This is according to publications on today's news sites, including CNN and medical blogs * It is not clear from the articles published on the subject what treatments he underwent, but one thing is clear, he wasted nine months in vain.
Steve Jobs' delay due to alternative medicine treatments cost him his life. This is according to reports that appeared today on many online news sites.
In a long and comprehensive article dealing with many aspects of Jobs' death in CNN, The progression of Jobs' illness is described.
Jobs' pancreatic tumor was discovered in October 2003. His doctors discovered that it was a tumor in the neuroendocrine pancreatic islets, a rare tumor that can be operated on. If he is operated on he has a good chance of recovery.
However, Jobs decided instead to treat his tumor with a special diet and began a long search for alternative treatments. "It's safe to say he hoped to find a solution that would avoid the need for surgery," a person familiar with the process told CNN. "What ours seemed alternative to him was normal". said.
Arthur Levinson, a director at Apple and holder of a doctorate in biochemistry, analyzed the situation before the board of directors and together with another director, Bill Campbell, they tried to convince Jobs to undergo the surgery, but Jones was stubborn. From the medical point of view, said Dr. Jeffrey Norton, director of the Department of Oncological Surgery at Stanford, there was no substitute for surgery. In the end, he was also the one who operated on Jobs on July 31, 2004, but as we all know - too late.
It is not clear from the articles published on the subject what treatments he underwent, but one thing is clear, he wasted nine months in vain.
In an article in the New Zealand Herald Harvard researcher Ramsey Amri was quoted as saying that Jobs suffered from a mild type of cancer that is not usually fatal, but it appears that he sensed his death by delaying conventional treatments in favor of alternative medicines. "Jobs chose to undergo many types of alternative treatments before returning to conventional medicine," Amri wrote in a question and answer forum popular among Silicon Valley executives. "Given the circumstances, it seems that Jobs' choice of alternative medicine ultimately led to his early death and was not bound by reality."
Dr. Martin Berman writes on the medical website MedPage Today Because without in-depth knowledge of the facts it is difficult to determine whether Jobs actually died as a result of the neglect of medical treatment, however he quotes Dr. Roderick Schwartz, an experienced cancer surgeon, who said that waiting more than a few weeks before taking action on such a rare disease "doesn't make sense because we don't know What is the growth and spread potential of this type of cancer." Berman explains.
Berman lists several examples of celebrities who decided to abandon modern medicine:
- Steve McQueen (1930-1980) was probably the first celebrity to attract worldwide attention for his efforts to cure cancer caused by asbestos poisoning through unconventional treatments in Mexico, where he also died.
- Farah Post (1947-2009) and Brett Hudson (born 1953) sought unconventional treatments for mouth and throat cancer (respectively). They even underwent treatments at the same alternative cancer clinic in Germany. Even after the cancer retreated Farrah Post lost her battle with cancer while Hudson was cleared of the cancer through chemotherapy and radiation.
- Adam Yauch, member of the band Beastie Boys (born 1964) is fighting cancer in the salivary glands. He attributed his success to supplementing conventional radiation treatments and surgery, with herbs from Tibetan doctors. Yauch's acquaintance with the Tibetan doctors came after he converted from Judaism to Buddhism. Steve Jobs, also a Buddhist, was reported to be skeptical of mainstream medicine.
59 תגובות
http://www.clalit.co.il/HE-IL/Family/parents/adhd/articles/ritalin_safe.htm?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nov9_2011
Hi Itzik
Welcome to my club
LOL
You can stop here, it's already starting to be an interpretation of an interpretation. I explained, and if it's not clear I'll explain again, but it seems to me that this is a pointless debate.
Itzik:
The news also quotes the more cautious doctor.
On the other hand - the first sentence you said in the discussion is:
"The alternative pretension is equivalent to the medical pretension. Where does the doctors have the audacity to claim that they have the ability to even assess that his death was caused by the delay and if it weren't for the delay they would have managed to save him - even if only with a high probability?"
It's not necessarily what you think - but these are your words.
That's why I said thatYour words work in the opposite direction.
Note that in the above words there is an infidelity even in the matter of reasonableness!
If you want to convince people to behave sanely, you will have to substantiate your words, something like "the doctors know better" does not work. That is precisely why it is better to make a reservation - it does not reduce the value of the criticism of the wrong decision, but on the contrary, establishes it more.
