The cure for cancer has already been found.
Round one arguments
Round two rebuttals
Round three defend your argument against opponent's rebuttal.
The cure for cancer is a whole foods plant based diet as seen in Healing Cancer from Inside Out  and Forks over Knives. The prototype was Gerson's Miracle, which is often mocked. Nevertheless, Mr. Gerson paved the way for a safer and cheaper cure.
There is plenty of scientific evidence to back this up. Not only that but, a whole foods plant based diet helps prevent cancer in the first place. Antioxidants help prevent DNA damage via free radicals.
I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it, so here's the science below. Focusing on the prevention first, since an "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Benjamin Franklin.
First, lets look at what causes cancer. Cancer is caused by free radicals damaging DNA. Antioxidants are free radical scavengers who halt the free radicals from damaging the DNA.  Many of the most potent antioxidants, Beta-carotene, come only from plant sources.  Supplements don't seem to work either, instead beta-carotene must be taken at dietary levels. 
Great, so eat your fruits and vegetables and get some protection via antioxidants against free radicals.
There is more, fruits and vegetables contain phytonutrients and fiber which are only found in plants. Fiber has been known to help maintain a healthy weight.  Being obese is a risk factor for cancer.  Phytonutrients also help with weight and thus help prevent cancer. 
Not only is there plenty of benefits to eating a plant based diet, but you also displace the detrimental. By avoiding meats, you avoid cholesterol, high fat, saturated fat, IGF-1, and bacteria endotoxins.
Cholesterol even in small amounts is detrimental to human health.  High fat leads to build up of intramyocellular lipids. Saturated fat increases blood viscosity making your heart work harder and making you sluggish. Hard to keep down the weight when your slowed down by sluggishness.
IGF-1, insulin like growth factor one, causes cancer cells to grow more quickly. Bacteria endotoxins found in animal products cause an immune system respond and inflammation. If your immune system is attacking bacteria endotoxins, it can't be attacking cancer cells.
The cure, I've stated why a plant based diet helps prevent cancer. Most of this information is more or less common knowledge on prevention via diet. Yet, what about the much more bold claim of a cure? The cure is very simple, boost your body and your immune system will destroy the cancer cells, thus curing yourself.
That's right, the cure is your white blood cells, the ones that are destroyed by chemotherapy and other invasive treatments.  As seen in this peer reviewed link cytotoxcity of the body's Natural Killer white blood cells is double.
As seen here, white blood cells attack cancer cells. "White blood cells can also attack cancerous cells that are traveling in the blood stream. "  The official medical term is immunotherapy.  Yet, the basic principle is the same as Mr. Gerson's the Gerson Miracle.
Strengthen the immune system and have the immune system eradicate the cancer. Key points
Plant based diet
keep the weight down
let your immune system do the work
Thanks for reading. Thanks in advance for accepting the debate.
I thank my opponent for the debate. Seeing as the debate structure prohibits rebuttals in this round, I will refrain from doing so and will simply outline various current methods of cancer treatment and why they cannot be referred to as a "cure for cancer", thus fulfilling any possible BoP I may have. The methods I will cover will be chemotherapy, radiation, surgery and of course, immunotherapy. However, to do so we must first understand precisely what cancer is and what it is caused by, as well as define the word cure.
Cure: a complete or permanent solution or remedy - Merriam Webster
Unless my opponent disagrees with this definition, a cure will be defined as such.
Every human being consists of trillions of cells. These cells must divide and grow in order to maintain life. As cells become damaged or grow old, these new cells must take their place, while the old and damaged cells die off. These divisions are done in an orderly and safe manner as is dictated by your genes. However, from poor genes and mutations in one's DNA, cancer arises and it does not follow the aforementioned process.As Cancer.gov states:
"When cancer develops, however, this orderly process breaks down. As cells become more and more abnormal, old or damaged cells survive when they should die, and new cells form when they are not needed. These extra cells can divide without stopping and may form growths called tumors."
Now that we understand what cancer is and its sources, we may look into the effectivity of current cancer treatment methods.
