In his wildly speculative story, -- originally headlined simply "Steve Jobs Won't Come Back to Apple" (and yes, it's a bad sign when these stories keep getting new revisions, new bylines, and new headlines) -- Wired's Brian Chen quotes Dr. Alan Astrow, Director of Hematology and Oncology at the Maimonides Cancer Center, as saying "Jobs' increasingly gaunt figure between public appearances in the past year is a possible sign of active cancer." Yes, it's possible that it's active cancer. It's also possible that, as Jobs has said, it's a hormonal imbalance. Or it's a normal consequence of treatment for pancreatic cancer. Or it's that wacky new macrobiotic diet his wife put him on. All kinds of things are possible.

It's even worse when the armchair diagnosers are complete amateurs. Chen also quotes analyst Roger Kay: "Despite all the protestations, I think he has cancer. They talk about digestive this and digestive that, but...just look at the photos." Yes, although Roger Kay is not a medical professional, he does have the special ability to diagnose someone by looking at a photograph.

(Disclosure: Brian used to work here at Macworld. And I'm normally a fan of his work at Wired.)

Then there's this notion that Steve Jobs has no right to privacy. For a prime example, see Henry Blodget's column on Silicon Alley Insider. Forget the dubious assumption that company executives should be required to disclose private health matters. The thing that bugs me here is the notion that somehow Apple has to play by different rules than any other company because Jobs is a "celebrity."

But my vote for most completely whacked-out Jobs coverage of the week is from Gizmodo's Brian Lam.