http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/06/aspirin-could-dramtically-cut-cancer-risk-say-scientists-biggest-study-yet
In a science article on The Guardian, Sarah Boseley reports about a
claim proven by the “biggest study yet” that suggests that an aspirin a day can
severely reduce chances of getting and dying from “common cancers”. Professor
Jack Cuzick, along with his research team, from the centre of cancer prevention
at Queen Mary University of London made this claim, concluding that the pill,
originally developed as a painkiller, should be taken regularly by adults
between the ages of 50 and 65. This claim has a condition, however, which already
begins to make it skeptical. In order for an adult to have the full benefits of
the drug, they would have to take it for 5 to 10 years every single day. This
time frame makes the claim almost seem premature; after all, how many people
have actually taken part in the study for 10 years? Other questions come to
mind as well in regards to how one can prove that it is a drug that is
preventing death, and not simply that the person is healthy. Before even
considering the justifications and explanations of the claim, however, it is
important to identify the fallacy in the title of the article. What makes Jack
Cuzick’s research the biggest study yet? What value can his research actually be
given, and what credibility does the author of the article have to give the
study such praise?
In relation to the 5 to 10 year timeframe, the article does not
reference any research conducted to test how the body adapts to the drug. In
such a long period of time, it is possible that the body neutralizes the effects
of the pill, which is a factor that must be evaluated when thinking of the
long-term effects of taking the daily pill. In an attempt to validate the claim
by showing counterpoints, the article gives light to another factor that makes
statement harder to digest, though in a sense stronger. Aspirin has severe side
effects, such as stomach bleeds and increase in the risk of worsening a
hemorrhagic stroke, and while the effects have been named, they have not been
well evaluated. The article states that Cuzick’s research team concluded that
the benefits of the drug outweigh the risks, how so? Though it may come into
question how aspirins can really be considered that beneficial to the public if
they increase the chances of fatality due to their side effects, the
counterpoint gives the claim more validity. The clear positive and negative
aspects, though obviously the positive are shown more, allow for evaluation to
be less bias and one-sided.
I believe that the claim is valid because research has backed it up
and the research team has presented counterpoints, however it cannot yet be considered
accurate. In order for the claim to be accurate, the procedure of the British study
would have to be evaluated, and ideally a global study would have to be conducted
in order to prove that the pill can work in any nature, regardless of
countries’ customs and people’s distinct eating and sleeping habits. The
article claims that there are two theories as to how aspirin prevents cancer,
but these theories are based on common treatment side effects of the pill, such
as because it treats inflammation and thins blood, rather than based on human
clinical trials. It seems like the research is only evaluating the positive
effects of aspirin, not necessarily the effect of the drug on people, so in order
for these theories, and the claim as a whole, to have any validity, clinical
trials would have to be done in immense groups of people of all genders, races
and different living habits.
Word count: 615
This article is very interesting and shows promising cures to cancer, however, it has so many loops and holes to the arguments that make it less valid. First of all, the cure and study only becomes certain if someone shows they have taken aspirin for 5 to 10 years and have actually been cured from cancer. Another question that came into mind is whether or not you have to have been diagnosed with cancer or have to be taking aspirin before even having cancer. If so, is it worth it to go through the risks if you may not even have cancer in the future? And if you have to take aspirin once you have already been diagnosed, are the effects and chances of getting better dependent on what stage of cancer you are at? I don't think this claim is valid yet, because the study is so recent. Once someone has been through the study and has been through a positive result, the claim will gain a lot more validity. Or if the study doesn't work, doctors can use that as a way to improve even more cures. Lastly, the one thing that strikes me the most is if the side effects of aspirin are worth it in comparison to the side effects of a usual cancer treatment given that both treatments have uncertain results. Like so many studies, each person reacts to treatment differently and a cure can only become recognized and be used if a lot of people have found it a successful treatment. That's what makes this study so challenging because people have to have the courage to try it out and prove it right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe logic used in this argument deconstruction is valid and practical. I think your observations on matters such as customs and race possibly changing the effects of the drug on certain people is interesting and I like the fact that you pointed out the faults in the research and the claims the researchers have done. You challenged the claim in a very objective way and I feel like it is complete. However, you could also approach this challenge by evaluating the source's credibility, such as taking a look at past studies done by the same research group or institution.
ReplyDelete