This is absolutely incorrect, he had islet cell neuroendocrine cancer, which is a much less common form of pancreatic cancer. "Highly curable pancreatic cancer" is a totally ludicrous statement.
The prognosis of these type of tumor is highly variable and he lived a pretty long time with it regardless.
He did not 'disregard "the medical elite" and went on an all-fruit diet', he had the tumor removed[0] nearly 20 years ago, and only after years of the most advanced medical treatments in private did he finally die. Steve Jobs lived for seven years after the tumor was removed, meaning he exceeded the 5-year survival rate.
Sadly, if somebody had stage 4 pancreatic cancer in the year 2011, the only cure for the disorder that will follow their untimely passing would be to soberly arrange ones affairs and express their humanity to everyone they have ever cared about.
The "highly curable" is relative to other types of cancer.
While Jobs did undergo surgery, he waited 9 months and didn't get surgery until after the cancer had spread. I don't see amy credible medical claims that this dis not have an impact on his survival.
> But Jobs refused surgery after diagnosis and for nine months after, favoring instead dietary treatments and other alternative methods...By the time Jobs finally opted for surgery, the cancer had spread. [0]
This is at the very least a reasonable description of the actual events.
But even now that we have acknowledged "highly curable" to be relative to other types of cancer, pancreatic cancer being among the most sinister and deadly, I take great issue with the notion of highly curable pancreatic cancer.
By the time Jobs finally opted for surgery, the cancer had spread. He had an under-the-radar liver transplant and began putting a lot of energy into researching the most sophisticated experimental methods, making a complete about-face from how he began his treatment years before.
According to the New York Times, Jobs was one of the few people in the world to have his genome sequenced. Collaborating researchers at several institutions sequenced his DNA in order to develop a treatment that would target his specifically mutated cell pathways. He went for an experimental treatment in Switzerland in 2009, which involves using a radioactive isotope to attack the faulty hormone-producing cells of the body.[0]
This story is so much more about anger, denial, bargaining and the grieving process than it is about an (admittedly and certainly) aloof and incredibly powerful figure who was flagrant in the face of medical authority.
A previous romantic partner of mine's father was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and made startlingly similar choices against the behest of his entire family and everyone he knew. He was surely not an aloof billionaire who ate nothing but fruit, he was a very pragmatic union carpenter who took great pains to manage his health.
I know you did not make a claim like this, but I personally don't find it at all unthinkable for a somebody to make this sort of choice when faced with this diagnosis.
Fair enough. A (probably weighted average) prior on his pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor puts the 5 year survival rate at 54% instead of 9%. [1] It appears there are more pancreatic NET cases in the least favorable, "distant" SEER classification.
Nevertheless, there can be more factors at play than distrust of the medical community. Some people may want to live out the rest of their lives free from the harsh side effects of chemotherapy, for example. I wouldn't use his cancer treatment decisions to argue that tech elites make bad choices in the face of information, to bring us back to the broader discussion.
I would hesitate to say your prominent tech billionaire died because of diet choices.