Chemotherapy is less effective than a placebo

An interesting tactic to ignore the entire 2nd half of my round 2 argument. My argument about the funding effect and doctors being the 3rd leading cause of death. This is important because it shows bias in scienfic studies. Also shows that doctors are fallible. "2. no study has shown 30% effectiveness of placebos treating cancer. Pro's film is highly biased, lacks any real credibility, and never cites a legitimate source for the 30% number; it claims that for some cancers, chemo is less than 30% effective which is the high end of the general, not specifically cancer, placebo effect, which has really only been demonstrated for pain treatment, not cancer treatment." Con Perhaps showing a placebo affecting a condition other than pain or cancer would help. "The latter came with a device projecting elaborate visual effects of the heart as well as heavy sedation, and was so convincing that patients couldn't tell whether they got the real or imitation treatment. When the results were in, the placebo worked as well as the real thing. " Jeff Levine WedMd. [1] "Laser Heart Treatment Benefit May Be Placebo" Levine "Six months after the study, both the treatment and placebo groups showed the same amount of improvement in their ability to exercise" Levine As you can see a placebo is effective in an unrelated disease, heart disease. "Pro's film is highly biased" Con Bare assertion, you must elaborate. If you read about the funding effect you will see some scientific studies are bias. "lacks any real credibility, and never cites a legitimate source for the 30% number;" Con Did you see the long list of sources? Around time index 1:30. Here's the link to the site with the sources for the film. I seriously doubt you took the time to look at even 1/4 of those sources. http://ravediet.com... Con then lists a bunch of peer reviewed sources. I wonder who funded those studies? This question is important because of the funding effect. "Industrial support of biomedical research may bias scientific conclusions, as demonstrated by recent analyses of pharmaceutical studies." Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles Lenard I Lesser, Cara B Ebbeling, Merrill Goozner, David Wypij, David S LudwigPLOS Published: January 9, 2007 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005 "4. Logically, if a placebo were significantly reliable, it would cease to be a placebo, and become an actual curative agent, with data, that could indicate its mechanism of action. If placebos could treat cancer as effectively as chemotherapy, we could save tons of money on health care costs, so its demonstration should be ever available...it is not. Placebos aren't effective, because placebos have no effect; it is this characteristic that makles it a placebo. I reject the resolution that chemotherapy is less effective than a placebo." Con I've demonstrated earlier in this round that placebos are effective for heart disease. "If placebos could treat cancer as effectively as chemotherapy, we could save tons of money on health care costs" Con Now you have gotten to the root of the problem. 1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the true faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows. " [4] Ask me what costs more money? A sugar pill or chemotherapy? Hmmm, a sugar pill is about $1 max. Now how much does chemotherapy cost? "Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India" theatlantic.com [5] "The cost of eight weeks of chemotherapy can range from $100 to $30,000." Ritwik Ghosh [6] Hmmm, $1 versus $70,000. Maybe if you bought a whole lot of sugar pills it would be $100. Still $100 versus $70,000. No contest. I wonder how much cancer costs are world wide? "The total economic impact of premature death and disability from cancer worldwide was $895 billion in 2008. "cancer.org [7] $895 billion dollars. That's a lot of dough. That's the problem. All this money is jading people's judgement. How about alternative treatments? Like walking, sunshine, fresh air, meditation, and healthy diets? How much do they cost? The first four are free. Healthy diets might cost up to an additional $10 a day or so. What about preventive care, after all "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Ben Franklin [8] What are the risk factors for cancer? [9] Let's see Obesity, diet, Alcohol, and Tobacco all seem manageable. Why not focus on these first? These all seem very cheap to prevent. A lot cheaper than chemotherapy. Also of note the WHO "World Health Organization Report Links Bacon, Hot Dogs, Other Processed Meats To Cancer" Mary Beth Quirk [10] "USDA Recalls More Than 167,000 Pounds of Ground Beef for E. Coli Concerns Kimberly Holland" [11] Clearly diet matters. http://www.webmd.com... http://ravediet.com... http://journals.plos.org... http://biblehub.com... http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.livestrong.com... http://www.cancer.org... http://www.ushistory.org... http://www.cancer.gov... http://consumerist.com... http://simmerandboil.cookinglight.com...