The cure for cancer is being suppressed
Debate Rounds (4)
R2: Opening arguments, no rebuttals
R3: Supporting arguments, rebuttals
R4: Rebuttals only
I, Grandzam, will be Pro, my opponent, HSamei1999, will be Con. Let's have a good debate.
I accept, and will argue that the cure for cancer is not being suppressed. I'll follow your format and let's have a great debate. :)
Definition for cure: a highly effective treatment or drug that is intended to be used to remove a disease.
P1: There exists an enormous incentive for cures for cancer to be suppressed.
In 2012, cancer was a 124.6 BILLION dollar industry . It is ranked in the top five most expensive health conditions . If a working cure were to be released into public knowledge, this industry would be entirely eradicated. Sure, some money would be earned from a cure but per patient, 6 months of chemotherapy is a lot more profitable than any of the possible cures for cancer. In addition, pharmaceutical companies have exorbitantly priced drugs that are used to try to treat cancer. Virtually all large health organizations have profit, of varying amounts, coming from the ongoing treatment of cancer. Does the money trump the moral obligations of these companies? Seeing as the lack of morals is easily self-justified, and that cold, hard, cash is one of the biggest motivators of people, I lean toward "Yes."
Lets dive into some hypotheticals. You are part of the upper management at a large pharmaceutical company. One of the drugs your company has been developing has been proven to work even better than anticipated, effectively curing cancer. Your company owes much of its profits off of the current drugs you have on the market, and while you will be boosted for a short while after releasing the cure, the other companies will get a hold of the cure and the whole industry will recieve a hit. Instead of being able to prescribe expensive drugs for a long period of time, the cure works after only a month on average. Would your company fulfill moral obligations and take a big hit, or continue to prosper by ignoring the cure? Companies exist to make profit. That is their goal. Undermining that goal is not something that they are in the habit of doing, no matter the implications.
This hypothetical situation doesn't even account for the likelihood of pressure from other companies or organizations that earn money off of cancer. Most notably, the FDA or any other equivalent that approves the drugs on the market. I hope I was able to show the unlikelihood of the people involved with cancer allowing a cure to be released.
P2. Suppressing cures for cancer would be extremely easy for those with the incentive.
It is extremely hard for drugs to reach the market. It takes an average of 2.5 billion dollars to develop and approve a new drug . Thus, it is virtually impossible for anyone other than giant pharmaceutical companies to put a drug on the market. These companies have their own drugs (which are extremely expensive, and not as effective as they might be in order to keep the patient on the drug for longer). Also, in several states it is illegal to treat cancer with treatments other than with chemo, surgery, and radiation. Those with cures will not be able to surpass these barriers, when the whole cancer industry is against them.
Who are the people that research cancer? Institutes, labritories, hospitals, and the like all can simply ignore the cure. The researchers will not like it, they are in it for good reasons. However, the people that matter just want the money to keep flowing. With patents and more, they can easily stop cures that are being developed without any way for those who want the cure to be released to fight.
P3. At least one cure for cancer is likely to have been developed.
The biggest and most compelling evidence is this. There are a lot of possible cancer cures out there, Vitamin C , sodium bicarbonate , and laetrile , just to name a few. These things have little or no real studies done on them, despite their hype. This means that even though health organizations and companies are denying that these treatments work, they aren't attempting to disprove them. The best and most logical explanation for this is that they know what the studies would reveal. Otherwise, this simply makes no sense. The aforementioned possible cures are things that health organizations are actively opposing. They cite reasons like "They simply do not work." However, no evidence is shown. If they were being legit, then they would first study the cures to find out whether they work or not, before revealing findings and disproving the effectiveness of the purported cures. This was not done. No findings are revealed, only denials.
As you can see, cancer researchers have been photographed engaging in this conspiracy. Ignore everything else I said, this is definite proof of my assertion. For this reason alone I should acquire all the votes. In fact this is practically a truism. VOTE PRO.
One thing that has not been clearly defined is what is meant by the cure to cancer. As there are certain treatments that are openly available to remedy some specific types of cancers, such as chemotherapy, radiation exposure, and surgery, the only thing to debate about is whether there is a remedy that is a universal cure of all cancers. To put it simply, when 'cure for cancer' is mentioned, it means cure for all forms of cancer, at all times.
