These arguments are from an anonymous internet source. However, the claims made are backed by studies done at the University of Alberta. Both the link to the argument and the link to the studies can be found below.
Argument 1:
P1: Chemotherapy is effective in 2% of cancer patients.
P2: Dichloroacetic Acid is effective in 80% of cancer patients.
C: Dichloroacetic Acid is more effective than Chemotherapy.
Argument 2:
P1: Chemotherapy and subsequent treatments add approx. $1 trillion to our economy each year.
P2: Dichloroacetic Acid cannot be patented and is therefore not profitable.
P3: Running trials on Dichloroacetic acid would cost approx. $1 billion.
[Implied Premise 3: Pharmaceutical Companies, as companies, are concerned with profits.]
[Implied Premise 4: Dichloroacetic Acid is more effective than Chemotherapy (see above).]
C: Dichloroacetic Acid, although more effective than Chemotherapy, is not available in America because Pharmaceutical companies intentionally withhold better treatment options due to the potential loss of revenue.
What do you think of this argument? Is it simply that they are that greedy, or could there be other factors at work here that the author is skipping over to make his point?
Argument
Study
Nice one. You might reformulate the conclusion to confine itself more closely to the premises as stated, and watch out for the possibility that you are simply charting an explanation for the unavailability of the substance.
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of arguments nestled in here. You might be able to tease out a strong induction for some such conclusion as that we ought to make the substance available, but of course a huge problem with random internet sources is that evaluating the truth of the premises -- to test for cogency -- would mean starting your research from scratch. We would need the published, peer-review studies on which those rather remarkable claims of 80% cure rates(!) are based.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was initially upset by reading this argument, but after thinking about the possibilities for a moment, I have several questions that I would like answered.
ReplyDelete1. Why isn't there more bad PR directed at the companies for this?
2. What about non-profit organizations, why aren't they jumping on this?
3. What about other countries with less profit driven organizations, why aren't they starting clinical trials?
I think that a published review of the studies as well as answers to these and more questions are needed before one can take this anonymous author too seriously.