The cure for cancer is being suppressed

I will defend my premises in this round. No new arguments, as per the framework of the debate. Refutation #1: This does not take into account the competition between organizations, and the price of the cure [1]. 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[2]. "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. Refutation #2: 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 [3]. 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. Refutation #3: 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 [4]. In addition, this has been used successfully before in the Nature Works Best clinic [5]. 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 [6]. 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: Point #1: 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. Point #2: That is okay. This whole point is conceded since Con originally argued that a cure is not possible because of how cancer cells work. Point #3: 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! Sources: 1. http://www.encyclopedia.com...(economics).aspx 2. https://www.prv.se... 3. http://www.sciencedirect.com... (an example) 4. http://www.amazon.com... 5. http://cdn.natureworksbest.com... 6. http://www.naturallifeenergy.com...