The Instigator
Midnight1131
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
BlazingRodent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Cure for Cancer is Likely Being Suppressed

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Midnight1131
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/3/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 681 times Debate No: 86023
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

Midnight1131

Pro

This challenge is issued to BlazingRodent, if somehow someone else accepts, it will be counted as an immediate loss for them.

The resolution is "The Cure for Cancer is Likely Being Suppressed." I will be arguing for the Pro side.

Debate Format
R1: Acceptance
R2: Arguments
R3: Rebuttals concerning R2 arguments
R4: Defence of R2 arguments from R3 rebuttals
Debate Round No. 1
Midnight1131

Pro


Before we start, I’d like to clear up some specifics about framework. Since the resolution states “likely being suppressed,” I don’t have to prove that the cure for cancer is being suppressed, I simply have to show that there is a likely chance.


Definitions:


Suppressed: prevent the dissemination of (information).


Cure [noun]: A substance or treatment that cures a disease or condition.


Cure [verb]: relieve (a person or animal) of the symptoms of a disease or condition.


All sub-contentions will fall under two overarching main contentions. These two contentions are incentive, and history.


Incentive:


Pharmaceutical Industry: The pharmaceutical industry in the USA is considered to be the world’s most important national market. Along with the other North American nations, it represents the largest continental pharma market worldwide. These companies bring in insane amounts of revenue. Johnson & Johnson, in 2014, brought in 75 billion dollars US [1]. Remember, this is only for one company, there are many others. Drugs themselves can bring in a great deal of revenue as well. Sovaldi, was the best-selling drug in 2014, bringing in around 8 billion US dollars of revenue [1]. Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 every month [2]. The US actually makes a great deal of money from this industry, and the government knows that the industry needs to stay strong, as it contributes a great deal to the economy. Disclosing a cure for cancer, even a preventative treatment, will definitely downsize the cancer treatment sector of the medical industry, therefore leading to losses of jobs and profit. Its basic economics, when the demand for services in this area goes down, the amount of individuals working in that sector decreases with it.


Societal Structure: It is very probable that upper society benefits from keeping a set class system. To do this, they need methods of keeping the lower classes down. One of these methods is likely to be diseases, specifically cancer in this case. A study conducted on more than 300,000 cancer patients in British explored the correlation between social class and cancer. They found that in poor people, cervical and lung cancer are more common. This is due to the basic methods of cancer treatment that the government already has being very costly. Poor people simply cannot afford the cost of preventative treatment, or any treatment at all [see the cost of new cancer drugs above.] The government notices this, and keeps this in mind when suppressing the cure for cancer, because they don’t want a cheaper and more accessible alternative coming out, which would jeopardize one of their avenues of keeping the lower classes suppressed. This theory is explored in George Orwell’s famous novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, where the government of Oceania and the other 2 countries have an unspoken agreement to always be in a state of war. Giving something to drain resources and keep the lower classes busy. He proposed that the upper governing class is more than willing to give up some of their comforts in order to preserve the fine line in lifestyle between the classes.


History:


Rife Machines: The Rife machine was developed by Royal Raymond Rife in the 1920s. This machine was designed to emit sound waves of the correct frequency, which would then destroy cancer cells. The treatment was rejected because the frequency was not high or strong enough to actually destroy cancer cells. However it prompts one to beg the question, why was this avenue not explored further? Rife clearly had a theory, but no government expressed any interest in following through with it. This is more to suggest that it has no interest in finding a cost efficient, widely accessible cure for cancer at all.


Past Government Occurrences: I know it is inevitable that my opponent will argue that the government works, and only works, in service of the people. However the past has proven that they do not always hold the lives of all citizens dear. I will present two examples here. First, the US government poisoned alcohol during the prohibition. Since the 18th amendment which banned alcohol did not ban consumption, the US government actually added deadly chemicals, including kerosene, chloroform, and acetone among well-known industrial versions of alcohol, to make them more difficult to consume. This led to the deaths of 400 people in New York City in the year 1926, in the following year 700 people died. Another, true occurrence, is the human research operation named “MKUltra.” Researchers actually tested the effects of things like hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, torture, and LSD on US and Canadian citizens, without their consent [3]. It is clear now that the government is willing to put the lives of its own citizens in danger, if it is done to preserve and further their ideal version of society and the way things should run.


All of this shows that it is not unlikely the government is suppressing a cure for cancer, in fact history has shown it is probably quite likely. Due to economic and societal incentives, the cure for cancer is likely being suppressed. Remember, for me to win, I have to simply prove there is a decent likelihood. With that I’ll hand it over to my opponent.


Sources:



  1. http://www.statista.com...

  2. http://health.usnews.com...

  3. http://www.businessinsider.com...



BlazingRodent

Con

I would like to thank my opponent, Midnight1331, for instigating this debate.

Applying my opponent's debate format into these rounds, I am to argue on this round and hold off on rebuttals until the next round.


Case:

There is in fact scientific evidence that doctors are still looking for a cure for cancer, and in some cases, have succeeded in experiments that attempt to cure the cancer.

