is make the command an immediate part of the OS, so that when the device is turned back on it starts to wipe again. It also needs to be setup that you don't need to have Push mail or duration to grab mail setup for the command to work, and make it so the MobileMe account and Find My iPhone service require a password to be altered.
But it's a free service that wasn't in MM when I signed up and it's only been live for a week now I'm okay with a few growing pains.
Issues to be fixed in the upcoming patch.
Looks like when sending a Remote Wipe, to do it during the middle of the night.
Suppose with 3Gs, all the data is encrypted, so only the key is wiped, unlike 3G where a scrub has to ensure a wipe.
Claiming as always to know people familiar with Apple's inner workings, the Wall Street Journal
WSJ using tabloid tactics. wow this is a whole new world. I really loved the use of doctors that have probably never met Jobs but are happy to make comments about his sitch
Jobs' physicians have reportedly advised him
no way did his doctors make comment to anyone about this and Jobs have been too burned by the media and the meddling with stock prices to speak up until it can be done publicly and with a positive spin.
The transplant, if true,
key words: If true.
None of the hospitals committed to regularly performing liver transplants say they have Jobs as a patient.
If they had it would be a lawsuit that would make the whole Psystar thing look like a tea party. And there's no question of exactly what laws would be at issue on this one
And something else to keep in mind. Given what happened last year with the stocks tanking every time Jobs sneezed, giving a date -- even just a month -- of return from a medical leave would be PR suicide if they knew that a liver or partial liver transplant was happening. Jobs is in such a state of health that everything is totally unpredictable, which is why they didn't expect the hormonal etc issues that happened and started this. No way would they have made a firm statement and stuck to it.
oh and he has friends living in Tennessee. the kind of rich friends that would be happy for him to go there and hide from the media with his laptop for video chats and emails to the board. so just maybe that is why his jet supposed few there a couple of months ago. just saying
There are two possibilities here: either someone in the hospital sold their story to the Wall Street Journal, in which case, they are liable to dismissal and large fines. This is illegal under US law called HIPAA. Recently, a number of medical personel were caught selling medical information to the Enquirer, etc., about sick celebrities, and Mrs. Schwarzenegger's, medical conditions. They were caught and fired by the hospital, to escape liability. They could still be sued and fined. So, it's not anybody close to the operation, and a doctor or nurse could lose accreditation.
Possibly so, but hospital personnel are not the only potential source of this story, so it's premature to wave the HIPAA flag. Reporters find out things. This is their job.
So I question the ethics of the reporters, getting information despite the HIPAA enforcement that guarantees privacy. Where did they get this from? Is it important that we know this? When or if he comes back, he owes his board, and the stockholders to some degree, an accounting of his health status. He owes the world nothing at all. And he especially owes nothing to the sharks of the WSJ, now working for Rupert, who may or may not have dug out facts -- for what purpose? These guys have been hot to get Jobs for years now. Little scoundrels of Wall Street, which evidently should be the ultimate purveyor of our morality, right?
Not right. Steve is the CEO of a public corporation, entrusted with the livelihoods of tens of thousands of employees, and by law is responsible to investors. it is these employees and investors who are responsible ultimately for Steve's prosperity. So the argument that he "owes the world nothing at all" rings false. That's just not how it works.
The other possibility is that Apple itself floated the story to see how it would play just before Jobs' return. Or that it was floated by someone who wants his job, and doesn't want Jobs back. If that's the case, there's going to be one empty seat at Apple, and it won't be Steve's.
Highly unlikely on all counts.
I'm skeptical about this "news". If he really did suffer a relapse of his cancer, the last thing he'd want to do would be to get any kind of transplant. Cancer cells are formed in our bodies all the time but fortunately we have immune systems which destroy most of them and protect us.
If you get a transplant and take the required immunosuppressants, that's probably the worst thing for your cancer since you're removing your only innate protection against cancer cells.
Another thing about the liver is that it is one of the few regenerative organs in the body. You can actually remove most of a person's liver and it will grow back. Which means Jobs had such invasive cancer that he needed a liver transplant (instead of just cutting out the diseased parts), and there's no way his doctors would have let cancer progress to that stage without taking action long before.
It makes much more sense to believe his story that it was a metabolic problem and his liver had stopped functioning. In that case, it would make sense to get a transplant and his prognosis, barring side effects from the immunosuppressants should be pretty good.
Yet another expert backseat driver...sigh
Why doesn't the lifespan return to normal once the cancer is removed? I don't understand.
..but I don't think we can help you...understand that is;-)
I just finished 8 months of chemo and radition for throat cancer. And dude shut the f up.
