Post #32, and #91 might be construed as such too. There may be others.
Might be construed, as in, they don't actually say so, but that is your chosen interpretation?
As I have said in the numerous threads on Steve's health, he doesn't need to turn over any medical records, he just needs to be a bit more up-front about his situation. He could put the speculation to rest without providing any real detail. But because Steve is Steve, he thinks this isn't necessary. I think he's wrong.
Addressed in your opinion. Apparently opinions differ. HIPPA is entirely about medical privacy. Those rules are considerably more strict and less vague than the SEC rules on this matter. It's not just a matter of records. They can't even say what condition(s) or severity of condition a patient has without the patient's consent. I'm not sure they can even confirm or deny a person was a patient.
HIPPA is totally irrelevant to this situation. Nobody is asking Steve's doctors to reveal anything.
Maybe they would comply if enough stockholders demanded such reports. Maybe you can complain to the SEC. Also, you are free to invest your money wherever you like. Jobs will eventually die, he may even retire before then, it's only a matter of when. I don't think having more information necessarily helps.
The question comes up at stockholders meetings, and it also comes up in earnings conference calls. It's been the elephant in the room for a couple of years now. The point I am making is that Steve and Apple aren't being nearly as responsible to their investors as they should be. The failure to address the questions fuels speculation and fear, which is reflected in the value of investor equity. The fact that Steve and Apple have done so little to put this to rest only amplifies the fear, the fear that he's going to be unable to run Apple in the near future, and that no heir apparent is in waiting.
Perhaps "false" rumor would have been better?
arn
"Unsubstantiated" or "malicious" are the words I might have chosen.