Unlike my opponent, who provided premises, I will supply 3 reasons why the cure to cancer would not or cannot be suppressed. They are as follows: 1) Extreme punishment for whoever that would know about it, but not reveal. 2) Something with the nature of the cure is not known. 3) Cancer researcher's genuine desire.
My first case is the enormous amount of trouble and punishment one would face if they had suppressed the cure to cancer. Although not usually seen in this context, hiding the cure is equivalent to not providing proper medication and treatment, and it is a serious issue. This medical malpractice of not providing proper treatment is consdered a criminal offense when there is a "gross or flagrant deviation from the standard of care", which is definetly met if doctors knowingly let patients die . In the US, patients can convict their doctors for medical malpractice, as they would not be providing the correct medicine. As the key factor to a medical malpractice case is proving that the doctor was negligent, this is easily done as they must be doing so if they suppress the cure . Doctors know this very well, and even if they were so wicked and money driven as to still suppress the, they would not be able to hide the cure. The persons able to sue the doctor would be all his customers, and he would have to compensate for their pain, time, medication, and much more. This poses a huge deterrent to any intention of doctors trying to suppress the cure, as they could face great sums of fines and jail time, and maybe even capital in some states if their negligence kills a lot of people . It would not be worth it in any perspective for a doctor to hide the cure from his patients.
My second point addresses the very disease itself, and an explanation of what happens and what must be done to cure it is ncessary. If you are completely oblivious of cancer, I'd recommend you watch this video as it provides an understanding of cancer . Cancer has countless different forms, but has one uniformityand that is that all cancers involved cells grow incessantly. This abnormal growth usually results in tumors and impairs the function of even healthy cells. Since we are looking for a remedy to this, what we must find is something that cause cells to functions as they normally would. This is much more difficult than it sounds. Efforts to correct the contaminated cells and reform them has proved not promising, and so the alternative of wiping them out is what is prevalent today. The main methods for treating cancer are surgery to remove the cells, radiation to kill the cells, and chemotherapy to kill the cells too .
The challenge this posses however is that we have to make sure the medicine does not harm our healthy cells, as the cancer cell is almost indistiguishable except that it reproduces out of control. Taking cells back to their original state is extremely hard because they were not put in that way, but they just naturally are. We do not understand all the mysteries about how cells work and what they can and do do. What is basically needed to cure cancer is something that will take cancerous cells and subject them to our other cells so that they are once again under control. The promise of this has not been shown from much except stem cells, which serve as a sort of internal repair system . The only 'cure' for any type of cancer available is to kill all the cancerous cells and start over again. This isnt the normal way to cure a disease, which generally takes the impurities away leaving the person back in natural condition. The supposed cure to cancer which is being suppressed should be able to just this, basically reprogramming the cells to make everything all perfect again. Ludicrous! such a thing is beyond the science of today as no method attempting to correct cancer cells have been shown success. Modern methods involve destroying cancerous cells and starting anew, which is not really fixing it but starting over.
My third point is that Cancer researchers have a genuine desire to do their job. Most Cancer researchers have an income of about $50 000 a year . This is not an awful lot of money, and most professions have a greater income than this. The truth is, this income by itself is not enough to call the minds of such intelligent individuals. The driving factor behind a lot of cancer researchers are is some personal connection to someone who might have had cancer. This is not only a mere claim as even a researcher of Novartis, the world's most valuable pharmaceutical company, expressed that his career is inspired by a childhood loss . This is not something unique to just him, but something many other cancer researchers hold in common. The importance of this is that the driving force behind these researchers is not money, but a desire to cure the disease. This devotion to the people is what drives the researchers, and so I do not doubt for one second that they would ever think about hiding something that would fulfill the purpose of their lives.
Since Pro has proposed to keep this round for opening arguments, I will save my supporting arguments and rebuttals for later. But there is one statement I wish to give. There is no known cure to all cancers. And if pro can refute that by showing that a cure exists, then I will give in. But if he can't, then that tells a lot about whether there is any real cure out there or not.