A single cancer cell ?? That is not how my cancer progresses. And every cancer is different . And different types of cancer can attack the same place of your body.
So you can't fucking generalize. You have to be specific to that cancer.
No doctor ever found a single cancer cell . They look for clumps of maybe 100 or 500 cells. No tests can show one call and every human alive has at least 20 cancer cells or more at anyone time. It is a problem when they grow and spread and after treatment like my throat cancer, they now look at my chest and head only. It does not jump all over, That's my type of cancer. Some other types of cancers can jump. They are the deadly ones. Pancreatic cancer is maybe the worst or if not one the worst its up there. Steve jobs went thru hell for a long time with his illness.
First of all, I must stress the fact that being polite is important and you cannot say to someone you don't know that he should "shut the f up".
Second, I am not an oncologist, but I am a general practitioner (GP). And I certainly know more about cancer than you do : even though you had one, this does obviously does not give you a diploma in oncology !
Yes, you are right : "no doctor ever found a single cancer cell". That is the problem, and that is why chemotherapy is used to treat cancer patients even when the cancer is thought to be local (not metastasized) : to kill this elusive cell that might be somewhere else in the body. Because, you know, it only takes a cell to make a clump -> a mass -> a whole new tumor.
The fact that "no doctor ever found a single cancer cell" and that doctors "look for clumps of maybe 100 or 500 cells" only shows the current limitation of the technologies available, not the fact that it is not true.
You will note that I never wrote that cancer cells "jump all over" : they do, however, follow certain paths, usually along the lymphatic drainage system (hence the lymph nodes often being metastastic sites) or the veins.
Of course, I was writing about cancers in general because the thread was in danger of being filled with gossips and beliefs about cancer and I wanted to avoid this. I am happy that agrothey could add more specific information about SJ's particular cancer.
Chemo is an excellent killer of cancer cells when added with heavy radiation.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but if chemotherapy was that good, we would be able to cure cancer. The fact is, we cannot in most cases. In the current state of affairs, cancer treatment in 2009 is akin to damage control more than to a cure. Certain types of cancer have higher remission rates than other, and some are even curable (some types of leukaemia in children are a good example). Keep in mind however, that if chemotherapy was that good, we would not talk about "survival rates at 5 years" of various cancer, but about "cure rates". By the way, chemo is an excellent killer of cells - any cells - not just cancerous ones. And this is why certain chemotherapies will cause loss of hair for instance.
Same thing about radiotherapy. It is a nice component of our arsenal against cancer, but this weapon cannot be used against every cancer, because it is not always useful. It was in your type of cancer, yes, but it is not always the case.
It is important to realize that cancers vary in severity and in responsiveness to the various treatment available depending on the original cell that went bad. A squamous cell cancer of the larynx - like you most likely had - will not be treated like a glioblastoma (a type of brain cancer) neither will it be treated like the type of pancreatic cancer SJ had. In the case of your particular cancer, you are right to say that a certain protocol of chemotherapy and radiation is the treatment. But not for all the cancers that exist.
Finally, note that a single organ may be the site of different kinds of cancers (not all at once, of course) and the various types of cancer will not be treated in the same way. In the larynx, there are squamous cell cancers, but there are various other too. And each of those won't be treated the same way.
Despite all their difference however, the inner working of all cancers is the same : a cell somehow goes bad, our defence (immune) system does not recognize it as bad and the cell is allowed to live, the bad cell multiplies itself and eventually seeds elsewhere. Since cancerous cell replicate without any limitation, they eventually invade all the body, eventually encroaching on some vital organ's space thus causing death by the dysfunction of that vital organ. (Hence the goal of limiting the spread of the cells.)
First of all, I must stress the fact that being polite is important and you cannot say to someone you don't know that he should "shut the f up".
Second, I am not an oncologist, but I am a general practitioner (GP). And I certainly know more about cancer than you do : even though you had one, this does obviously does not give you a diploma in oncology !
Yes, you are right : "no doctor ever found a single cancer cell". That is the problem, and that is why chemotherapy is used to treat cancer patients even when the cancer is thought to be local (not metastasized) : to kill this elusive cell that might be somewhere else in the body. Because, you know, it only takes a cell to make a clump -> a mass -> a whole new tumor.
The fact that "no doctor ever found a single cancer cell" and that doctors "look for clumps of maybe 100 or 500 cells" only shows the current limitation of the technologies available, not the fact that it is not true.
You will note that I never wrote that cancer cells "jump all over" : they do, however, follow certain paths, usually along the lymphatic drainage system (hence the lymph nodes often being metastastic sites) or the veins.