Chemotherapy employs the use of cytotoxic drugs to stop the division of cells. This is done through various means such as ensuring that cells do not use the nutrients needed in order to further multiply,or by interfering with the genotype (genetic makeup) of the DNA and therefore stopping the abnormal division of cells. This method is most effective on cancers that divide rapidly. However, chemotherapy cannot be referred to as a "cure for cancer" as it is not always effective among patients, therefore being incomplete. For example, many leukemia patients do not find success with chemotherapy. After chemotherapy stops the rapid cell division within these patients, the patients go into remission. However, a renewed cancer arises from cells that do not divide as rapidly and are therefore resistant to chemotherapy. As this treatment method does not result in “a complete or permanent solution or remedy”, it cannot be described as the cure for cancer.
Radiation, or more specifically ionizing radiation, creates ions by taking the electrons of atoms and molecules within the body. Doing so either damages the DNA of these cancerous cells directly, or creates highly reactive molecules called free radicals, which damage the DNA of these cells . However, there are various cancers that are resistant to radiation. Proof of this can be seen in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which states:
“Ionizing radiation treats many cancers effectively, but in some patients a few tumor cells become resistant to radiation and go on to cause relapse and metastasis.” 
As a result, ionizing radiation clearly isn’t a complete or permanent solution to various types of cancers, and can therefore not be referred to as a “cure for cancer”
As you likely surmised, surgery physically removes the tumour by literally cutting it out of the body. Yet, as is commonly known, it is rather ineffective among the later stages of cancer as the cancer has spread to other parts of the body . Furthermore, hematological cancers such as leukemia are not solid and can therefore not be cut out in these conventional means . Also, surgery can leave behind some cancer cells which results in the cancer returning to the patient . As shown, surgery like the other methods of treatment, is neither permanent nor complete, and cannot therefore be described as a cure for cancer.
Finally we come to immunotherapy, which will likely be a central aspect of this debate. We cannot make presumptions on immunotherapy. We must know exactly what it is in order to conclude its effectivity against cancer. I will attempt to do so in the following paragraphs.
The immune system naturally protects one from various cancerous cells. However, malignant tumours only form when your immune system is either unaware of the cancer or dampened from the cancer itself  .
Cancerous cells have found a number of ways to evade our immune system. One manner of doing so would be their use of PD-L1, a protein that activates a pathway which effectively suppresses the immune system and its response, allowing the cancer to thrive . This allows the cancer to effectively evade one’s immune system.
Immunotherapy works by using drugs such as Keytruda (pembrolizumab), which effectively blocks these pathways in order to allow the immune system to fight cancerous cells . However, not only are these methods restrictive to only a few types of cancer, they are ineffective among a majority of patients. To understand this discrepancy, we must understand how our immune system fights these cancerous cells.
Some tumour cells exhibit microscopic molecules that identify the cell as foreign and therefore trigger an immune response, referred to as neoantigens. Since this has been identified as foreign, your immune system responds accordingly and seeks to remove these substances (at which point using the PD-L1 protein allows the cancer to survive). However, among a majority of patients, there are either not a sufficient number of neoantigens or the cells which exhibit these neoantigens are not sufficiently distributed throughout the tumour to invoke the necessary response by the immune system . Therefore, even by removing these blockades that the cancer has used, your immune system cannot respond and the cancer continues to survive. For this reason, immunotherapy is not a “a complete or permanent solution or remedy”, and cannot therefore be labeled as a cure for cancer.
As has been showed, the 4 main treatments of cancer have not matched with the definition stated for a cure. These treatments are either insufficiently complete (they are specific to only a select group), or are insufficiently permanent (they do not treat all patients indefinitely). Therefore, we must come to the conclusion that the cure for cancer has not currently been found.
A majority of this may have seemed impertinent considering the case my opponent is trying to make,but the rules dictated that I could not directly respond. As a result, I could only try to cover all my bases, even those that seemed impertinent.
I expect a riveting discourse as this debate continues. Thank you.
