Chemotherapy is less effective than a placebo

Pro starts off referring to his source that he referenced to prove that placebos are effective for treating heart disease: "I did miss that the treatment was designed to relieve pain...yes, I told a falsehood." My response: Pro used this falsehood to demonstrate an already irrelevant point that placebos treat heart disease, and the falsehood wasn't even in the source. Pro why should we trust your extractions or interpretations of your sources, when you've admitted to telling a falsehood from the very source you provided? I'll buy that Pro missed the most crucial part of the source he provided by accident, but I caution Pro to be more careful in the future. Pro maintains: "this doesn't mean I'm wrong...for instance, in one study, people were given a placebo and told it was a stimulant...their pulse rate sped up...when people were given the same pill and told it was to help them get to sleep, they experienced the opposite effects." My response: This shows that placebos are more effective at treating cancer than chemotherapy? This actually shows that people's responses to being told something, not placebos, can raise and lower their heart rate. Have you ever been told something troublesome, and you immediately begin to worry? This increases your heart rate and blood pressure. Have you ever been told that something you've been worried about has been taken care of? This decreases your heart rate and relaxes you. This study isn't indicative of a placebo's effectiveness, rather an authority's influence on our emotional responses. In any case this is irrelevant to a placebo's effectiveness at treating cancer. Pro continues: "studies since then have shown placebos working for certain conditions" My response: Ok, well if none of the conditions include cancer, then this is yet another irrelevant citation. Pro tries to justify the bible quote about money being the root of all kinds of evil: "Here's some science to back up the claim...'The rich are more likely to...give more to charities.'" My response: Oh, how evil! Even if Pro shows the bad things that rich people are more likely to do, it doesn't indicate funding corruption in scientific studies published by the NCBI, which is funded by congress; it also does not provide a reason for why we should consider the bible authoritative on matters of morality, including financial avarice. Though irrelevant to this debate, Pro mentions about the bible: "I don't see reference to man being given dominion over other man." My response: Exodus 21:20 + Exodus 21:21: "Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property." Treating humans as your property is immoral, and so is not being punished for beating someone almost to death, so long as they recover in 2 days. Pro, why should we consider the bible authoritative on matters of morality if the bible encourages and substantiates rules for owning people as property (dominion over man) and allows for the near-death abuse of humans to go unpunished? The bible is irrelevant to this debate, but that had to be corrected. Then Pro ponders: "I wonder if those high numbers Con quoted for chemotherapy were absolute or relative numbers?" My response: Well, I know Pro has had some issues with telling falsehoods from sources, so I'll help out. My studies from the 2nd round: A. Chemotherapy + bladder carcinomas: "The overall 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 65.6%." This means that 171 of the 260 patients were still alive after 5 years, or not dead from bladder cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... B. Chemotherapy + cervical cancer: "Overall 5-year and 10-year disease-free actual survival rates were 82.0% and 79.4%, respectively." This means that 64 of the 78 patients survived for 5 years, and 62 of 78 survived for 10 years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... C. Chemotherapy + rhabdomyosarcoma: "Five-year survival rates for patients with tumors less than 5 cm were 60%." This means that 9 of the 15 patients with tumors less than 5cm survived for 5 years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... D. Chemotherapy + osteosarcoma: "Continuous disease-free survival [was] 58%." This means that 23 of 40 patients survived for 5 years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... E. Chemotherapy + lymphoma: "Complete remission...[and] partial remission..[were] a total...rate of 64%" This means that 40 of 63 patients had complete or partial remission. http://jco.ascopubs.org... These are all absolute to me...these are percentages, they are proportional to the number of patients in the studies...I don't really understand the need to label my data as relative or absolute, but I hope I have shed some light on these studies. Pro, the studies are clear, chemotherapy is way more effective on cancer than the 30% placebo number which has only been shown for pain reduction in other conditions that aren't cancer. If Pro is going to rely on the "financially corrupt" argument to disqualify my statistics, then Pro has to demonstrate how my sources in particular are corrupted. So, Pro needs to show that the NCBI, the NLM, and the NIH allow for corrupt studies in the interest of financial support. I reject this, and the resolution.