Of course, the cancer industry (which makes up a large part of the health industry) will not let this happen. The defendants can easily deny that the cure works. The whole cancer industry is involved in hiding cures. How does one sue an entire, multi-billion dollar industry, for malpractice? The truth is, you can't. Also, I want to address another thing. The front-line doctors, the ones that actually treat patients, do not actually know of the suppressed cures. Who are the customers then? The ones suppressing the cures are the powerful people at the top of the hierarchy. I contend that all major health institutions have people involved in this. If this is true, this whole point is moot. They will do all their independent (fake) studies, and if they ever reach a court (which probably will not happen), they can just cite eachother, and being the big organizations that they are, they will be the most "reliable" sources.
Proper medication and treatment will always be defined by the medical community. The majority of the medical community is involved in this, therefore they cannot be defeated by malpractice lawsuits.
Cancer cells are distinguishable from regular cells. Even the cancer research page admits this. "Some cells of the immune system can recognise cancer cells as abnormal and kill them." If this is true, then why can't we use the immune system to kill cancer? Some of the possible cures that I gave in my first argument and will show again later, use this to do it. Another thing that may differentiate regular cells and cancer cells, is that cancer cells are much worse at using ketones for energy. The primary way most of us get ATP for our cells, is glycolysis, which is making ATP from glucose. This source describes that process. However, alternate organic molecules that can be used to produce ATP are ketones. Producing energy from ketones is called ketogenesis. "Ketogenesis takes place in the setting of low glucose levels in the blood, after exhaustion of other cellular carbohydrate stores, such as glycogen." People have had success using diets that switch the main energy source from glucose to ketones, by massively reducing the amount of carbs ingested .
It is obvious that a cure for cancer is not impossible, and that it is possible to target cancer cells without harming the rest of the body.
I concede this point (except for certain researchers, as per the additional evidence). However, it does not lead to the resolution being negated. The connection between this and the resolution was already defeated in large part when I proved my second premise in round two, and also during the refutation of Con's first point. The higher ups of the health organizations that research cancer are just too powerful for the small time researchers, who only have power over their lab equipment. I argue that cures pop up only occasionally, and that it is easy to pass off any given group of researchers as "quack." They cannot do anything about this.
Now, I would like to give my proof that a cure for cancer exists and that it is being suppressed.
P1. There exists a enormous incentive for cures for cancer to be suppressed.
This is the motive.
P2. Suppressing cures for cancer would be extremely easy for those with the incentive.
This is the means and opportunity.
P3. At least one cure is likely to have been developed.
This is my evidence.
C1. The cure for cancer is being suppressed.
This is, obviously, not pure logic that is objectively valid. However, I still feel that if my premises are correct, then my conclusion is correct.
The resolution is affirmed. I look forward to seeing my opponent's refutations.
5. http://www.ruled.me... (This source is geared toward anyone taking a keto diet, which does not only include people with cancer)
I will begin by refuting my opponents arguments and then supporting mine from criticism. One thing to notice is that my opposition's argument has premises that depend on each other so the refutation of one refutes it all.
My opponents first point is that there exists and enormous incentive for the cure to be suppressed. His support for this is based on the value of the industry and the apparent 'threat' a cure would pose to their income. I will argue that this is not the case and that the revelation of a cure will actually potentially increase the revenue for the industry.
An extremely important thing to bring to this discussion is the supply and demand chart. It looks as follow:
What I would now like to point out is that the cure to cancer is an inelastic demand, which simply means that people are not going to purchase the cure just because it is cheap or available, but only because it is what they need. The only change in the quantity demanded is due to the fact whether people are able to afford it. So from a business point of view, since the cure to cancer is something that is essentially selling life to some individuals, the price that they are willing to pay will be much more than if they were just to pay modicum amounts often. You could potentially charge them millions for curing one person, as this would be something they extremely rich people are willing to pay to save their life. If you were however only giving them only something to slow it down, they would not be willing to pay anything close to what they would for a complete cure. There is a plethora supply of things to slow cancer and all those procedures(over 200), but there'd be only one cure . This would mean whichever company produces the cure gets customers from all the other companies. When I say other companies, I mean to emphasise this point because there is a myriad of companies which you can explore from this source, but I can tell you that it's over 100 . All their money would come with them, and hence a company releasing the cure to the market can and probably would earn more money than if they are to continue in their current direction.
