The cure for cancer has already been found.

Opening My opponent stated various methods in his round 1 argument. However, as the title of this debate states “the cure for cancer has already been found”, we must only look at any curative facets of each method. Each method’s effectivity as a preventive measure is impertinent and it would be a waste of characters and time to refer to them. Instead, my following rebuttals will only refer to each method’s effectivity as a cure, that is, its effectivity against people already in various stages of cancer. Antioxidants My opponent states that cancer is caused by free radicals damaging DNA, and that we must therefore consume antioxidants in order to prevent cancer. Regardless of antioxidant influence over the prevention of cancer (which, on a side note, isn’t as significant as my opponent makes it out to be), there is little to no evidence that antioxidants aid in the termination of cancer among current cancer patients. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine came to the conclusion that among male smokers, antioxidants may actually be harmful. It states: “We found no reduction in the incidence of lung cancer among male smokers after five to eight years of dietary supplementation with alpha-tocopherol or beta-carotene [antioxidants]. In fact this trial raises the possibility that these supplements may actually have harmful as well a beneficial effects” [1] Another study further researched this among mice, and stated: “Antioxidants in the diet and supplements are widely used to protect against cancer, but clinical trials with antioxidants do not support this concept. Some trials show that antioxidants actually increase cancer risk and a study in mice showed that antioxidants accelerate the progression of primary lung tumors. However, little is known about the impact of antioxidant supplementation on the progression of other types of cancer, including malignant melanoma. ” [2] From this we can only conclude that simply consuming antioxidants does not cure cancer. My opponent then surmises that therefore, one must intake the antioxidants from food sources (specifically plants). However, one might observe that my opponent does not cite a study or piece of evidence that shows that antioxidants from food sources cures cancer. He simply makes his own conclusions from the fact that excessive concentration of free radicals may damage DNA. As this shows, one cannot simply make their own conclusions from something that seems to be true; as if this were the case, the logical conclusion would be that supplements would also aid the curing of cancer. My opponent’s conclusion that antioxidants aid in the curing of cancer is simply an unsubstantiated hypothesis which has not been thoroughly tested. Since it has not been tested, it does not follow the scientific process[1], the process used to come to any scientific truth. Since my opponent's hypothesis does not follow the scientific process, we currently have no reason to believe that antioxidants aid in the curing of cancer. Plants, Meat and the Immune System A majority of opponents arguments concerning plants and meat conclude that they may prevent cancer. I will not refer to those arguments. However, pieces of it conclude that they aid your immune system, which my opponent states, aids the curing of cancer. I will attack this conclusion fundamentally by showing that even if an immune system was generally boosted by a plant based diet, it could still not effectively terminate all types of cancer permanently. I apologize if this seems repetitive, as I covered this in my last argument, but I must refer to it again in order to properly rebut my opponent. As I stated in my initial argument, cancerous cells have found a number of ways to either evade or dampen the immune system. They may use the PD-L1 protein which allows them to activate a pathway that effectively suppresses immune responses. [3] Furthermore, even without the use of this protein, a majority of cancer patients either do not have a sufficient number of neoantigens (a sort of marker which triggers an immune response by identifying the cell as foreign) [4] exhibited by their cancer cells, or the number of cells that do exhibit these neoantigens are insufficiently distributed throughout the tumour [5]. When my opponent states: "The cure is very simple, boost your body and your immune system will destroy the cancer cells, thus curing yourself. That's right, the cure is your white blood cells, the ones that are destroyed by chemotherapy and other invasive treatments. As seen in this peer reviewed link cytotoxcity of the body's Natural Killer white blood cells is double. As seen here, white blood cells attack cancer cells. "White blood cells can also attack cancerous cells that are traveling in the blood stream. " He disregards this fact. That the white blood cells either cannot attack the cancerous cells because of immune response suppression, or that the white blood cells do not identify the cancerous cells as foreign and do not therefore attack said cells. This means that even if an immune system was boosted by a plant based diet, it would not be able to fight cancer as it is either unable to do so because of evasion via specific protein use, or it does not know it must attack these cells as it doesn’t find them to be foreign. Therefore even if a plant based diet, which is vital in the Gerson Miracle program, were to increase one’s immune system, the immune system would still be susceptible to cancer and would continue to be insufficient. From this, we must conclude that simply eating a plant based diet (and therefore following the Gerson Miracle program) would not terminate cancer among cancer patients, and cannot therefore be referred to as a cure for cancer. Conclusion As has been shown, my opponents methods of a cure to cancer fails to match the definition of a cure. This coupled with the limited effectivity of current treatment methods leads us to the conclusion that the cure for cancer has not already been found. Since my opponent seems to be abandoning the Gerson Miracle program in his rebuttals, my arguments here may again seem impertinent. Yet I could again only cover all my bases and rebut only his round 1 arguments. Since we cannot make new arguments in the next round, I may finally address all arguments by my opponent which will hopefully make my case best. Thank you. Sources 1. . http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu... 2. . https://atbcstudy.cancer.gov... 3. . http://stm.sciencemag.org... 4. . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 5. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 6. . https://www.statnews.com...