II. Spontaneous remissions
My opponent went out of his/her way to make an awesome round 1 argument. So powerful, I wasn't sure how to respond at first. Considering I more or less devoted my life to that subject, that's impressive. Nobody before has really attempted to argue me down, usually resorting to "ignore the crazy talk." I want to thank my opponent for tackling this debate in a respectful manner.
Also, thank you for brining greater awareness to existing cancer treatments. Often, people I talk to are 100% positive the surgery removed every last cancer cell. Thank you for debunking that myth by showing that the cancer cells most likely have spread to a different part of the body as well as leaving some cancer cells behind.
II. Spontaneous remissions
Nevertheless, my opponent leaves out one key scientific phenomenon.
"The spontaneous healing of cancer is a phenomenon that has been observed for hundreds and thousands of years and after having been the subject of many controversies, it is now accepted as an indisputable fact." 
Spontaneous healing/regression of cancer is an indisputable fact, despite what many skeptics may believe. Therefore, its possible for cancer to be healed. Does spontaneous regressions count as a cure? Yes, I think it does. Since my opponent defined cure as "Cure: a complete or permanent solution or remedy" Sherlockholmesfan
The definition of solution.
the termination of a disease. " 
Spontaneous remission counts as a solution and thus a cure. Yet, is this completely happen stance? Or are there factors that change the chances of this cure occurring?
"A review of past reports demonstrates that regression is usually associated with acute infections, fever, and immunostimulation." 
"Little could be done to stop the infection, yet surprisingly, after each attack of fever the ulcer improved; the tumor shrank, and finally disappeared completely. On a subsequent review, the patient, still bearing a large scar from his previous operations, had no trace of cancer and claimed excellent health since his discharge– 7 years previously." 
To me it is crystal clear that the fever destroyed the cancer. That the immune system can cause a fever that cures cancer. Due to the nature of a fever, increasing the entire body's temperature, I find it unlikely for cancer cells to be able to hide. Since fevers affect the entire body. In fact, the immune system doesn't even have to be aware of the cancer cells. As see in the above quote, the body was fighting an infection and as collateral damaged destroyed the cancer.
Between avoiding the carcinogens in the first place, lifestyle habits to decrease cancer risk and obesity, antioxidants to prevent damage from free radicals, the DNA repair system to repair mutations, the white blood cells destroying some forms of cancer, and finally fever which can destroy cancers the body isn't even aware of, and spontaneous remissions, it is clear that the cure for cancer already exists. Thank you.
I thank my opponent for his rebuttal as well as his kind words.
My opponent stated various methods in his round 1 argument. However, as the title of this debate states “the cure for cancer has already been found”, we must only look at any curative facets of each method. Each method’s effectivity as a preventive measure is impertinent and it would be a waste of characters and time to refer to them. Instead, my following rebuttals will only refer to each method’s effectivity as a cure, that is, its effectivity against people already in various stages of cancer.
My opponent states that cancer is caused by free radicals damaging DNA, and that we must therefore consume antioxidants in order to prevent cancer. Regardless of antioxidant influence over the prevention of cancer (which, on a side note, isn’t as significant as my opponent makes it out to be), there is little to no evidence that antioxidants aid in the termination of cancer among current cancer patients. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine came to the conclusion that among male smokers, antioxidants may actually be harmful. It states:
“We found no reduction in the incidence of lung cancer among male smokers after five to eight years of dietary supplementation with alpha-tocopherol or beta-carotene [antioxidants]. In fact this trial raises the possibility that these supplements may actually have harmful as well a beneficial effects” 
Another study further researched this among mice, and stated:
“Antioxidants in the diet and supplements are widely used to protect against cancer, but clinical trials with antioxidants do not support this concept. Some trials show that antioxidants actually increase cancer risk and a study in mice showed that antioxidants accelerate the progression of primary lung tumors. However, little is known about the impact of antioxidant supplementation on the progression of other types of cancer, including malignant melanoma.” 