Again I am accused of encouraging opposition to medicine... strange, I actually encourage and support the conservative approach, there is no other source of information except medical science for making medical decisions, and the doctors are the ones who trust this information. The doctors I visit are the ones who allow themselves to express themselves beyond their medical authority, in my opinion, even a concrete prediction about a specific person is presumptuous (according to my mother's case), certainly when it is given in hindsight. The more cautious statement made by Dr. Berman does not support Jobs' decision to postpone the surgery, on the contrary - but for the right and proper reasons. The pretentious statements apparently stem from an advertising matter, and the press of course enjoys and encourages it.
The vast majority of the increase in life expectancy is the result of medical advances.
In fact all the cases I know of distinct progress on the subject have their origin in this kind of progress.
You are invited to read the chapter "Life expectancy throughout human history" bWikipedia chapter on life expectancy.
The cited article does not claim to be a pathologist's report.
Its purpose is to encourage people to drive sanely.
Your words work in the opposite direction.
No search required. Karl Hempel, "Philosophy of Natural Science", there is no need to go far into the book.
I was thinking exactly of Zemlvis when I talked about "a matter of luck". This pioneer - one of the first in scientific medical research - operated in the middle of the 19th century, and his recommendations were accepted only at the end (another phenomenon - perhaps unfortunate but on the other hand necessary - of science, conservatism - according to Linus Pauling and Danny Shechtman). The process we are talking about started much earlier. Just like in the other fields of science, for example - physics did not always precede technology, sometimes (thermodynamics) followed it. In our case, life expectancy has been on a consistent rise since the beginning of modern times, not just since the end of the 19th century.
Regarding Jobs - the fact is that there is a doctor who "dare" to make a reservation and formulate his words with the care I would expect from a doctor, I prefer this approach, in contrast to the pretentious doctor who gave my mother 5 years at most: 5 years passed, and... my father died, she lived 5 additional years. The doctor - he died before both of them.
Itzik:
The significant achievements in the field are by definition medical achievements.
To learn a bit about the subject, you are welcome to use the search mechanism of the science website and read all the articles in which the word Zemlweis is mentioned.
This is, of course, just an example.
Most of the diseases that caused epidemics in the ancient world have been eradicated nowadays and this only happened thanks to medicine.
I think that in the case of Steve Jobs it is an educated guess as far from charlatanism as east is from west.
The fact is that despite the waste of nine precious months, they managed to extend his life significantly and give him several more years of normal functioning after the alternative "medicine" "worked" so "well" that they finally managed to convince him to undergo surgery.
By the time he did, metastases had evidently formed making the cure much less feasible.
In retrospect, you attribute these to medicine, I doubt if even doctors would claim that. Medicine as a science began long after these developments. Many of these improvements were achieved based on really wrong assumptions, more a matter of luck, and no one then conducted an organized study that showed the improvement - we only know about it in retrospect.
Hint? There is no point in hints here, a person is a single experiment, evaluating in retrospect the chances of his recovery is completely meaningless, and if anything, it turns out 😉 that probability is not the strong point of doctors, this topic has also been studied quite a bit...
Indeed, this is not the question you and I are asking, but this is the question that is raised in the article and some claim to answer it - and some do not. I tend to believe the second, and he - answers your question, which is the only relevant one. DA you completely ignore questions of quality of life, if we assume for example that this or that treatment prolongs life to a limited extent but at the same time causes suffering during this entire period: a friend of my parents was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (without the relief provided by Jobs - the common and violent version), And in consultation with his doctors, he chose to avoid treatment (except symptomatic) precisely for this reason - because the whole purpose of the violent treatment in this case is a very modest extension of life expectancy, and with the expectation of a poor quality of life due to the treatment. Of course, not in the Holy Land, with us it is not possible as far as I know.
Itzik:
Improved nutrition and improved sanitation are among the exact same achievements of medicine in lifestyle recommendations - recommendations that you claimed not to give.
As a principle - if you do not pretend to know something then it is better not to use your ignorance as a reason that leads to some conclusion.
Regarding Jobs:
He doesn't talk about what's in between because he's not proud of it.