The 1st example is a case where a 15 year old when to the hospital because he had leukemia. His immune system was modified so that white blood cells could track down cancerous cells and fight them off. And I know that this argument begs the question: "But is it successful?" According to this source, yes, the treatment was successful. There are 4 pages in this source, and the 1st page says that the patient "had no remaining signs of leukemia just 9 days after treatment began." This means that for him, this was indeed a cure for his leukemia, a type of cancer.

There are more studies within the source to prove that the cure is still being tested and explored. On page 2, there is a statement that reads "Since 2009, researchers at Sloan Kettering, University of Pennsylvania, and the National Cancer Institute have tried this treatment on about 100 people with ALL. More than 70 have gone into complete remission. Dozens of institutes around the world are still testing forms of this new treatment."

This means that:
-This cure is successful for 70% people
-Instituitions are still testing for this type of treatment

This evidence proves that the cure for cancer is not likely being suppressed, as the success of the new treatment and the desire for associations to research this potential cure even further shows that it is likely to continue being investigated.

http://www.webmd.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Midnight1131

Pro

I'll use this round for rebuttals. My opponent only provided one contention, and I will refute that here.

RC1: Scientific Research
What my opponent basically says in this round is that since we have examples of scientists looking for and applying some forms of treatment is enough to prove that there is no chance of any treatment being suppressed. However this is false. First off, as I stated in my "social structure" contention, the upper classes have reason to ensure that no "breakthrough cure" comes out to the public. I bring up my looking into George Orwell's proposed theory, that the upper class class is willing to give up some luxuries [in this case more efficient treatments] to keep the fine line of standard of living between them and the lower classes. I recall the resolution, which states "the Cure for Cancer is Likely Being Suppressed." This doesn't mean that if there is a current form of treatment nothing is being suppressed. It does mean that if someone is suppressing any form of treatment that is better than what we have now, then the resolution is affirmed. This is why my opponent's arguments are not relevant to the resolution.

First off, my opponent states their example of the 15 year old boy. This is only one example, which does not really prove anything on the broad scale of things.

Secondly my opponent makes the case that since there are studies being done, it proves that the cure is still being tested and explored. I direct everyone back to my first argument about the industry. These studies are financed and employ people only because the cure for cancer is [supposed] still out there to be found. If a cure, or any effective preventative treatment was found, then the entire industry, which creates jobs and revenue, would be downsized. Simply because there are studies being done doesn't remove the reasonable doubt of an effective cure already having been found, but suppressed. There is also the option of these studies being done to mislead the public.

There isn't much to refute. To conclude, I'll restate why my opponent's case does nothing at all to remove any likelihood of a cure being suppressed. I have explained why the studies being done could very much be fake, or tunnelled in a narrow scope of view to prevent any effective cure from being found. I have given reasons for this that tie back to my main contention [revenue, jobs]. That was my opponent's entire case, which I have refuted.

The resolution is affirmed.
BlazingRodent

Con

BlazingRodent forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Midnight1131

Pro

This round was for responded to my opponent's R3 entry, however since they provided none I will extend.

If my opponent comes back for the last round, we can rework the debate structure so that they only refute my arguments, which would put us at the same ground. I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate.
BlazingRodent

Con

Rebuttals:

"$10,000 every month [2]. The US actually makes a great deal of money from this industry, and the government knows that the industry needs to stay strong, as it contributes a great deal to the economy. Disclosing a cure for cancer, even a preventative treatment, will definitely downsize the cancer treatment sector of the medical industry, therefore leading to losses of jobs and profit. Its basic economics, when the demand for services in this area goes down, the amount of individuals working in that sector decreases with it."

Now, this does not in anyway prove that there is likely a chance that the cure for cancer is being suppressed, seeing as this argument only states that it would make sense to supress the cure for cancer, but there is no connection to how it would be likely for it to be suppressed.

"Giving something to drain resources and keep the lower classes busy. He proposed that the upper governing class is more than willing to give up some of their comforts in order to preserve the
fine line in lifestyle between the classes."

And what about the rest who disagree with them? Somewhere on the U.S, somebody will come up with methods to try to cure cancer and the government will want to test it to get closer to making the cure, hence my source for my case.

"The treatment was rejected because the frequency was not high or strong enough to actually destroy cancer cells. However it prompts one to beg the question, why was this avenue not explored further?"

Because the Rife Machine has killed some individuals before, hence thus source. http://www.quackwatch.org...

Continuing research on it might have killed even more people.

"I know it is inevitable that my opponent will argue that the government works, and only works, in service of the people. However the past has proven that they do not always hold the lives of all citizens dear."

And if they don't always, then there is that chance, like I said, that other parts of the government would disagree.

"alcohol during the prohibition. Since the 18th amendment which banned alcohol did not ban consumption, the US government actually added deadly chemicals, including kerosene, chloroform, and acetone among well-known industrial versions of alcohol, to make them more difficult to consume. This led to the deaths of 400 people in New York City in the year 1926,"

This only applies to the government from almost a century ago, which might have thought differently than the government that exists today, and in this case, how does a decision made in 1926 influence a decision considered now on any sort of way?

