In this article:
"“Based on a photograph or even based of a videotape of someone giving a presentation on stage, it is impossible to make an estimation of someone’s life expectancy,” says Brawley. What’s more, he says, it’s not even really possible to make those kinds of estimates after a real exam. “I can’t look at someone’s picture and immediately say they’re sick,” says Brawley."
I'd say that is a better expert opinion than anything quoted in the National Enquirer.
"Ask any 100 doctors and nurses off the record, and I'll bet they say, they are amazed he's still kicking"
Another irrelevant point. It doesn't matter what any doctors or nurses have to say. Only his. But if tabloids are going to speculate, they should choose doctors who are actually oncologists as their "experts".
Anyway, to recap:
1. Steve Jobs attended the dinner with Obama and other tech leaders, including competitor Google, as reported by Reuters:
2. The Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society stated it is not possible for the National Enquirer's "experts" to form the opinions they did based on photos or videos.
Seriously, to put it in perspective, you have two non-oncologists who have never examined Steve Jobs giving "expert" opinions.
I doubt, if this was a trial, any court of law in Canada or the U.S. would allow these individuals to give expert opinion evidence on Mr. Jobs' medical condition.
However, even if they could give their opinion, I think any court would prefer the opinion of the Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society, who is an oncologist.
I remember hearing an interview with a former tabloid editor on the radio once. He said that when a story starts to unravel itself, the tabloid's policy was to "stop asking questions".
> Seriously, to put it in perspective, you have two non-
> oncologists who have never examined Steve Jobs giving "expert"
Sounds like the Schiavo case all over again. Diagnoses via short video clip.
"Shorts need the enquirer and any other publication to try and drive this stock lower."
I think the bigger deal is not what people on message boards say, but that supposedly legitimate media outlets are quoting the Enquirer, when IMHO, the American Cancer Society quote totally discredits the Enquirer's sensationalist "6 Week" headline.
You Americans still read National Enquirer. It used to be popular in the 70's when there was no internet.
So sad that I cannot comprehend the stupidity of reading fly by night magazines.
Actually, it was the Enquirer that was first to uncover the John Edwards baby mama scandal. The main stream media was doing what is usually does, nothing useful, but the Enquirer had the truth.
Now, that said, I wouldn't ever spend a nickel on their rag, or visit their site. Usually it's "Vampire Bat Boy Resurrected at Babe Ruth wannabe" kind of stuff.
"You Americans still read National Enquirer. It used to be popular in the 70's when there was no internet."
I'm not American and don't read the Enquirer.
That said, if the reason that the stock is going down today is because people are trusting the Enquirer over the Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society, that's ridiculous.