Compare & Contrast Essay

OUTLINE 

I.   Intro – Talk about search engines, and introduce Google's and Yahoo's.

II.  Body

     A)Yahoo & Google (Appearance)

     B)Yahoo & Google (Functionality)

     C)Yahoo & Google (Accuracy)

III.Conclusion – Paraphrasing, talk about which one's best for what.

Compare & Contrast Essay

The Internet is a growing source of information that is becoming a standard in research. The places in which to look for information seem to be limitless, and the search engines that make it easy to find it come and go with as much frequency as that of teenage trends; one day they are the most popular, and the next one they have disappeared. However, two search engines have become prevalent in the fight to come out on top; Google and Yahoo. Following we will be comparing and contrasting both search engines according to their appearance, their functionality, and finally their accuracy.

Overall both companies offer the same main feature; a field that enables you to search for information from the World Wide Web. There are, however, some significant differences within both websites. Yahoo´s user interface seems to always be plagued with information. Although its search field is placed on top of the page, the rest of the content distracts away from its main purpose, which should focus on the search engine. Google on the other hand provides a very clean and friendly interface. The features that make up the website are focused on its search field, which is aligned right at the middle of the web page, and there is no additional text or images to take attention away from its engine. So while Yahoo offers more features on its website they can be very distracting, and while Google focuses on its main objective, it does not offer much more than a search field. In the end it all depends on the purpose at hand and the user´s preference.

As far as functionality both companies offer many features that range from researching, to offering news from all over the world, to providing email services among other things. Yahoo's many links within their main website are supposed to make it easier to find these features but, because of the vast amount of information being displayed at once, it instead becomes a confusing and sometimes tedious task. Google goes to the other extreme as it is often hard to find the features they offer, features that not many people know even exist, and this is due to the simplistic approach they took at building their website. There are even many more features you cannot gain access to until you type in the full web address for it, or ironically enough, until you search for it using their search engine. Either way, it takes the user time to familiarize with one or the other, to then decide which company´s features are best suited for the needs at hand.

Regardless of the number of elements they may have, in the end they are both search engines sharing the same purpose, and so it all comes down to how good a job they do. After typing up “compare and contrast essays” to research information for this composition, Yahoo´s search results gave me a list of websites offering free sample compare and contrast essays already written, as well as a whole bunch of advertisements for companies specialized on writing professional essays at a certain cost. Clicking on these links proved them to be hooks, nothing but false advertisements aimed at getting people to buy their service, as well as to purchase other products absolutely unrelated to the topic at hand. Whereas typing in the same term on Google's search engine turned up many links about what a compare and contrast essay was, about its structure, and many tutorials on how to write one correctly. Clicking on these links confirmed that the information provided by Google's search results was real and quite helpful, but most importantly; it was accurate.

Knowing where to look for information is of utmost importance and could mark the difference between a failing grade and an outstanding one. As far as features and accessibility, Yahoo's interface offers a more appealing look to its website, but even these features are of no help when the user's main purpose is to find accurate documentation. When it comes down to looking for trustworthy resources, it is pretty clear that Google's search engine is far superior than Yahoo's, and this in turn places it out on top. The Internet is nowadays the preferred way of researching. When we use it, however, we must keep in mind that if we are to be practical we must also be precise. Thus if we use a tool in which we depend on crucially, we have to make sure it is reliable and save us the problems that could arise thereafter, because as the saying goes “it’s better to be safe than sorry”.            

Argumentative Essay

OUTLINE PATTERN #3


I. Introduction: The mutated influenza (swine) has given raise to a so called new vaccine that could actually kill you.

II. CON 1: The vaccine is brand new and was created exclusively for swine flu.
     REF 1: Neither the illness nor the vaccine are new.

III. CON 2: The aim of this vaccine is to heal people.
      REF 2: From the first time this vaccine was released no changes were made. Back then it killed many people and left others with appalling side effects.

IV. CON 3: There is no other intention behind the vaccine other than to help people.
      REF 3: Not so. There is a large financial plot behind the distribution of the vaccine.

V. Conclusion: The drug is not all it claims to be. It can be a potential hazard to a large demographic and extremely detrimental for many people's health.

Argumentative Essay

The whole world was scared to death. There was a globally collective paranoia; no one was sure who was infected and who was not, but it was all that was talked about in the news. A silent killer that came out of nowhere, we were in the presence of a new influenza virus mutation; the deadly swine flu. Within a the smallest period of time the danger level had raised to stage 6, creating fear and alarm among the population, as it would surely kill millions of people worldwide. Why? What was hiding behind this new trendy pandemic and what was the government not telling us? A new vaccine had been massively made, yet poorly distributed around the world, claiming to be the single solution to protect humanity against this disease. Patented in 1996, Tamiflu was brought on by GILEAD to fight various types of influenza; all while being led by Donald Rumsfeld as head president of the company. However, Tamiflu had once again proven to be fatal and the cause of many deaths throughout the last 3 decades, thus proving that the medicine was not all that beneficial for people’s health and well-being after all. Worst of all, it all started with a lie.

Some people believe the vaccine to be brand new, created for the sole purpose of curing the swine flu which they also believe is recent, and to prevent them from getting it at all. The media and GILEAD did not help by supporting this assumption in one way or another, through the distribution of dubious information, or the lack of it thereof. In reality the first records of swine flu being detected come from 1918. According to the World Health Organization (hereon referred to as WHO); an estimated 50 to 100 million people died back then, victims of the disease. Later on in 1976 there was a U.S. outbreak in which President Gerald Ford was pressured to come up with a solution. The vaccine back then was released after many delays, and had been subject to public relation problems prior to its circulation, and post distribution there were reports of many people developing Guillain-Barré syndrome. The medicine seemed rushed, and after many lawsuits against it, a halt on its production had been issued by the president himself. There were a couple more cases of the swine flu reported in 1988 and 1998 but it had been controlled and, remarkably enough, no inoculations had been used. Neither the swine influenza nor the vaccine against it was new, and due to legal threats, the vaccine was no longer being made.