The fact is that the surgery - even though it was done late - kept him going for much longer than the 4 years that previous commenters talked about.
This gives a very serious hint as to the reliability of the doctors' prognosis.
Everyone dies in the end and the question is not whether he would have died even if he had undergone the operation.
The question is what was the right way to increase his life expectancy (and expectancy is a term that includes probability).
After all, no one assured us that if he had undergone the surgery in time he would not have been run over on his way out of the hospital.
...And please note that in his recorded lecture - if I understood correctly, after the surgery - he completely skips over everything that happened in between.
I do not pretend to know the reason for the increase in life expectancy in modern times, but note that for most of this period medicine was still groping in the dark, medicine as a science developed later. In my uneducated opinion, a combination of improved nutrition and improved sanitation made the main change, the main contribution of medicine to life expectancy is antibiotics (without underestimating, and hopefully we will see more similar revolutions in the future). That is - I agree that medicine nowadays is very sophisticated and has contributed to the increase in life expectancy, I disagree with your position that it is the main responsible for the higher life expectancy - it makes the difference in the more advanced stages of life, the main change, from 40 to 60 - no it did.
As far as I understood from the story, it is not what you describe: the cancer was discovered - Jobs refused surgery in favor of some alternative treatment (the author admits that he has no information about what it is, therefore it is not necessarily "alternative", but clearly against the advice of the doctors) - he agreed 9 months later . In surgical treatment of cancer, regardless of its specific type, timing is crucial - if you catch it in time, the patient may recover completely, and if not - the disease may return. Melanoma is a clear example - that's why any suspicious mole is removed even before it's obvious at all, and the biopsy is performed on it after it's removed, because before the melanoma spreads - this is exactly the procedure that leads to a complete cure, and a mild mole is often fatal. And this is where the heated debate begins, whether the delay caused his death, or whether he would have died in any case, I generally accept Dr. Berman's more modest - and realistic - view, which cannot be said except that the delay hurt the chances of recovery and nothing else - any claim beyond that is A journalistic sensation that lacks coverage, and there are doctors who cooperate with it.
Itzik Hyman:
The example you gave (deciding between chicken breast and lettuce) obscured your intention instead of clarifying it.
The fact is that when the cancer was first discovered in him they treated him and he returned to normal health for several years.
As a principle - medicine knows how to predict certain things very well and this is the reason why our life expectancy today is twice that of the Middle Ages.
Absolutely not, the discussion is about the arrogance of the doctors in their assessments that Jobs' death from the disease was due to the delay in his treatment, when in my opinion medicine does not have such a degree of predictive ability, certainly not in retrospect. Dr. Berman's words are appropriate and reasonable in this context. I have reasonable grounds to suspect that the other quotes - which lead the article - are a combination of publicity-hungry doctors (and therefore less reliable) and sensation-hungry media.
Itzik Hyman:
In other words, it doesn't belong in the discussion here.
I probably didn't explain well:
There are situations in which there is no answer, in these situations the answer cannot be conventional or alternative in its extent. These are precisely the more common situations, whether in day-to-day life (eat lettuce or chicken breast, it is very doubtful if there is clear information on the consequences unless you choose a really unusual diet) or whether in the opposite, terminal situations - if you have zero hope, you can if you want to kiss Mezuzahs, it won't hurt.
Itzik Hyman:
Except for the issue of spelling your name - I don't see any answer to your words.
Is there any situation in life (and not just an acute problem) where it seems to you that you would prefer the recommendation of an alternative doctor to that of a real doctor?
If so - please describe such a situation and explain why you would prefer the alternative.
Here is an interesting video of Jobs speaking to the graduates of Stanford University.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc
He tells three stories from his life. The third of them is the story of his illness (as he saw it then - in 2005).
Heman, one iodine.
Conventional medicine does not deal with this field at all. The scientific method does not answer every question, and sometimes the obstacle is not technical but really theoretical - not everything can be modeled in a way that will give you exact or even approximate answers. In the case of smoking, the answer is simple and clear, that is, it is quite clear that there is no benefit to smoking, only harm, but I gave the example of red wine - they "forget" to mention that alcohol is a poison in any dose. This is an example of many situations in which a single factor is isolated and the same researchers, the answer obtained is meaningless because of the interrelationships between the factors, which create a chaotic model that does not allow for prediction.
