"Aspirin could dramatically cut cancer risk"

       Sarah Bosely of the Guardian writes an article about new studies that suggest aspirin, originally created as a painkiller, can reduce the potential of cancer. This statement, claimed by Professor Jack Cuzick at Queen Mary University of London and a few other researchers, came from a multitude of tests concluding that if people of ages 50 to 65 took 75 milligrams of aspirin every day for about ten years, the cases of cancer would drastically be reduced. However, I find it hard to trust his claim and fully believe that it is reliable. First of all they mainly studied on British men which does not show great reliability because there was a lack in cross-cultural traits between participants. Secondly although the article does counter claim and as great as it would be to reduce cancer cases in middle aged to older people, aspirin has several severe side effects when taken too often or mixed with other drugs such as: stomach bleeding and an increase in the potential of strokes in the brain.
       Another known benefit of aspirin is that it thins blood and therefore can decrease the risk of a heart attack. However, what risks are the scientists putting the public in if cancer reduces around the world but more people die because of sever stomach bleeding or strokes? This knowledge claim is bold and difficult to agree with because the source does not provide clear statement of experiment procedure. Yet, the author claims that this is one of the "biggest studies yet"in the field of medicine and drugs. The source, the Guardian, is a respected news site however the author Sarah Bosely, other than being health editor of the Guardian, we cannot be certain that she does not know anything about science experimentation. To further believe in this knowledge claim some evidence of research and resources would be needed to find out where she got the lead on one of the "biggest studies yet," an unproven and flimsy statement in itself. Nevertheless, the source is not bias because she provides counterclaims such as questioning the benefits versus the consequences. I do understand that my own perspective of medicine and science could be playing into my doubts and skepticism of this knowledge claim. Understanding that this is a positive development in order to help cancer patients around the world, I believe that if aspirin was developed to relieve pain when needed, it should not be used for other preventions such as the prevention of cancer. To evaluate this claim more carefully I would need more commentary on the actual procedure of this scientific finding in addition to testing it further in other countries. A problem with this claim being tested in other cultures is that the confounding variables such as smoking, pollution, obesity, genetic predisposition and other cancer influencing factors cannot be controlled in a large sample and ethical testing environment.
       I believe that the claim that aspirin can reduce cancer cases is valid because of factual, deduced information that aspirin reduces inflammation of blood which is what causes mutated cell division. However, the conclusion that people aged 50 up should take this medicine every day for 10 years is an untrustworthy and unjustified statement if the consequences may weigh out the gradual benefits. But then again this opinion could be tinted by my lack of experience dealing with cancer. I cannot know if people that are more prone to cancer should or would be more inclined to take this medication, regardless of the side-effects, because I could not have experienced the emotional input of that decision.

Sammi; Word count: 597