From this we can only conclude that simply consuming antioxidants does not cure cancer. My opponent then surmises that therefore, one must intake the antioxidants from food sources (specifically plants). However, one might observe that my opponent does not cite a study or piece of evidence that shows that antioxidants from food sources cures cancer. He simply makes his own conclusions from the fact that excessive concentration of free radicals may damage DNA.
As this shows, one cannot simply make their own conclusions from something that seems to be true; as if this were the case, the logical conclusion would be that supplements would also aid the curing of cancer.
My opponent’s conclusion that antioxidants aid in the curing of cancer is simply an unsubstantiated hypothesis which has not been thoroughly tested. Since it has not been tested, it does not follow the scientific process, the process used to come to any scientific truth. Since my opponent's hypothesis does not follow the scientific process, we currently have no reason to believe that antioxidants aid in the curing of cancer.
Plants, Meat and the Immune System
A majority of opponents arguments concerning plants and meat conclude that they may prevent cancer. I will not refer to those arguments. However, pieces of it conclude that they aid your immune system, which my opponent states, aids the curing of cancer. I will attack this conclusion fundamentally by showing that even if an immune system was generally boosted by a plant based diet, it could still not effectively terminate all types of cancer permanently. I apologize if this seems repetitive, as I covered this in my last argument, but I must refer to it again in order to properly rebut my opponent.
As I stated in my initial argument, cancerous cells have found a number of ways to either evade or dampen the immune system. They may use the PD-L1 protein which allows them to activate a pathway that effectively suppresses immune responses. Furthermore, even without the use of this protein, a majority of cancer patients either do not have a sufficient number of neoantigens (a sort of marker which triggers an immune response by identifying the cell as foreign)  exhibited by their cancer cells, or the number of cells that do exhibit these neoantigens are insufficiently distributed throughout the tumour .
When my opponent states:
This means that even if an immune system was boosted by a plant based diet, it would not be able to fight cancer as it is either unable to do so because of evasion via specific protein use, or it does not know it must attack these cells as it doesn’t find them to be foreign. Therefore even if a plant based diet, which is vital in the Gerson Miracle program, were to increase one’s immune system, the immune system would still be susceptible to cancer and would continue to be insufficient. From this, we must conclude that simply eating a plant based diet (and therefore following the Gerson Miracle program) would not terminate cancer among cancer patients, and cannot therefore be referred to as a cure for cancer.
As has been shown, my opponents methods of a cure to cancer fails to match the definition of a cure. This coupled with the limited effectivity of current treatment methods leads us to the conclusion that the cure for cancer has not already been found.
Since my opponent seems to be abandoning the Gerson Miracle program in his rebuttals, my arguments here may again seem impertinent. Yet I could again only cover all my bases and rebut only his round 1 arguments. Since we cannot make new arguments in the next round, I may finally address all arguments by my opponent which will hopefully make my case best. Thank you.
Round three defend your argument against opponent's r2 rebuttal.
Thanks for continuing the debate. I find your approach to rebutting my r1 argument interesting.
My opponent cites two studies that shows the ineffective and in fact detrimental health affects of supplementing with antioxidants, which is exactly what I expected when supplementing with antioxidants.
Next, my opponent makes the below statement.
"From this we can only conclude that simply consuming antioxidants does not cure cancer. My opponent then surmises that therefore, one must intake the antioxidants from food sources (specifically plants). However, one might observe that my opponent does not cite a study or piece of evidence that shows that antioxidants from food sources cures cancer. He simply makes his own conclusions from the fact that excessive concentration of free radicals may damage DNA. " Sherlockholmesfan
This is my first paragraph from r1 on the science of antioxidiants
"First, lets look at what causes cancer. Cancer is caused by free radicals damaging DNA. Antioxidants are free radical scavengers who halt the free radicals from damaging the DNA.  Many of the most potent antioxidants, Beta-carotene, come only from plant sources.  Supplements don't seem to work either, instead beta-carotene must be taken at dietary levels. " stupidape r1
All four of my sources so far help confirm the fact that antioxidants help against cancer. Sources  and  use mostly anecdotal evidence with some science. Note, you would need to watch the full documentaries rather than just the trailers to fully understand. Sources  use science to show that antioxidants help with free radicals and thus cancer. These sources are scholarly peer reviewed and not to be underestimated.