Let's start from predicting the weather reliably for more than a few days, then we will progress to reliable physiological models with a similar predictive ability (and there are many more steps on the way...). Check what are the limiting factors for models as such - it's not just calculation ability.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the case in question, as I said in acute situations conventional medicine has a clear and proven advantage.
Itzik Heyman:
The fact that conventional medicine does not yet know everything (and it does provide a number of recommendations regarding everyday life. The recommendation not to smoke is just one example) does not mean that alternative medicine has knowledge that conventional medicine does not have.
This is not true - partly because alternative medicine has no knowledge at all.
True - they will tell you what to do - but it will not be based on knowledge.
The reason is clear: the only way we have to acquire knowledge is the scientific method, and what has scientific confirmation becomes part of traditional medicine.
The host of the universe and Michael Rothschild: Pancreatic cancer is known to me as particularly deadly, and I still assume that if several different doctors and Jobs himself said so, his diagnosis was probably different from what is accepted.
Conventional medicine does not provide an answer to questions concerning everyday life - there is no doctor who can guide you in everything related to your lifestyle, there is a wide range of contradictory recommendations and it is often very clear that they are completely academic (then it was found to cause cancer in mice - let the mice worry) or self-interested (wine Red is good for the heart, it is important that it is of high quality, especially the French wines do that). On the other hand, in any case of a point failure - an acute situation - not only is it clear that only conventional medicine can provide an answer if it exists, it is clear to the extent that every alternative is mumbo jumbo.
The only problem with alternative medicine is the huge amount of treatments and different types of therapists.
As long as, contrary to western medicine, there will not be a real research approval body like the fda to prove efficacy and safety, it is difficult to say what works and what does not work in this extension application.
In contrast to Western medicine, whose major problem, at least in the current generation of drugs, is the treatment of symptoms and a complete ignorance of the mode of action of a large part of the drugs.
But when we have a body that knows whether the treatment is effective or not and safe or not, it is the best medicine.
By the way, it sounds strange to me that he decided not to operate because there is nothing in alternative medicine that can compete with the curative treatments of Western medicine.
Going on a diet or rather giving the body less junk is never a bad thing and cancer is a failure in the body but to believe that once the failure is created then to start a healthier diet is as stupid as the iPhone 4s.
Host of the Universe:
There is arrogance here - but not on the part of the doctors.
I once saw a clip of Steve Jobs in which he announced at a conference of Apple employees that doctors who examined him told him that luckily he did not suffer from typical pancreatic cancer (which is really deadly) but from a treatable one.
What arrogance of doctors if indeed the things were said.
People do not survive pancreatic cancer (5-year survival rate is only 4%!)
Whereas Jobs lived with the disease for 9 years.
I would venture to guess that the reason was a lot of money spent on his treatment, because of who he is,
And not because of conventional or alternative medicine, in this case.
An interesting source of information about this violent and deadly cancer:
http://www.themedical.co.il/Article.aspx?itemID=246
Exclamation point to the point!
indeed:
"In short and to sum up, the "unconventional" methods are treatment methods that simply "don't work" on the disease, but work on the patient (in the eyes...).
The goals of the non-conventional treatment are:
1) To cover up the stupidity of the non-conventional therapist who failed to get accepted to medical school.
2) make money.”
The alternative pretension is equivalent to the medical pretension. Where does the doctors have the audacity to claim that they have the ability to even assess that his death was caused by the delay and if it weren't for the delay they would have managed to save him - even if only with a high probability? A single doctor quoted says with due fairness "we do not know what the growth and spread potential of this type of cancer is". Just like in religion, the source of medical pretension is in the inclination of the hearts of the believers, they are the public, who want to see doctors as a kind of omniscient priests. Well, I have had a family doctor for 20 years who has not been around for a long time and I go to him especially just because he knows how to say "I don't know", it makes him more trustworthy to me.
Don't know what caused your comment to be blocked.
I made sure you were released.
It's hard for me to rely on movies - especially ones that are as long as the exile.
Serious things appear in written form.
In any case - I am not inclined to accept conspiracy theories that require thousands of people to hide the truth from the public and even sacrifice public life.
Anyway my response disappeared in the system.
