The cure for cancer is being suppressed

In this round, I will prove the three premises that lead to my conclusion. 1. There exists an enormous incentive for a cure for cancer to be covered up, 2. It is extremely easy for those with the incentive, and 3. At least one (probably more) cures for cancer are likely to have been developed. BOP is mostly on me, but my opponent still needs to affirm that it is unlikely for a cure to exist. 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 [1]. It is ranked in the top five most expensive health conditions [2]. 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 [3]. 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 [4], sodium bicarbonate [5], and laetrile [6], 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. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE: http://2.bp.blogspot.com... 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. References: 1. http://www.theorganicprepper.ca... 2. http://cdn.natureworksbest.com... 3. http://www.scientificamerican.com... 4. http://natureworksbest.com... 5. http://www.cancertutor.com... 6. http://articles.mercola.com...