Now my opponent uses the word cure instead of help. Since, antioxidants help prevent cancer by stopping the mutations in the first place. Since cancer is a multitude of cells, via simple reasoning we can see how having less cancerous cells would aid in the cure of cancer.
"As this shows, one cannot simply make their own conclusions from something that seems to be true; as if this were the case, the logical conclusion would be that supplements would also aid the curing of cancer." Sherlockholmesfan
Scholarly peer reviewed articles show that dietary intake of antioxidants help against cancer.  This is college level Biology 101.
"My opponent’s conclusion that antioxidants aid in the curing of cancer is simply an unsubstantiated hypothesis which has not been thoroughly tested. Since it has not been tested, it does not follow the scientific process, the process used to come to any scientific truth. Since my opponent's hypothesis does not follow the scientific process, we currently have no reason to believe that antioxidants aid in the curing of cancer." Sherlockholmesfan
My opponent's claim is blatantly false. I've already shown the scholarly peer reviewed sources that confirm that antioxidants aid against cancer by preventing free radicals from damaging the DNA. 
"A majority of opponents arguments concerning plants and meat conclude that they may prevent cancer. I will not refer to those arguments." Sherlockholmesfan
These are the arguments about IGF-1, cholesterol, excess fat and intramyocellular lipids, saturated fat, and bacteria endotoxins. These arguments are relevant because they weaken the body and thus the immune system. Weakening the body leads to obesity which is a risk factor for cancer. Elevated IGF-1 levels are a risk factor for cancer. All these risk factors combine to mean more cancer on top of a weakened immune system to deal with the cancer.
"He disregards this fact. That the white blood cells either cannot attack the cancerous cells because of immune response suppression, or that the white blood cells do not identify the cancerous cells as foreign and do not therefore attack said cells. " Sherlockholmesfan
In many cases white blood cells are effective. Just not in all cases. The body and immune system has many tools and weapons at its disposal. Coughing for example.
"Coughing is the body's way of removing foreign material or mucus from the lungs and upper airway passages or of reacting to an irritated airway. Coughs have distinctive traits you can learn to recognize. A cough is only a symptom, not a disease, and often the importance of your cough can be determined only when other symptoms are evaluated." 
See removal of foreign material. That could be cancerous cells. There are many other responses the body can have to get rid of disease like cancer. Sneezing, vomiting, diarrhea, and fever. All of which have the capability to remove or destroy foreign matter, like cancer.
The scientific term is spontaneous remission. Yet, the people who know that the cure for cancer is real know it is the human body including the immune system that destroy the cancer. Just by simply reducing the detrimental, that weaken the body and cause an increase in cancer cells, and increasing the beneficial, you go a longs way to reducing the number of cancer cells your body has to fight.
Whether or not your body successfully fights off the disease depends upon how far the cancer has progressed. Often, people seek a plant based diet as a means of last resort. Literally, on death's bed. Since so many tend to succumb to the disease this throws off the numbers.
Think about if a surgeon only treats critically wounded people, many of them will die, and the surgeon will get a bad reputation. This is unfair to compare this to a surgeon who only treats healthy or minimally injured people. Do not wait to get cancer to change your lifestyle. The preventative benefits are scientifically proven. Even if you already have cancer, don't wait for the cancer to get worse.
As with any treatment the earlier treatment starts, the better the success rate. The same goes for cures. Thank you for debating.
Thanks for your arguments. I will now defend my arguments from your rebuttals. Also, for the sake of this round, all mentions of spontaneous regression is interchangeable with spontaneous remission
In this round we must find whether or not spontaneous regression is a cure for cancer, to defend my arguments. I believe that to do so, we must first redefine what a cure is.