Indeed, at the moment I am in a better vantage point than you.
I also saw the linked information on Wikipedia as well as the information in the movie.
"Everyone, including the American government, the FDA, the National Cancer Research Institute, and who else - plows the poor researcher's evil and is ready to sacrifice the lives of the patients for that"
After viewing the information you will get an answer not speculation.
Shlomo D:
You really show that you rely on reliable information.
That is - a collection of votes of people who you have no idea what their interests are, must be a very reliable thing!
Surely it is more reliable than the information presented on a page with a reference like, for example this:
http://openjurist.org/819/f2d/1301/united-states-v-burzynski-cancer-research-institute-r
Or this:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-19476029.html
Or this:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page7
Everyone, including the American government, the FDA, the National Cancer Research Institute, and who else - plows the poor researcher's evil (who for some reason asks for donations in the film for an unknown need - probably the exact same need for which the story is fabricated) and are ready to sacrifice the lives of the patients for this purpose.
A tinplate.
father. of love:
I have no problem being fair.
That's what I was throughout the discussion.
The question is how are you going to be fair without giving yourself any opportunity to do so.
Michael - let's be fair and agree that bringing articles and links to studies did not make an impression on you. So I'm not going to try to convince you anymore, and good luck on your way. What started the whole conversation here were links to opinion articles, which simply matched what you accept as logical and for you the fact that you accept what is scientifically agreed upon and do not accept studies that contradict or constitute a different point of view shows your reference to science no less than mine.
I will give you the right of the last word, and if not part as we do not agree 🙂
Machel
The first thing I did was read the Wikipedia entry.
The entry receives a score of 1.5 out of 5 in reliability and objectivity
By the readers of the entry (at the end of the page on the left).
So I decided to check for myself.
After watching the film (format of chronological/documentary information) it is possible to easily formulate a position on the matter
I agree with the readers of the entry.
my father
I think in this case you are wrong.
Regarding attention deficit disorder. I'm willing to put money on it that it was caused by the television.
AB of Love:
Amazon and BBC are not scientific sources to be trusted.
If you don't have the strength to do something - don't ask me to do it.
Your feelings about the ability of reasons to influence me are of no one's interest.
In addition to that - as I said - I am not a medical expert and also the fact that you allow yourself to judge the experts even though you are not an expert will not make me start arguing with you as if I were an expert.
It's an egg that requires dishonesty in advance to enter it.
What is clear is that some of your arguments have been proven to be demagogic at best (like the preference for drugs because you have to pay for them over vitamins even though you also have to pay for them)
The principle point that I have already mentioned regarding the fact that even if science suffers from the shortcomings of humans is also clear, the alternative has nothing to offer except the shortcomings of humans.
Michael
Regarding B12 - go to AMAZON and read the comments as a starting point, go to SEARCH INSIDE THE BOOK and see a bit of the book and then maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about
http://www.amazon.com/Could-Be-B12-Epidemic-Misdiagnoses/dp/1884995691
Regarding changing the diet - if they managed to boycott a cottage, why is it possible to change the diet as well.
Regarding cannabis - I brought links to research on attention disorders, and on B12. Sorry, but I don't have the time tonight to take out the list of studies on cannabis. Two years ago, I spoke with the chief scientist of a certain study that had reached a very advanced stage with a product of the cannabis plant (I cannot elaborate because I promised to maintain anonymity) and I was told in passing that their research showed that the products of cannabis were effective for certain types of cancer. And the study was stopped not because of lack of success but because of other reasons that I cannot talk about and therefore I cannot expand and give you the link to the study, but if you want you can search (PUBMED) and find what I am talking about.
The fact that I don't open Avery Gilad's film and run it to the right minute and bring you the name of the scientists and the research they did doesn't make my things incorrect, it just proves that I'm tired, and the feeling that even if I bring you studies you'll still think that what doctors say is truth carved in stone , and that any approach that deviates from the leading line of research by pharmaceutical companies for the purpose of finding a unique molecule that can be patented is nonsense.
And finally - about vaccines and proven risks that are not ready to be addressed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00b1z47/Discovery_The_Vaccine_Detectives_part_one/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00b6dt4/Discovery_The_Vaccine_Detectives_part_two/
Shlomo D:
Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski
I forgot to mention that medical cannabis is also prescribed to patients by conventional doctors in cases where it has been proven to be beneficial
Indeed, the alternative treatments like in the above film help - to the therapists' bank account.
