The untimely death of Steve Jobs from pancreatic cancer at the age of 56 in October 2011 was highly publicized (Kane and Fowler, 2011; Markoff, 2011). Jobs was one of two founders of Apple computers and is credited for revolutionizing personal computing. At the time of his diagnosis in 2003, Jobs did what most cancer patients do: he made a decision on how to approach his treatment based on the best evidence available to him at the time. Jobs was diagnosed with a rare form of pancreatic cancer, called an islet cell tumor or gasteroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (GEP-NET), which is a different form of pancreatic cancer than the highly aggressive and often rapidly fatal pancreatic adenocarcinoma. GEP-NETs are slow growing tumors that have the potential to be cured surgically if the tumor is removed prior to metastasis. There are limited clinical trial data on GEP-NETs and highly effective chemotherapy agents to treat GEP-NETs have not been identified. In the face of medical uncertainty at the time of his diagnosis, Jobs still had to make a decision on how to proceed. Many journalists mentioned and even focused on Jobs’ initial decision to forego conventional treatments and instead use complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies, including acupuncture, botanicals, and dietary changes (Grady, 2011). This was chronicled in his biography and corroborated via interviews with his friends and colleagues (Isaacson, 2011). However, what many journalists failed to note is that the evidence supporting any specific conventional treatment approach (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy) for GEP-NETs comprises a slim literature, and the evidence base for use of CAM therapeutic approaches for GEP-NETs is virtually non-existent. After a delay of nine months after diagnosis, in 2004, Jobs opted for surgery. He died 7 years later. There has been widespread speculation about whether Jobs’ decision to use CAM approaches hastened his death by postponing initiation of potentially life-prolonging conventional treatments (Grady, 2011). However, the details of Jobs’ diagnosis and specific treatments received, both conventional and unconventional, have not been made public. Therefore, we cannot comment on whether or not he made the best decisions on his cancer treatment, nor can we comment on whether he would have had different outcomes had he chosen a different treatment approach. It is unknown whether Jobs’ outcomes would have been different if he had pursued surgery at the time of his diagnosis, or if had followed a specific chemotherapy protocol. And it is unknown how effective any of his acupuncture, botanical and dietary approaches may have been before or after his surgery. So, what can we learn from Steve Jobs about CAM? Jobs was a highly intelligent, extremely wealthy, and very well-connected man. He had access to the world’s best and brightest medical advisors and had no financial barriers to receiving any treatment. It can be assumed that Jobs and his physicians sought out the best available medical evidence to guide the management of his disease. Jobs, just like anyone else with his diagnosis, would have benefited from more rigorous basic science, more clinical trials with the option of participating in a trial, and more observational research examining the effects of both conventional and CAM therapies on cancer outcomes, such as studying the effects of radical dietary changes. If Jobs and his clinicians had had more information to guide his treatment, perhaps he would have made different decisions along the way that could have influenced his outcomes. Indeed, Jobs is not alone is his use of CAM therapies after a cancer diagnosis. An estimated 43–67% of US cancer patients use CAM therapies after a cancer diagnosis and the effects of many of these therapies are poorly understood (Mao et al., 2011). Individuals use CAM therapies after a cancer diagnosis for a variety of reasons: to treat cancer without the use of con