"Researchers actually tested the effects of things like hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, torture, and LSD on US and Canadian citizens, without their consent [3]. It is clear now that the government is willing to put the lives of its own citizens in danger, if it is done to preserve and further their ideal version of society and the way things should run."

This was a very separate situation, and though this proves that it would be possible for the cure for cancer to be suppressed, it doesn't show that it's likely.

Vote Con, for Pro has not proved well enough that the cure for cancer is likely being suppressed.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Opponent's skill- Good opponent but based on performance here, I'd rate him a 7

Arguments- Great arguments by pro. He could have attacked this from a less conspiracy angle and made extra sure he'd win, but he did enough. 9 points.

humor- 0 points, no attempt made

total score- 16 points
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Thanks for voting Whiteflame!
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
RFD (Pt. 1):

Well, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed by the way this debate turned out. For a debate about a very scientific issue, there was little discussion of the scientific feasibility of a cure. Con argued that economics is the chief driver for suppression of any such cure that may exist, and spends some time discussing a social strata reason for suppression as well, but his example of the Rife Machine is... well... rife with problems. It doesn't prove that a cure exists or even could potentially exist, and as someone who knows something about cancer treatments, the claim that Rife Machines could even potentially work is just ridiculous. Con only throws a source at it, but it's really an absurd argument. The remaining point from Pro is that the government has clearly done things in the past that have done harm to citizens. All of this amounts to a large statement: there's tremendous incentive to suppress, so a cure for cancer is likely being suppressed.

Need I state the number of assumptions being made here?

That a cure for cancer is possible
That a cure for cancer exists
That the government is the one doing the suppressing
That incentive (no matter how big) suffices as reason to believe that a major scientific discovery is being suppressed
That the government is absolutely, 100% capable of suppressing all information on any possible cure
That no other powerful group (insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, research companies0 has incentive to produce a cure or the means to counter government suppression

Those are just the ones that come to mind in brief, and all of them are big problems, since taking out any one of these assumptions would probably have been sufficient to negate. Pro built a house of cards, and removing just one would have done it.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 2)

Con, however, just doesn't get there. He presents a case that is even more rickety. Admittedly, he goes towards the scientific side, but not in an effective manner. He points out that there are plenty of doctors looking for a cure, but this doesn't prove that the cures they're looking for haven't already been found and aren't being suppressed. The remainder of this is just individual instances. None of them showcase an actual cure for cancer. Accepting that these cases are cures doesn't tell me that these people have developed cures for all cancers, just for some, which Pro explains may be part of a larger strategy to suppress the lower classes anyway.

So the case does nothing. The responses Con gives me are too brief to matter.

I agree that incentive doesn't provide any reason to believe that they're actually suppressing, but it does provide a reason to suppress. I could see where you might go with this argument (for one: there are a lot of different incentives and different groups with different interests who have great power over the government - why is this incentive the only one the government cares about?), but when your only response is "this doesn't prove likelihood", it's not very effective. It's clear how there's incentive to suppress. You're not presenting any incentive on the part of the government to allow such a cure to be marketed. That's a problem.

I agree that there are people who likely disagree with the classism in society, but that doesn't matter because Pro's giving me reason to believe that this is the government's modus operandi. Any individual who comes up with a cure will be suppressed by that same government. I could see an argument building here for the difficulties of suppression, but it never got off the ground.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
(Pt. 3)

The response to the Rife Machine point is decent, though you shoould really do more than just present a link. Give me reasons why the Rife Machine is ineffective and dangerous, not just assertions and required reading.

I agree that Pro's examples are dated, but you have to do more than just state that the government has different incentive structures today. You have to explain to me why the government will make different, better choices, and not just say they won't make ones as terrible as they made back then (without any warrants or evidence to support it).

So... yeah, I'm forced to buy Pro's case. He gives me a small mound of incentive, tells me that it increases the likelihood that a cure for cancer has been suppressed, and none of his basic assumptions are attacked sufficiently. Honestly, if all Con had said was "and we know there's a cure for cancer that's being suppressed... how?" then this debate would have ended differently. But given that Pro's assumptions were never challenged (however hallacious they may be), and given that he supports a likelihood of suppression through incentive structures that are never sufficiently challenged, I vote Pro. I'll hold myself back from a longer rant about the numerous things that both sides could have done better, but each of your arguments was severely lacking.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Provideoman, just stop talking, and while you're at it leave the site, you make the community worse overall. You obviously didn't understand that I was assigned this debate and position in a tournament. Btw if you want to talk about how childish/juvenile I am challenge me to any debate and I'll crush you.

And don't you dare insult Squidward you uncultured pig.
Posted by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
This comment section reminds me of a song.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
c'mon provideoman, they are both squidward. You're not much better.
Posted by provideoman123 1 year ago
provideoman123
To the Pro debater,

Your profile picture is a character from an American cartoon meant for KIDS. That shows how juvenile and small you are. You could not even provide evidence for your argument and let Con rip you apart and defecate on your arguments with no respect like you would in a public bathroom. Con on the other hand shows a much more refined way of arguing. I am definitely on Con's side here.

With regards to your state,
Provideoman123
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Midnight1131BlazingRodent
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.