AB of Love:
1. Not true. I myself was once instructed by a doctor to take a B12 supplement (he saw that after many years of vegetarianism, my vitamin level was still normal but close to the lowest end, so he recommended it).
Maybe you don't know - but B12 is also paid for - just like medicine.
2. To change the diet of children, you must first check their diet. This is a serious effort that must be invested in each child - an effort that will greatly reduce the number of children that can be cared for. I'm not enough of an expert on the subject, so I won't elaborate more. You're not an expert either, but you're likely to expand without knowing it.
3. Do not send me to look for the conclusions and recommendations that do not exist. If you knew about such it would be much easier for you to answer the question instead of sending me to find the things for you.
4. You just forgot to say that the research conclusions are also applied in conventional medicine.
It is clear that science is made by people and suffers from all the limitations that people have, but unlike what is not science - science has a method for self-correction while the alternative only has human limitations.
Michael
I thought I answered, but I'll try again
1) B12 - an example of a treatment that has been proven to be essential but is hardly used because it is much more profitable to sell drugs.
2) The conclusions of the study on the children with attention disorders were simple - change the diet of children as a first step, do not start with Ritalin. I know, it's not "medical treatment" like a pill, but the effects on the body and the end result of returning to homeostasis are much better, and medical treatment can also mean changing the food we eat.
3) The conclusions and recommendations exist in the study, and this is not the first study that states facts that "modern medicine" ignores because they cannot be patented. According to the film that Avery Gilad made about cannabis, the results of the medical studies done by scientists who proved the capabilities of cannabis and the complete disregard of them as a way of treatment.
4) I gave an example of a medical study where the B12 solved problems. I mentioned the data where the damage is great, and I am sure that any medical source can confirm my claims about the effect of B12 deficiency, and about the importance of B12 for the body's neurology, not just for anemia.
I claim that science is some kind of world in which not only knowledge dominates but also human and economic emotions, and that people will do somersaults in the air to ignore reality. I've known scientists who smoke even though their wonderful logical brains are capable of doing wonderful physics and math calculations that I'll never understand, and I've worked with people who refused to accept technical solutions that could solve future problems because it meant they had to change the whole way they run the field. In the same way, scientists in the field of biology and great doctors are not innocent of humanity with all that it implies - including the inability to say "we were wrong" or "maybe we will try something else".
father. of love:
Since you did not answer my words, I do not find it appropriate to answer your words.
It's hard for me to judge.
But this is a film that impressed me on the topic of alternative cancer treatment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac
A beautiful article on the question of alternative medicine:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/altmed/snake/evidence.html
To Michael
I mentioned the research done in the Netherlands. This is the name of the study:
Effects of a restricted elimination diet on the behavior of children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (INCA study): a randomized controlled trial
Here is the link to the science:
http://www.adhdenvoeding.nl/cms/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Pelsser-The-Lancet-2011-Publication-INCA-study.pdf
Those who want to read/hear an interview with the research editor, can find it here:
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/12/134456594/study-diet-may-help-adhd-kids-more-than-drugs
The success rate was 64 percent.
Why is it that those who write articles that discredit a non-standard treatment path just because the standard treatment path sometimes has very low success rates are received with love by the scientific community and those who dare to disagree about the "wisdom of the masses" are received with skepticism? We have a Nobel Prize winner who suffered from the exact same fact. I do not accept the fact that "leading" doctors know everything, and those who write articles against those who challenge their views do not only do so in the name of science, but in the name of themselves.
If it wasn't clear: I'm in favor of doctors, very much in favor of doctors and scientists. I'm just claiming that a doctor who thinks that the only way to treat serious diseases like cancer is with chemotherapy and radiation is not a good doctor, and most doctors are good technicians who don't think outside the box (full disclosure - I live in Belgium and I encounter this all the time). Today, holistic medicine is considered "not serious" while spot medicine is considered excellent, and it bothers me when I read an article that says that all that needed to be done was some standard treatment and everything would have been fine. I even think it's insulting to think that Steve Jobs had doctors like that. If there was an "anti-cancer pill" and he didn't take it, I would think he was an idiot, but I kind of give him credit for being able to think for himself. Bit by bit... 🙂
Regarding B12 - if a third of the people whose blood B12 levels are not good are not identified, then statistically we are talking about a third of the population. How much does the test cost? Very little relative to the damage of B12 deficiency. If we are talking about science, I suggest you read about what B12 deficiency causes - there is enough research on the subject.