This, however, raises a very important question; is it not the aim of the medicine today supposed to heal people? Not necessarily. From the first time this injection was distributed no changes were ever made. Back then it killed many people and left others with appalling side effects; one of which was the Guillain-Barré Syndrome (hereon referred to as GBS).  GBS could be projected as simple as in a small tick of the eye, mouth, or extremities, and grow to be as complicated as a weakness to the legs spreading to the upper limbs until the eventual complete loss of reflexes. The results of this paralyzing neuromuscular disorder varied drastically from person to person and in extreme cases it caused death.  All this was the product of a medicine that would later on be named and patented as Tamiflu.  The chemical formula that makes up Tamiflu is the same as the one issued in 1976, which meant that the same medicine that had caused so many harsh outcomes back then would be patented decades later for the same purpose, with the same results. It cannot be helped to think that there is something wrong with that picture. There were enough lawsuits to stop any company from picking up this medicine, a risk that had gone beyond being a simple gamble, to become a downright business hazard.

Even with so much proof of the dangers of this medicine, there are those who believe that there is no other intention behind the sale of this inoculation than that of helping people, and that harmful as it may or may not be there is no other purpose for it. That is not entirely true. While there is no doubt that the medication does indeed help some people, it is blatantly obvious that there is a large financial plot behind the circulation of this drug, as well as the pandemic chaos and hype created by GILEAD and President W. Bush’s administration. In 1997 GILEAD came to an agreement with Swedish laboratory Roche to manufacture and redistribute Tamiflu until 2016 at the cost of ten percent of the total revenue generated by its sales. Donald Rumsfeld presided as President of GILEAD SCIENCES until 2001, year in which he stepped down from his rank, keeping his share of the Tamiflu patent. Why did he retire of this highly titled and envied position? Rumsfeld was named Defense Secretary soon after President George W. Bush took office that year, the very same President that in 2005 approved a budget of 1.2 billion dollars intended to be given to Rumsfeld’s former company to produce 20 million doses of Tamiflu, to prevent the alleged two million bird flu related deaths in the United States predicted by the WHO. Yet, how many lives were actually claimed by the bird influenza in the United States? The answer: zero.  Coincidentally Tamiflu is one of the only two drugs recommended by the WHO to fight the swine flu. What better way to market it than to generate a need based on fear and paranoia among society.

According to the National Safety Council, the probability of death by lightning was greater than the probability of dying by bird influenza. The story repeats itself with AH1N1. According to the WHO, up to the dated chaos of the swine influenza in mid-2009, 382 people had died from it worldwide. Associated Press reported, in comparison, that two million people die of malaria every year. It is a death that can be prevented by simply using a mosquito net. Two other million children die every year of diarrhea, which can be cured by drinking oral rehydration salts, worth a quarter of a dollar. Every year ten million people die of curable illnesses. How many of these diseases become newspaper headlines? None. The common flu, according to the WHO, kills half a million people per year. If none of these diseases are worth building hype for, then what makes the swine flu so special, and what is the reason behind the persistence for a cure and for the consumption of this cure from the government? At this point it should be obvious. The vaccine is not all it claims to be as it can be a potential hazard to a large demographic and extremely detrimental to many people’s health. Consumption is at anyone’s risk, but this particular author is wary enough not to take it, and to recommend others to do the same.

Reference

Swine Flu - 1976: The swine flu scare. Retrieved from http://www.capitalcentury.com/1976.html

CBS 60 Minutes Report. Retrieved from http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9mh9f_swine-flu-1976-propaganda_webcam with an unknown date. However, it can be clearly speculated that it was shortly after the vaccination for the disease had been released.

World Health Organization. Various research related to the swine flu was done from the WHO website. Articles read were retrieved from this particular search query http://search.who.int/search?q=swine+flu&btnG=Search&ie=utf8&site=default_collection&lr=lang_en&client=WHO&proxystylesheet=WHO&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&Search=Search&sitesearch=&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entqr=3&ud=1

World Health Organization. Various research related to the swine flu was done from the WHO website. Articles read were retrieved from this particular search query http://search.who.int/search?q=swine+flu+1976&btnG=Search&ie=utf8&site=default_collection&lr=lang_en&client=WHO&proxystylesheet=WHO&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&Search=Search&sitesearch=&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entqr=3&ud=1

Ronald Rumsfeld. Information was retrieved from GILEAD's website http://www.gilead.com/wt/sec/pr_933190157/ mentioning information related to Rumsfeld's involvement within the organization. Aside from general information about Rumsfeld from GILEAD's company, other research was done through various websites, but most from Wikipedia. Source can be retreived from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDAQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDonald_Rumsfeld&rct=j&q=GILEAD%20President%20Donald%20Rumsfeld&ei=KPL8TNr_BYWclgfby_CMBQ&usg=AFQjCNF9G5AUtYKWqvr_D-1cEwf0KQwZUQ&cad=rja

GILEAD SCIENCES. Information was retrieved from GILEAD's website http://www.gilead.com relating to the company itself and its ties to distribution from external companies. Aside from general information about the company from its website, other research was done through various websites, but most from Wikipedia. Source can be retreived from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGilead_Sciences&rct=j&q=GILEAD%20President%20Donald%20Rumsfeld&ei=KPL8TNr_BYWclgfby_CMBQ&usg=AFQjCNG2BsBLJGt8NsZrDTu1B0277kJtVQ&cad=rja