As was to be expected, it didn’t take Mike Adams long to inform the world of the cause of Steve Job’s death. It was of course, as it always is, conventional cancer treatments – chemotherapy and radiation in particular – and not cancer, for in Mike Adams’s world-of-miracles-that-never-happen, there is no such thing as dying from cancer.
Adams claims the various chemotherapy and radiation treatments Jobs underwent, both in the USA and abroad, brought about his death, implying that had he not done this, he would most certainly have been alive and healthy to this day. Curiously though, what Adams fails to mention is that Jobs, after he was first diagnosed with a rare form of pancreatic cancer, decided to forgo conventional treatment and tried to cure his cancer with an alternative food regime. Apparently the results were dissappointing, for after about nine months of alternative therapy he had his tumour surgically removed. Outlook after surgery can be quite good, provided the tumour is removed before it has had a chance to spread to other organs.
We don’t know whether the delay in standard treatment caused the cancer to spread; it may have, but then again, it may not have. What we do know is that Jobs survived for almost eight years after his diagnosis, which, to all intents and purposes, is impressive when it comes to pancreatic cancer, and that he did this with the help of standard cancer treatments.
Steve Jobs died on Wednesday, October 5 2011, at the age of 56
This was typed on an Apple MacBook – the best computer I ever had.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Psiram/Esowatch
Anyone who had not had cancer has NO right to judge. It is every soul’s right to seek their own treatment in their own time. We have no choices when coming into this world but we do do have the right to choose our paths before leaving this world. I didn’t realize Steve delayed surgery for 9 months. That was his right and I would never criticize him for it.
I love your blog Beatis, thank you for letting me vent.
He chose to delay his surgery. That was unwise. What he ‘alternatively’ did in the meantime isn’t even relevant, as is the question if it is ‘every soul’s right to seek their own treatment’. It would only be more sad if that ‘treament’ was based on an alternative food regime.
Yes, everybody “has the right”, but that right only has meaning if the person exercising it *knows* what he or she is doing. Obviously Steve Jobs did *not* want to die. This means that he was swindled by his own ignorance into following a treatment known not to work. That is not ‘choice’ but arbitrariness.
The millions of deaths related to cancer are enough proof that conventional methods DO. NOT. WORK. The alternative treatments that do deliver results are ridiculed and ignored. Cannabis is the cure, it is and it has always been, we have been given this plant by mother nature to use it, yet when you do you are arrested and put in jail. The results are there, all that is left is for people to start realizing that perhaps we need to do more research into this, and that people who do want to use it (for whatever reason) should be allowed to instead of being limited to a few treatments that have shown time and time again that they don’t work.
If you are going to dismiss this, then please answer the following; why can I TRY to use chemotherapy and if it fails I will die, but I CAN’T TRY cannabis to see if it works? It’s the same damn thing, it’s my life, if I want to try it I should be allowed to.
I think one of the problems is, that we don’t have many follow studies, giving systematic data on what happens when people forgo conventional treatment and go for alternative therapy instead.
The alties (who really should do those studies) are really not interested in doing them (who needs followup studies when you can produce testimonials?).
I am aware of these two studies concerning breast cancer:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16978951
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21225354
They show that the risk of progression/death significantly increases – most notably in those who refuse surgery, but also in those who refuse additional radio-chemotherapy.
@S.D.
Cannabinoids as a treatment for cancer are widely researched, but it is absolutely not true that it is a cancer cure-all, as is claimed in alt-med circles. There is as yet no convincing scientific evidence that cannabis or cannabis oil can successfully treat cancer, so forgoing standard treatments in favour of cannabis would not be a wise decision.
@jli
Thanks, I’ll devote a post to this shortly.
They are indeed. It works on cell lines in a dish, and in studies using mouse models a 50% reduction in tumor size has been reported.
Cancer is a collective term for approximately 200 different diseases. Every cell type in your body can (in principle) develop into its own type of cancer. On top of that individual cancer cells in every cancer are also different from one another. So a compound that may damage one cancer cell may do nothing another cancer cell. This is how resistance to chemotherapy develops. The sensitive cells are mopped up leaving the rest behind.
In a cancer cell line, all the cancer cells are identical. This is one reason why you can’t deduce from a cell line study that it will work in patients. And even in more realistic situations where you treat rats/mice that have been given cancer, you can’t be sure that the effect you observe automatically translates into an effect on human cancers.
A comparison of drug performance in mouse models with subsequent clinical trials shows that drugs which reduce tumor bulk by less than 60% (Cannabinoids reduced cancer size by only 50%) do not show efficacy in human trials: http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v84/n10/pdf/6691796a.pdf
So from a taxpayers (And of cause all present and future patients) view, research funds are better spent otherwise. That is not the same as saying that research into cannabinoids should not be carried out (and it is as already mentioned). But it is not likely to be the magic bullet we all wish for. The evidence shows that it shouldn’t have high priority.