Over the age of 50 our ability to process B12 through the gut decreases significantly, and despite the damage it can cause it really isn't routinely tested (I've had my blood work done for the past three years and I've never been given the correct tests, even though they should have tested the level as a result of the condition the medical center where I was).
B12 is not only preventive medicine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21556950
RESULTS:
In both groups, mean serum vitamin B12 increased after 30 days of treatment and was maintained up to 90 days. No adverse effects related to oral or intramuscular vitamin B12 replacements were noted. Both groups showed decreased homocysteine levels. Before treatment, 29 patients in the oral vitamin B12 group had neurological symptoms related to vitamin B12 deficiency. After oral vitamin B12 treatment, 28 patients experienced symptom relief, and 16 patients were symptom free.
I will end with what I claim - good science is great, "science" that is based on the egos of people and the interests of companies is not good. I wrote that "the claim that medicine always operates according to high principles of patient care" is a claim that emerges from reading the articles that claim that all that had to be done to save the CEO of Apple was a bit of standard treatment, and that doctors who choose the conventional way know better than doctors who decide to challenge the the system.
It is forbidden to turn to alternative treatments instead of conventional medical treatment. It's life-threatening!
It is only possible to turn to any alternative treatment at the same time as conventional treatment. He cannot harm. After all, the self-conviction of the person who goes to alternative treatment has a lot of weight in recovery. If I drink a glass of water and convince myself that it helps then it will help. Well then, if an alternative treatment does someone good at the same time as the conventional medical treatment. So rather.
But instead of conventional medical treatment it is life threatening.
By the way, AB:
"The claim that medicine always works according to high principles of patient care" was never claimed by any of the participants in the discussion here and it is not clear why you found it appropriate to refer to it.
father:
Your words are simply not true and I do not find it appropriate to argue with you.
Can you point to a treatment that has been proven to work and that medicine is not adopting?
Also the study you described that was conducted in the Netherlands (I don't know what, how professional it is and all because right now it's not important to our case) - does it have operative conclusions (like taking 60 percent of each child and changing the diet of those 60 percent of each child)?
If not, then this is not medicine at all - neither conventional nor alternative.
If the research was conducted by doctors, then it disproves your claim.
If you're talking about a study that was conducted this year, then it's even funny - when was there even an opportunity to implement any of his recommendations (if there were any) and how do you know that medicine will not adopt his recommendations (if there were any)?
Regarding B12 - again - without going into details - you are talking about preventive medicine and this is where economic considerations come into play that you did not address at all (such as the cost of blood tests, the cost of measuring the amount of B12 and the percentage of people in the population who suffer from a B12 deficiency).
It has nothing to do with alternative medicine.
Yair,
Apple does not engage in medical, agricultural, energy or other research. Apple and similar companies have R&D divisions for the purpose of developing the next generation of their product line. You could write the same thing about car manufacturers or building material manufacturers.
These companies are not governmental so the claim of misdirection of research funds is irrelevant.
To Michael and to the point
I can't believe Steve Jobs tried to remove his tumors with ear wax candles. For me, a "non-standard" treatment method is a method that is based on scientific facts that the medical establishment chooses to ignore.
The claim that alternative treatments are treatments that have not been tested at all or that have been tested and found not to be helpful, and that any treatment that is found to be helpful is adopted in the AB of Love into the lap of conventional medicine is simply not true.
Many failures are usually the result of many systems that stopped working before, but the way modern medicine treats the human body is very specific. So for example Ritalin - it is prescribed for attention disorders which is one name used to describe a large group of problems. In the Netherlands, a study was published this year that showed that over 60 percent of children who suffered from attention deficit disorder and who changed their diet, the disorders simply stopped. This is one type of "attention deficit disorder" (the study was carried out at the Institute for the Treatment of Attention Disorders in the Netherlands). There are other types (the other 40 percent) and maybe there Ritalin would help, but that's not what the medical establishment will tell you.