Now his second point is that it is very easy for people to do this if they want to. My objection to this is also my support to his faulty criticism of my third point. The point that I want to make is that the Cancer researcher is the one doing the research regarding cancer. The 'higher ups of the health organization' are not in charge of conducting the research or finding the cure, but only get notified when the cure has been found. So for my refutation for his point to be sufficient, it is important to accept that the researcher is the one who knows about the cure, first and before the CEO, Marketing associates, etc.
Based on the previous claim, I will argue that there is not enough incentive for people who know the cure to hide or suppress it. Pro has conceded that Cancer Researchers are not driven by the motivation of money, and so if they are the people who know the cure there is nothing stopping them from proclaiming it. Pro acknowledges that this is the case when he says "I argue that cures pop up only occasionally...". Where I will correct him however is that none of these 'cures' are the actual cure. As I have said before, if any of the drug companies found the cure, they would patent the formula and sell it so that they may monopolize the market and maximize their income. Since this has not happened, nor have people been miraculously healed by one specific method (excluding the extreme claims that are used as advertising) it is unreasonable to believe the cure has been found. Since it is the researchers who know the cure if it exists, and Pro concedes they are fueled by their passion to cure people with cancer, the financial burden is not enough reason to hide the cure for those who would know.
His third claim is that atleast one cure is likely to have been developed. This is a statement he has failed to bring any serious support to except things he thinks might be able to cure. I will show why his unprofessional propositions are filled with flaws and that each of his propositions are scientifically not able to be the cure. If Pro wants to strengthen this point, I would urge that he provides a real cure that is able to cure all cancer.
As I had mentioned earlier regarding what cancer is, the cure must be able to decrease the growth of cells to a normal rate. His first possible cure (PC) is Vitamin C. Vitamin C is actually a vitamin needed for growth and development . It's main function in the body is to repair body tissue, and injuries, and absorb iron . Notice how all of these will actually help the cancer grow as it encourages cell growth. If Pro was the cancer doctor, or the person he cited, the patient would only be taken to death earlier. Sodium Bicarbonate, more commonly known as baking soda, has a main function of calming acidity in the body . It is an alkaline substance and so would actually placate the lactic acid resulting from the cancer cells as they do not use glucose as often as Pro mentioned in his round 3 response saying cancer cells participates in ketogenesis. Ketogenesis occurs when glucose is in shortage and hence fats are used in anaerobic respiration. This hence provides better conditions for cancer to spread and the pH levels are fertile for cell growth. Laetrile, also called Amygdalin, is known to have the infamous poison cyanide . The side effects from the tests of this have shown effects of poisoning, so although it would kill the cancer cells we are trying to get rid of, it would kill the rest of them in you too .
In case you haven't noticed, all of the possible cures that Pro even put forth are all detrimental to curing and are far from reaching it. There is no substance that is known to be able to kill specifically cancer cells, and that is why methods such as radiation and chemotherapy are used to aim at cancer cells and eradicate them. I am unaware of any medication that is able to identify the difference between cancer and regular cells and target and kill only cancer cells so until I am shown something that can do anything like that, my position saying that there is no cure is firmly solid.
Since I have provided refutations to all Pro's points, I will now move to defending mine. One thing I would like to point out is that saving just one premises wont save Pro's argument as Pro has to bring credibility to each of them for his conclusion to be considered true.
Pro says that the cancer industry would not let this happen, but they cannot limit it. The researchers are the one with the knowledge as to how it can be cured and they do not even need to administer a drug to introduce it to the public. In the scientific community, tests are not conducted by a single researcher, but they go through a process of peer review so it would be widely known if a cure is found by a lot of researchers. Since all researcher has to do is show the cure to any cancer patient who can afford it, the industry isn't even needed for the drug to be known. What it is needed for is to commercialized, but who says the person cannot found a company of his own and sell the drug for the money to be made that I mentioned earlier.
I concede that cancer cells are different, but Pro has failed to show a cure which can identify and act on this. On the contrary I have shown why all his options are inadequate to cure cancer.
Already addressed earlier.
