The cure for cancer is being suppressed

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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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 [3]. It's main function in the body is to repair body tissue, and injuries, and absorb iron [3]. 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 [4]. 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 [5]. 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 [5].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. Point 1: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.Point 2: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.Point 3:Already addressed earlier.I look forward to your responseSources:1. http://www.cancer.gov... 2. http://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com... 3. https://www.nlm.nih.gov... 4. http://www.mgwater.com...5. http://www.cancer.gov...