That number seems to be way off.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/05/the-pancreatic-cancer-that-killed-steve-jobs/
"Pancreatic cancer is one of the faster spreading cancers; only about 4% of patients can expect to survive five years after their diagnosis. Each year, about 44,000 new cases are diagnosed in the U.S., and 37,000 people die of the disease."
If you don't think someone with billions of dollars has a higher than average chance of survival... I mean c'mon.
And I'd say even with the more lethal of the potential diagnoses, a multi-billionaire would be in the top-most of top brackets for potential to survive.4% to 90% is a big difference.
And I'd say even with the more lethal of the potential diagnoses, a multi-billionaire would be in the top-most of top brackets for potential to survive.
Healthcare, when you can afford all of it, can do incredible things.
I'm fully in agreement with you on this.In the end that doesn't really matter though. Jobs had the type of pancreatic cancer that is curable, he declined treatment to cure it because he thought eating a magical diet would cure him instead, and this belief in magical diets likely killed him. Amused's description was right and attempting to conflate Jobs' very treatable cancer with the extremely deadly type of pancreatic cancer that's more common is silliness.
I doubt anyone disagrees that for almost any type of cancer a billionaire's chances/length of survival are better than some regular schlub's but in this case it looks like even a regular schlub would have most likely pulled through okay, so long as they accepted real science and not anti-science nonsense.
No, his number was right. There are two main types of pancreatic cancer, one is very treatable and one is a near-certain death sentence. Jobs had the treatable kind but he declined to act accordingly because he believed in pseudoscientific nonsense.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Apple-s-Jobs-has-cancerous-tumor-removed-He-ll-2736823.php
And I'd say even with the more lethal of the potential diagnoses, a multi-billionaire would be in the top-most of top brackets for potential to survive.
Healthcare, when you can afford all of it, can do incredible things.
Nice double-down from the dumbnuts.
https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/islet-cell-tumor/statistics
"However, the survival rate depends on a variety of factors, including whether the tumor can be removed using surgery. If a tumor is localized and can be removed, the 5-year survival rate is about 55%. If a tumor cannot be removed, the 5-year survival rate is about 15%. "
So at best it looks like 55%. Far better than 4%, but not close to 90%
Steve Jobs lived about eight years with that cancer despite pursuing stupid treatments. People with the other, 'normal' type of pancreatic cancer typically live a matter of months. Your attempt to conflate the two was wrong and it's okay to admit you got it wrong.
I'm trying to figure out if this is sarcasm or not. Are you suggesting that gender issues, religious issues, immigration issues, racism issues, and global warming issues aren't important? What do you think is important?
Oh, for sure I got the two wrong. I figured 90% was too high, did a quick search and then look at the wrong rate. Even still, his rate was not 90%. I was not disagreeing with the idea it was stupid of him not to do real treatment sooner. His number was not right, its just that my number was also wrong.
So now that I have admitted I was wrong, do you want to admit you were wrong about his number being right?
His point was that Jobs' cancer was very treatable and by instead subscribing to pseudoscience he signed his own death warrant. That point is correct. Attempting to dispute the exact percentages is not only pointless, in the end his percentage was closer than yours.
There's no need to descend into pointless pedantry. Amused was right.
So when I said that the number seemed off, and nothing else that makes me wrong. When you say he was right, and you know that the number is wrong which is the only thing I disagreed with, you are not wrong.
Got it.
Haha, I totally pegged your descent into pointless pedantry. Why do you always do this?
Amused said that Jobs decided to forego lifesaving treatment and instead chose pseudoscientific bullshit that was not based in science and instead virtually ensured his death. While the case for regular treatment would be stronger had the survival rate been 90% vs 55%, but in either case when compared to the route Jobs took it was the only rational choice. If Jobs' survival rate had been as low as 4% as you attempted to claim then it would be a very reasonable argument to make that Jobs was not harmed by his embrace of pseudoscience, considering death was virtually assured either way. ie: Amused would have been wrong.
So not only were the numbers you cited wildly wrong and in fact were further from the true number than Amused's were, had they been correct they would have categorically changed what would be considered rational behavior by Jobs. In the end, the 'true number' would lead any rational actor to exactly the course Amused stated would be wise, so in every non-pedantic way that matters, he was right.
You aren't being picked on here, you're just defending something that's dumb to defend. Just say 'Amused was right and I was wrong' and be done with it.
Its not a decent. I literally was confused because what I remembered was much lower. So when I saw 90+% I said I was not sure that was true. So I did a quick search and found a Time article that said it was 4%. I assumed that Time would have done the research, and that was wrong and I did not verify. That said, the only thing I disagreed with was the number. If you want to believe something other than that I cant and wont try to stop you.
You can be into pegging all you like, but all I said was that I thought the number was off.
Great, so we both agree that Amused's fundamental point was correct. ie: this is a pointless, pedantic discussion.
Yes, we agree on that. Which then leads me to ask why you think it was about anything other than just the number? All I said was that I did not believe 90+% was right, and then linked the Time article and the rate it gave. So where did you get it into your mind that I did anything else? You seem real pissy about me questioning someone's number.
Because:
1) if you aren't questioning Amused's conclusion then the exact number is irrelevant.
2) the number you cited, if accurate, would lead most reasonable people to conclude that Amused's conclusion was wrong as you can hardly say Jobs denied himself life by not choosing the path with a 4% survival rate. Since that seems to be what you are claiming was your thought process was though, please explain.
3) if you are going to say that you weren't addressing his argument at all and were merely citing cancer statistics then we're back to pedantic and pointless.
For someone who threw out a barb about pegging minutes ago, you sure are scrambling to find some kind of high ground.If you believe me questioning the number is pedantic, then so be it. Why you are so emotionally charged about something pedantic is strange to me, but to each his own I suppose. Seems you are loaded for bear and found a mouse and fired anyway. Hope your day gets better than what it is now.
For someone who threw out a barb about pegging minutes ago, you sure are scrambling to find some kind of high ground.
You're called out as a pedant a lot. Maybe that should give you pause and cause to reflect. It's usually very ego-driven. Might not be the case with you, but really only you and your therapist can say.
If you believe me questioning the number is pedantic, then so be it.
Why you are so emotionally charged about something pedantic is strange to me, but to each his own I suppose. Seems you are loaded for bear and found a mouse and fired anyway. Hope your day gets better than what it is now.
The definition of a pedant is someone who is excessively concerned with minor details. Trying to correct someone about the exact survival rate for a cancer while not disagreeing with the actual point is pretty much the dictionary definition of pedantry.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pedant
This dodge where you constantly claim someone is only criticizing you because of some sort of emotional involvement as opposed to your own bad arguments is tiresome. I hope you're better able to accept criticism in the future instead of trying to convince yourself that your faults are really someone else's.
If you think I do it excessively then fine I guess. Again, seems rather weird to be so upset by it. I have admitted to everything so not sure why you care so much, but ill keep responding most likely.
Good news, I'm not upset by it!
As to why I 'care so much', I don't, but it's pretty amusing that you would complain about someone correcting bad scientific information in a thread about the dangers of bad scientific information, haha.