You can argue that this is a bad example, and that cancer is not the same thing - but you already know that stress, for example, causes biological/chemical activity that leads to a greater risk of cancer, and if you are diagnosed with cancer, the treatment will be to directly destroy the cancer cells, and not a treatment that contains an attempt to treat the problems that caused the cancer to emerge.
Again, I really don't think that drinking water blessed by someone can help anyone except for the placebo effect - although any change for the better is good. But the claim that medicine always operates according to lofty principles of patient care ignores the economic and human element.
In conclusion, I would recommend to anyone interested in knowing how one supplement can change a lot to read the book COULD IT BE B12. Search PUBMED for the effect of B12 on neurological problems, research and decide for yourself. The fact that we don't check the levels of B12 in all of us, even though a third of those who have a deficiency are not identified at all is a fact, and the fact that a deficiency causes damage is also a fact. Most doctors do not know the facts about B12 at all and this is a sad fact. Will this change in a decade? Not sure, the comprehensive research on B12 and the lack of recognition of 30 percent of the population was done if I'm not mistaken already over 20 years ago, and still no one talks about it, or checks it.
Stupid people think that medical treatments are all based on an understanding of the entire treatment process.
They don't understand that in medicine what matters first is that the treatment works more than it is harmful and it doesn't matter what the reason for the success of the treatment is (experiments test the success of a treatment and not the reasons for the success of a treatment).
Those stupid people in their stupidity conclude that there are treatments that work, but that medicine does not accept them as a treatment because the doctors could not understand how they work. The fools call all these methods "unconventional medicine".
But the truth is that in terms of medicine, any treatment if it worked better than the existing treatments would be immediately adopted as a treatment method by medicine.
In short and to sum up, the "unconventional" methods are treatment methods that simply "do not work" on the disease, but work on the patient (in the eyes...).
The goals of the non-conventional treatment are:
1) To cover up the stupidity of the non-conventional therapist who failed to get accepted to medical school.
2) Make money.
father.:
After Elef and Beit comes Gimel and Gimel says that in order to understand the meaning of the treatment, a scientific study must be carried out that will confirm or refute its positive effect.
All alternative treatments are, by definition, treatments that have either not been tested at all or have been tested and found to be ineffective.
Any treatment that is found to be beneficial is adopted in the AB of Love into the bosom of conventional medicine
I almost forgot - before doctors come and make claims against alternative treatment, maybe we should all talk about the survival rates with the usual treatment and the percentages of recovery from cancer with the usual treatment. Science based on radiotherapy and chemotherapy brings success, but not always, and in my opinion, other treatment methods are invalid without getting to know the patient's medical file in depth, which is exactly what real science is not supposed to do.
father.
Your claim is that modern medicine is based on science, and alternative medicine is based on unfounded assumptions. What you forget to mention is the fact that scientists are people, and they sometimes tend to ignore what is uncomfortable for them (according to the recent Nobel Prize winner).
Here are some examples of what "modern medicine" ignores:
1) Cannabis and its positive effects on cancer
2) Vitamin B12 deficiency as one of the significant causes of many of our problems
3) Chemical imbalance in the body as a result of food sensitivity reactions, and an attempt to resolve the symptoms of that imbalance with medication.
I could go on, but I think you get my point. In the end, Jobs lived much longer than he should have lived according to modern medicine, and to mention those who died without mentioning other facts like the fact that Steve McQueen was a heavy smoker and no "modern" medicine even today would have helped him is a sin against the scientific truth.
In the hope that we will start an open dialogue on the subject
father. of love
Brussels, Belgium.
It is unpleasant to point out, but it is possible that this whole wave of toy electronic toys that has swept the world in recent years (and most of it, of course, "thanks" to the late Mr. Jobs) has created a delay in developments in much more important but slightly less sexy scientific fields. Examples: energy, agriculture, food and medicine. Now some "applist" will come and tell me that it's not true and it's not like that and it violates it and there is a win-win situation, etc., etc. But I can't be convinced, in my opinion engaging in such obsessive nonsense cannot help but claim its price in public resources at the end of the day. And it's a pity.
He was afraid of surgery