Of course, I was writing about cancers in general because the thread was in danger of being filled with gossips and beliefs about cancer and I wanted to avoid this. I am happy that agrothey could add more specific information about SJ's particular cancer.
I don't want to burst your bubble, but if chemotherapy was that good, we would be able to cure cancer. The fact is, we cannot in most cases. In the current state of affairs, cancer treatment in 2009 is akin to damage control more than to a cure. Certain types of cancer have higher remission rates than other, and some are even curable (some types of leukaemia in children are a good example). Keep in mind however, that if chemotherapy was that good, we would not talk about "survival rates at 5 years" of various cancer, but about "cure rates". By the way, chemo is an excellent killer of cells - any cells - not just cancerous ones. And this is why certain chemotherapies will cause loss of hair for instance.
Same thing about radiotherapy. It is a nice component of our arsenal against cancer, but this weapon cannot be used against every cancer, because it is not always useful. It was in your type of cancer, yes, but it is not always the case.
It is important to realize that cancers vary in severity and in responsiveness to the various treatment available depending on the original cell that went bad. A squamous cell cancer of the larynx - like you most likely had - will not be treated like a glioblastoma (a type of brain cancer) neither will it be treated like the type of pancreatic cancer SJ had. In the case of your particular cancer, you are right to say that a certain protocol of chemotherapy and radiation is the treatment. But not for all the cancers that exist.
Finally, note that a single organ may be the site of different kinds of cancers (not all at once, of course) and the various types of cancer will not be treated in the same way. In the larynx, there are squamous cell cancers, but there are various other too. And each of those won't be treated the same way.
Despite all their difference however, the inner working of all cancers is the same : a cell somehow goes bad, our defence (immune) system does not recognize it as bad and the cell is allowed to live, the bad cell multiplies itself and eventually seeds elsewhere. Since cancerous cell replicate without any limitation, they eventually invade all the body, eventually encroaching on some vital organ's space thus causing death by the dysfunction of that vital organ. (Hence the goal of limiting the spread of the cells.)
Thankyou sir, for putting the insanely delusional and IN DENIAL cultists like brucep in their place about the SERIOUS state and POOR prognosis of Job's Health with what is essentially now TERMINAL FULLY BLOWN MALIGNANT CANCER no matter how "rare and exotic" they like to deviously dress it up.
The fact that they were SO unaccepting of the evidence strongly suggesting his cancer RETURN with ADVANCED stage gluconomas (ie irreversible terminal metastasis of his liver pre-transplant) but now accept it as a convincing reason for a SELFISH,GREEDY(as per) pointless, desperate grab at life elongation when a liver transplant could have benefited countless other individuals with a MUCH a greater chance of quality of life extension than he will ever gain from it - which is why practically all centres ( except for Tennessee one..."LIGHTBULB!" ) haves rules that ensure cancer (of ANY with malignant (ie metastatic) potential) victims NEVER receive such a transplant - as many people have pointed out NOT only will his severely cancer riddled chronically sick body have to deal with the immensely harsh TRAUMA of preventing tissue rejection, his resulting half dead immune system will vastly reduce his chances/longevity of survival from the original MALIGNANT cancer in the first place...goodbye medical triage hello $$$$$...DOH!
JUST as stupid/ignorant/delusional as HIS decision as the delay of URGENTLY recommended surgery to removal the initial tumour to try "alternative" therapy (no doubt why his cancer had chance to become malignant in the first place) EXCEPT this time he's completely screwed over someone else's chance of long term quality life for his own repugnant self.
Right now it does appear that SJ's tumor had spread to his liver, which is commonly the ONLY site of spread within a body.
SORRY but WISHFUL THINKING does not replace medical facts eg from one of ENDLESS CREDIBLE medical sources of info;
taken from; http://www.pancreatica.org/faq.html#anchor2193376
The sites of metastasis of islet cell tumors most commonly are the liver AND the lymph nodes in the vicinity of the pancreas.
ie This is only re the primary metastasis, given how long Jobs has had a diseased liver , cancer cells will have spread to other parts of the body by now - WHAT next - is he going to have every (major) organ transplanted or will he just find himself some poor suitable (unwilling) younger victims body to transfer his brain (assuming the cancer hasn't already spread their) to or WHAT?
As a GI medical oncologist, I can assure you that a liver transplantation is one of the options to treat a metastatic neuroendocrine cancer of the pancreas. What most people do not realize is that SJ did NOT suffer from a "normal" pancreatic cancer, but from a rare tumor called "islet cell cancer", which is associated with a much better prognosis than pancreatic cancer. These tumors unfortunately commonly metastasize (seed) into the liver - but a liver transplant can cure patients.