Initially I defined cure as a “ a complete or permanent solution or remedy”. My opponent further defined a solution as a “the termination of a disease”. Despite this, my opponent and I seem to be using different definitions of the word. To clear up any confusion. I will attempt to lay out a series of criteria for a cure that voters will determine as either reasonable or not.
A cure must be:
This criteria will be used to find if spontaneous regression qualifies as a cure.
To show that this method of treatment is indeed not a cure, I will attempt to show how it is neither highly effective, permanent or inducible.
Spontaneous remission, while served generally with anecdotal accounts, still has very little in terms of statistical probability. A study on spontaneous remission of neuroblastoma (a type of extracranial cancer) states :
“The 'true' incidence of spontaneous regression of neuroblastoma is uncertain. However, the frequency of spontaneous regression is important when the benefits of screening procedures are considered. In the population-based Danish neuroblastoma survey 1943-80, spontaneous regression was documented in less than 2% of cases. However, the 'true' incidence may be higher.” 
As we can see from this study, the true frequency of spontaneous remission is not currently available as a result of poor documentation of the event itself. As a result, it would be illogical and ignorant to blindly label spontaneous remission as a cure for cancer. Further flaws of spontaneous remission are in its inability to be induced
Lack of Inducibility
As I stated above, the ability to induce or bring about the ability to terminate a disease is foundational to a cure. Unfortunately, spontaneous remissions exact causes and influential factors are unknown. My opponent quoted the following in order to determine the influential factors of spontaneous regression:
“A review of past reports demonstrates that regression is usually associated with acute infections, fever, and immunostimulation.”
My opponent used this quote as well as anecdotal evidence to justify the following statement. That:
“To me [StupidApe] it is crystal clear that the fever destroyed the cancer”
However, upon reading the quote from the study, we find that it states these symptoms as
“[It is] over-ambitious to try to infer anything about individual-level causal effects.” 
While I do not disregard correlational evidence, it is almost certainly eclipsed in credibility by empirical evidence, which states the contrary. That is, that we do not infact know of any causes to initiate spontaneous regression.
Infact, a study which reviewed past medical literature of spontaneous remission stated:
“We conclude that the literature on the spontaneous regression of cancer is still unable to provide unambiguous accounts of the mechanisms operating to affect these regressions.”
From this empirical evidence, we can conclude that we do not currently have the knowledge of the causes of spontaneous remission. Consequently, we cannot initiate or cause spontaneous regression and it remains uninducible. This is further confirmation that spontaneous remission is not a cure for cancer.
Lack of Completion and Permanence
The final manner in which spontaneous regression can be distinguished from a cure, is that is simply not permanent, or, not consistently permanent. Spontaneous regression is defined as, from my opponent’s own source:
“the partial or complete disappearance of a malignant tumor ... " 
What we must focus on is the “partial” aspect of this definition. While there certainly are cases in which the tumour had entirely regressed, it does not have to in order to qualify as “spontaneous regression”. This is further supported by studies which confirm this thought. A study from the University of Illinois states:
“ It is not implied that spontaneous regression need progress to complete disappearance of tumour, nor that spontaneous regression is synonymous with cure (In some cases tumour which underwent apparent spontaneous regression in one area flourished unchecked in other areas of the body or reappeared at a later time)” 
As this final piece of evidence shows, spontaneous regression does not have to be permanent or complete. However as states above, a cure must be both permanent and complete. This disparity even further distinguishes spontaneous regression and all its facets from a cure for cancer.
A criteria, based upon agreed upon facts and logic, was given for a cure for cancer. Simply not meeting one of these requirements disqualifies a method of treatment as a cure. However, as can be seen, overwhelming empirical evidence shows that spontaneous remission does not meet 3 of these requirements. The disqualification of this method of treatment, as well as the agreed upon disqualification of previous methods leads us to the definitive conclusion, that the cure for cancer has not yet been found. Vote Con!
Finally I want to extend serious praise to my opponent for being consistently respectful and polite. You have my profound respect. It was a lovely debate.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|