Could Steve Jobs have lived had he simply opted for traditional cancer treatment?

While browsing through Quora yesterday, I came across a question titled "Why did Steve Jobs choose not to effectively treat his cancer?" As someone who was deeply saddened by the death of Steve Jobs, I stopped and clicked to give it a read. If you're unfamiliar, Quora is a site that lets anyone ask a question, and anyone else can answer those questions. It works pretty well. The best answers get voted up by the community. As of this writing, there's an answer that has over 500 votes, written by Ramzi Amri, a surgical oncologist and Harvard medical faculty member. And it's chilling to read.

In a nutshell, Amri states that in his expert opinion, had Steve Jobs chosen to treat his pancreatic cancer using traditional methods from the get-go, he would likely have made a full recovery due to the type of cancer he had. Instead, Steve decided to undergo all sorts of alternative treatment options before opting for conventional medicine, and "it seems sound to assume that Mr. Jobs' choice for alternative medicine could have led to an unnecessary early death."

The post goes on to explain, in remarkably undertandable detail, the type of cancer that Jobs had, how it could have been treated, and why it would likely have been a success. It also talks about what happened instead due to Steve waiting and putting off traditional treatment.

Now, we aren't doctors (nor do we play them on TV,) but if true, we can say that it's a damn shame that the reason for the loss of Steve Jobs at the early age of 56 may have been avoided simply by making the decision to go with the traditional (highly successful) treatment for his condition. Of course, how we are all taken care of is our own personal choice, a choice that Steve himself had as well, but that makes it no less difficult to fathom.