It’s better than that. Most alternologists claim that their methods only work when you believe in them. That means their methods never fail, for when they do, it was the patients fault for not believing hard enough.
Yes, the patient invariably loses all.
Other quacks
incredible bastardswith their opinion:Dr. Joseph Mercola and Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez on Steve Jobs
Ah yes, Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, of the “Gonzalez Regimen” for cancer.
Cannibas is good when a patient is on Chemo/Radiation and losing their desire to eat. Personally I know 2 people who were dedicated cannibas smokers and one has Leukemia and the other died of lung cancer.
My question is what does Chemo/ Radiation do to a human body? I’ve always heard it causes cancer. My Dad 2 weeks after his Chemotherapy. My belief is he would have lived longer and less sick if he had passed on the Chemo.
Also, I would like to see a study done on very high doses of vitamin C given introveiniously. I’ve heard about some good results, but its too cheap for the medical industry, they can’t make enough money off of vitamin C.
All the millions of dollars given to the cancer foundation over many years and yet … no cure, but we can put a man on the moon.
Cheryl:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/category/cancer-cures/page/2/
Why haven’t we cured cancer yet?
Why haven’t we cured cancer yet?
If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we cure cancer?
If we can harness the atom, why can’t we cure cancer?
How many times have you heard these questions, or variants thereof? How many times have you asked this question yourself?
Orac on the end:
Cheryl:
I’m sorry to hear about your Dad, but what do you believe cancer does without medical treatment?
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/chemotherapy-versus-death-from-cancer/
Chemotherapy versus death from cancer
quote:
quote:
Here is s summary of a phase II study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16570523
In the full paper it says that none of the 24 patients responded (and only one had stable disease).
The pharmaceutical companies don’t run the oncology departments. The oncology departments do not have unlimited budgets. If there were cheap and effective treatments they would be using them. And they are certainly not afraid to do studies on promising ideas.
As already mentioned in the links provided by Wilma, going to the moon is easy peasy in comaparison to finding a single efficient harmless cure of all cancers. Basically you only need sufficient propulsion to get on the way to the moon.
Cancer is a collective term for approximately 200 different diseases. Every cell type in your body can (in principle) develop into its own type of cancer. On top of that individual cancer cells in every cancer are also different from one another. So it is not all that surprising that we don’t have, and most likely won’t find, a single cure for all cancers.
jli:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/vitamin-c-strikes-out-again/
Vitamin C strikes (out) again
I didn’t think I’d be revisiting this topic again so soon. After all, I wrote one of my characteristic magnum opuses (opi?) less than two months ago, when I asked whether a recent animal study had vindicated Linus Pauling’s belief that high dose vitamin C is a highly effective cancer treatment. After that tsunami of verbiage that can only be exceeded by my fellow blogger Dr. Atwood when he’s on a roll doing a multipart deconstruction of some woo or other, I thought it would be best to give it a rest for a while. I guess less than two months will have to be enough.
The reason struck me as I was perusing the very latest issue of…..
Updates from David Gorski/Orac:
Steve Jobs’ cancer and pushing the limits of science-based medicine
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-death-of-steve-jobs/
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/10/nicholas_gonzalez_on_steve_jobs_if_only.php#more
Nicholas Gonzalez on Steve Jobs: If only he had come to see me…
quote:
On the end:
It is only right to feel compassion for Steve Jobs, no matter what one thinks of his decisions, and it is only fair to withhold judgment when facts are scarce.
Orac’s commentary on this subject has been both humane and measured, and deserves to be quoted.
As to the alternatives, I don’t think I could ever smoke enough dope to take Joseph Mercola seriously.
Just sayin’.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/20/60minutes/main20123269.shtml?tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel
Biographer: Jobs refused early and potentially life-saving surgery
(CBS News) Apple CEO Steve Jobs refused to allow surgeons to perform what could have been life-saving surgery on his pancreatic cancer, says his biographer Walter Isaacson. In one of his deepest discussions with him, Isaacson says Jobs told him he regretted his decision to try alternative therapies and said he put off the operation because it was too invasive.
quote:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/10/did_steve_jobs_flirtation_with_alternative_medicine.php
Did Steve Jobs’ flirtation with alternative medicine kill him? (update)
A couple of weeks ago, in the immediate aftermath of Steve Jobs’ death, I took issue with the claims of a skeptic that “alternative medicine killed Steve Jobs.” At the time, I pointed out that, although it was very clear that Steve Jobs did himself no favors by delaying his initial surgery for nine months after his initial diagnosis, we do not have sufficient information to know what his clinical situation was and therefore how much, if at all, he decreased his odds of survival by not undergoing surgery expeditiously. To recap:……
quote:
On the end: