Debate Over Jobs' Loss
This is clearly an awkward subject to bring up, but with the obscene prevalence of cancer it is important we talk about it. A debate has arisen as to whether Steve Jobs has to die when he did.
It all started with a 2008 article in Fortune magazine stating that Steve Jobs spent the first nine months after diagnosis with a pancreatic tumor and used alternative methods to treat it. Later he had surgery but reportedly eschewed chemo and radiation.
Some see the Fortune piece as speculation, but I worked at the magazine as a college senior and the fact checking is incredibly rigorous.
Ramzi Amri, a Harvard cancer researcher, believes Jobs would still be alive if he focused from the start on what has been proven to work, and that he suffered from a less serious form of pancreatic cancer. In fact, it wasn't truly pancreatic cancer, it just happened to originate in that organ.
"While Mr. Jobs was trying all sorts of alternative mumbo-jumbo I won't even bother to go through as their failure is now sadly irrefutably proven, his tumor grew, and grew, and grew...," said Amri.
On the other hand, an alternative medicine advocate claims it was western medicine that killed Jobs and he would have lived several more decades without traditional treatments. That's according to Dorothy M. Neddermeyer, who calls heself "PhD, Metaphysician -- Certified Hypnosis Practitioner, Author and Speaker." Busy Gal.
She further argues that emotional stresses such as being adopted, building the first PC and being fired from Apple in 1985 may have sown the seeds for his cancer.
Is it fair for Amri to speculate? Does Neddermeyer see something most of us don't or is she just a nut job?
Let the sparks fly at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/18/2011 at 1:18 PM