I look forward to your response
This does not take into account the competition between organizations, and the price of the cure . Most of the possible cures (PCs), are relatively cheap. Sure, it will stay at a high price for a while, and the industry will probably make more than it was making before for a short period of time. After that though, multiple things will combine to make profits plummet. 1. A cure for cancer cannot be patented. "A patent must not prevent doctors from curing and preventing illnesses " If the cure for cancer is patented, the lack of competition will set the price of the cure obscenely high. The price of cancer may keep the cure out of the hands of those that need it, therefore it cannot be patented. 2. Competition will reduce the price of the cure. The demand for the cure will be great, yes. However, the supply will also be great, due to the amount of health organizations that exist to help patients with cancer. It will be impossible for the cure to stay far above the cost of making it, because of this. 3. Patients are cured. The cancer industry relies on the same patients being billed for months. This allows people to afford things they could not at one time.
Your point that the company that produces the cure gets the patients is false due to the fact that it cannot be patented. The amount of companies involved only strengthens my argument that competition will destroy the price of the cure. For this reason, the cure is far less profitable than the current treatments.
The people that are farther up the hierarchy in the cancer organizations recieve the majority of the money from the cancer treatments. It does not matter if the researchers find it first, because it will quickly be quashed. This point does not contradict my argument, so I do not need to give backing.
The researchers can and do proclaim the existence of a cure . However, everytime they do, they are quickly denounced by the cancer industry. The rest of this argument is already denounced above. If anyone tried to patent the cure for cancer, it would be challenged and defeated.
My opponent does not link any studies that disprove these PCs, and he attempts to use his own reasoning to disprove the cures. Even if he is correct about these PCs, there are many more out there. Cannabis, dichloroacetate, and more. This is not presenting new arguments, just showing that my opponent cannot disprove all PCs. This is why I think that at least one PC, probably more, is a suppressed cure.
When disproving cures, medical accociations do not first refute them with studies. Instead, they simply give reasons, similar to what my opponent gave to why they do not work. Why are they having a closed mind about the cures? Because they know that, whether it works or not, it will not be allowed to be used. This is not a new argument, but an argument I made in R2 that Con does not address. Unless my opponent can give a reason for this, this is clear proof that these cures are being suppressed.
Despite not needing to, I think it is beneficial to my case to prove why Con is wrong about the PCs that I gave. For the vitamin C cure, Vitamin C is injected into the blood at high dosages. It has been shown by a two time Nobel prize winner that this induces cancer cells to undergo apoptosis . In addition, this has been used successfully before in the Nature Works Best clinic .
I did not state that cancer cells do not use glucose as often. I argued that they do not use ketones as effectively as healthy cells, which is the exact opposite. This is quite a big oversight, which defeats his arguments against the keto diet and sodium bicarbonate. Cell growth is not the issue. The issue is that cancer cells find it hard to produce ATP when in an environment with ketones instead of glucose, which is what most of us use. When switching over to ketones, cancer cells struggle to survive.
Amygdalin is not straight cyanide. Amygdalin is made up of several parts, with cyanide as one of its components . A small amount of cyanide is difficult for us to deal with at first, but the immune system can get used to it. Consuming enough amygdalin does not get anyone anywhere near the amount needed to kill.
Attacks of defences:
It will not work. Many people's cooperation is required when creating a health company, and this requires the approval of many of those that will not let a cure for cancer through, including organizations like the FDA. Another reason is the restrictive cost it takes to develop a new drug, as I showed earlier. This amount is not something a new company can pay.
That is okay. This whole point is conceded since Con originally argued that a cure is not possible because of how cancer cells work.
How can a few researchers get their cure past large organizations that denounce them? The might of the cancer industry is too strong. My opponent has failed to show a scenario in which researchers that find a cure for cancer can get past this obstacle.
--- CONCLUSION ---
My opponent did not account for competition among health organizations, and thus failed to show that a cure for cancer would be profitable compared to the current treatments.
My opponent has not shown a scenario in which researchers that find a cure for cancer can survive large organizations going after them. He argued that they can create their own company, but I have defeated this.
My opponent did not address the core reasons why a cure exists that I gave.
My premises have been proven. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro!
3. http://www.sciencedirect.com... (an example)
HSamei1999 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
|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:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited turn.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.