The cure for cancer has already been found.

Thanks for your arguments. I will now defend my arguments from your rebuttals. Also, for the sake of this round, all mentions of spontaneous regression is interchangeable with spontaneous remission Opening In this round we must find whether or not spontaneous regression is a cure for cancer, to defend my arguments. I believe that to do so, we must first redefine what a cure is. Cure Initially I defined cure as a “ a complete or permanent solution or remedy”. My opponent further defined a solution as a “the termination of a disease”. Despite this, my opponent and I seem to be using different definitions of the word. To clear up any confusion. I will attempt to lay out a series of criteria for a cure that voters will determine as either reasonable or not. A cure must be:1.Permanent and complete. Just based off of the agreed upon definition of cure as “a complete or permanent solution or remedy”, a cure must be both permanent and complete. Obviously if a cure fails to alleviate the patient of any disease throughout their life, it would not be referred to as a cure. Also, a cure for cancer must be complete. To do so, it must affect all types of cancer. For example, abreast cancer cure couldn’t be referred to as a general cure for cancer as it does not cure all types of cancer. 2.Terminate the disease. A cure for any illness or disease must of course, actually terminate the disease. Having supplied this definition, my opponent already agrees with this.However, a cure can only terminate a disease if one actually has the disease itself. It is rather logical that to terminate a disease, one must first attain the disease itself. Otherwise, we aren’t terminating anything and we would not refer to it as a cure. In other words, in order to be a cure, it must terminate the disease from someone who has already developed the disease. 3.A cure must be inducible. We must be able to induce a method of treatment. If we are unable to purposefully induce a method of treatment, we obviously cannot use it to terminate any disease. As a result, it seems rather illogical to refer to these uninducible methods of treatment as a cure for treatment4.Finally, a cure must have high effectivity rates. The other treatments listed in my round 1 argument are, as agreed by both parties, not treatments. Yet, they can be effective among various types of cancer and they are able to fully eradicate cancer from a patient. If only the above 2 criteria were required, these methods of treatment could be referred to as a cure for cancer. But we distinguish them from cures because they are not sufficiently effective to broader society in order to be referred to as a definitive cure. As a result, only methods of treatment that maintain sufficiently high efficacy rates can be referred to as a cure for cancer. This criteria will be used to find if spontaneous regression qualifies as a cure. Spontaneous RemissionTo show that this method of treatment is indeed not a cure, I will attempt to show how it is neither highly effective, permanent or inducible. Efficacy Rates Spontaneous remission, while served generally with anecdotal accounts, still has very little in terms of statistical probability. A study on spontaneous remission of neuroblastoma (a type of extracranial cancer) states : “The 'true' incidence of spontaneous regression of neuroblastoma is uncertain. However, the frequency of spontaneous regression is important when the benefits of screening procedures are considered. In the population-based Danish neuroblastoma survey 1943-80, spontaneous regression was documented in less than 2% of cases. However, the 'true' incidence may be higher.” [1] As we can see from this study, the true frequency of spontaneous remission is not currently available as a result of poor documentation of the event itself. As a result, it would be illogical and ignorant to blindly label spontaneous remission as a cure for cancer. Further flaws of spontaneous remission are in its inability to be induced Lack of Inducibility As I stated above, the ability to induce or bring about the ability to terminate a disease is foundational to a cure. Unfortunately, spontaneous remissions exact causes and influential factors are unknown. My opponent quoted the following in order to determine the influential factors of spontaneous regression: “A review of past reports demonstrates that regression is usually associated with acute infections, fever, and immunostimulation.” My opponent used this quote as well as anecdotal evidence to justify the following statement. That: “To me [StupidApe] it is crystal clear that the fever destroyed the cancer” However, upon reading the quote from the study, we find that it states these symptoms as ”associated” with spontaneous remission not caused by it. Simple association does not show causation. As the National Centre for Research Methods states: “[It is] over-ambitious to try to infer anything about individual-level causal effects.” [2] While I do not disregard correlational evidence, it is almost certainly eclipsed in credibility by empirical evidence, which states the contrary. That is, that we do not infact know of any causes to initiate spontaneous regression. Infact, a study which reviewed past medical literature of spontaneous remission stated: “We conclude that the literature on the spontaneous regression of cancer is still unable to provide unambiguous accounts of the mechanisms operating to affect these regressions.”[3] From this empirical evidence, we can conclude that we do not currently have the knowledge of the causes of spontaneous remission. Consequently, we cannot initiate or cause spontaneous regression and it remains uninducible. This is further confirmation that spontaneous remission is not a cure for cancer. Lack of Completion and Permanence The final manner in which spontaneous regression can be distinguished from a cure, is that is simply not permanent, or, not consistently permanent. Spontaneous regression is defined as, from my opponent’s own source: “the partial or complete disappearance of a malignant tumor ... " [4] What we must focus on is the “partial” aspect of this definition. While there certainly are cases in which the tumour had entirely regressed, it does not have to in order to qualify as “spontaneous regression”. This is further supported by studies which confirm this thought. A study from the University of Illinois states: “ It is not implied that spontaneous regression need progress to complete disappearance of tumour, nor that spontaneous regression is synonymous with cure (In some cases tumour which underwent apparent spontaneous regression in one area flourished unchecked in other areas of the body or reappeared at a later time)” [5] As this final piece of evidence shows, spontaneous regression does not have to be permanent or complete. However as states above, a cure must be both permanent and complete. This disparity even further distinguishes spontaneous regression and all its facets from a cure for cancer. Conclusion A criteria, based upon agreed upon facts and logic, was given for a cure for cancer. Simply not meeting one of these requirements disqualifies a method of treatment as a cure. However, as can be seen, overwhelming empirical evidence shows that spontaneous remission does not meet 3 of these requirements. The disqualification of this method of treatment, as well as the agreed upon disqualification of previous methods leads us to the definitive conclusion, that the cure for cancer has not yet been found. Vote Con! Finally I want to extend serious praise to my opponent for being consistently respectful and polite. You have my profound respect. It was a lovely debate. Sources 1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2.http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk... 3.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 5.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...