The WSJ story is perfectly plausible and explains some of the issues I was wondering about, e.g. the predefined set time frame of SJ's return to work.
A GI medical oncologist (failed student) MORE LIKE! You can't even name the specific type of the (original) islet cell tumour ie glucagonomas with mild diabetes (ie wasting as Jobs lost actual body tissue) presenting from the over excretion glucagon ( the ambiguous "hormonal imbalance" Jobs quoted in his CAREFULLY Apple PR prepared "speech") from metastasis at the original site (ie so MALIGNANT original tumour)
As if any such competent medical professional would quote;
but a liver transplant can cure patients
A cure for CANCER ???!!!? What next dear Dr., the world is flat?
No the only thing U R a specialist of is being on Apple's payroll spreading their FUD to burry their previous FUD etc etc...but DECEPTION always leaves such BLATANT indications as your highly revealing MAJOR GAFF!
Apple routinely mentioned an "hormonal imbalance" as reason for SJ's weight loss. Now, islet cell cancers can produce certain hormones (such as glucagon, somatostatin, vasoactive-intestinal peptide (VIP) etc) which can interfere with a normal gastrointestinal function and the way a body utilizes nutrients (carbohydrates, protein, fat). When an islet cell cancer recurs and produces liver metastases, these hormonal effects can lead to significant and rapid weight loss.
.
What!? YET MORE GAPING HOLES in your medical knowledge Dr. Apple PR employee
Aswell as the "LIVER being the ONLY site for metastasis" taking huge LIBERTY with truth we have;
When an islet cell cancer recurs and produces liver metastases, these hormonal effects can lead to significant and rapid weight loss.
These hormonal effects ??? Perhaps U need to read some accurate medical literature to make your cover more believable next time (undoubtedly) Apple wants its despicable malignancy buried.
Try; taken from; http://www.pancreatica.org/faq.html#anchor2193376
and you find ONLY ONE HORMONE, Glucagon causes
mild diabetes
ie weight loss
Totally agree!
A liver transplant to fight against pancreatic cancer's metastasis is pretty an oncologic nonsense and I guess almost any expert would discourage it.
INDEED but what else would you expect from the same clueless dope that used alternative therapy, wasting MONTHS of precious time BEFORE an URGENTLY (relating to chance of survival) recommended surgery to remove the initial neuroendocrine tumour?
INDEED but what else would you expect from the same clueless dope that used alternative therapy, wasting MONTHS of precious time BEFORE an URGENTLY (relating to chance of survival) recommended surgery to remove the initial neuroendocrine tumour?
Be careful here : this is a very common reaction in newly diagnosed cancer patients. There is a very complex reaction to this terrible news that causes many conflicting realities to emerge, based on past experiences and cultural background of the person.
1- Denial : "maybe if I change me habits it will go away".
2 - Fear of suffering : "cancer is pain ; chemo is pain ; I don't want to suffer"...
3 - Christian cultural background. Cancer = sin -> sin requires redemption -> purification of the self is required -> a drastic change of lifestyle is performed as a show of redemption. (The idea of redemption exist in most religion, and similar reasoning can be found.)
Nearly every recently diagnosed person with cancer will go through this. Some will accept to start a treatment immediately. Others need time with themselves before accepting all the harsh treatments medicine offers today. It is very easy to dismiss those people. There is no need to be angry at them: instead, we must accompany them in their process. Steve Jobs, for instance, has very strong hindu-type beliefs. We also know he is vegetarian (if not vegan). If it is true that he did not accept treatments right away, we could surmise that he needed to reconcile the terrible news with the lifestyle he had chosen probably to avoid this type of destiny. There is no need to laugh at the man : he needed to digest the news, that is all.
Now of course, if cancer treatment was efficient and offered a cure, it would be criminal to wait for someone to be "ready". But considering the success rate and the consequences of cancer treatment on quality of life, it is totally ethical to accompany a person without insisting on injecting all sorts of poison right away.
Because human psychology is often weird, someone may have been very much in denial at first, but when he finally accepts the diagnosis, he may suddenly accept or even request even the most uncertain treatment protocols, just to stay alive. This is where we may be. Although I am not a specialist in neuroendocrine tumours of the pancreas (so maybe it is after all a pretty standard procedure ?). If we are bordering on futile treatment, then of course it is not ethical to give them only because they are requested : in those care psychological help is required.