Chemotherapy is less effective than a placebo

I regarded Pro's funding argument as irrelevant, because we're arguing chemotherapy's effectiveness, not its studies' funding bias. I also assumed that since Pro cited the NCBI for their 2% chemotherapy's effectiveness statistic, that Pro considers NCBI's publications unbiased by funding. However, hypocritically, in the 2nd round, Pro condemns my sources, the same sources Pro used, saying " I wonder who funded those studies? This question is important because of the funding effect." Pro, why don't you tell us who funded these studies? You cited the same source to bolster your argument, without mentioning any "funding bias." Why is the same source that I provided subject to "funding bias," but Pro's is not? Let me save you the search and tell you that the NCBI is, in general, "funded independently by Congress and centrally administered by the Office of the Director;" your tax dollars are funding these studies and their peer-reviewed publications. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... If Pro is going to turn this debate into "you can't trust peer reviewed studies published by the National Library of Medicine, because they're corrupted by funding bias" then: 1. Pro shouldn't be able to use the NLM's publications to support his argument, which he already has done. 2. Any study with funding could be subjected to this idea, thus we can't trust any funded studies to demonstrate chemotherapy's or placebo's effect on treating cancer; we can't use evidence from studies that are funded. I reject the idea that "you can't trust peer reviewed studies, because they're corrupted by funding bias," and I argue that because most of NCBI's publications are funded independently by congress, there exists less "Industrial support of biomedical research [that] may bias scientific conclusions." So, one needs to consider all of my peer-reviewed, highly credible, studies published by the NCBI as strong evidence that chemotherapy is way more effective than a placebo for the treatment of cancer. Then, Pro angers me with his dishonesty: "I've demonstrated earlier in this round that placebos are effective for heart disease." My response: Here's a quote directly from Pro's source: "The treatment, transmyocardial laser revascularization (TMR), burns a series of holes, or channels, in the heart in an effort to relieve the severe chest pains." The real treatment is not effective for treating the disease, angina; it's used to RELIEVE CHEST PAIN from the disease. So, the study actually says that "when the results were in, the placebo worked as well as the real thing" at relieving chest pain. I've cited before that the placebo has been shown to work in pain studies...this study is no different. Pro was dishonest, because the placebo did not show a reduction of the disease, rather the pain associated with it. Pro says: "Perhaps showing a placebo affecting a condition other than pain or cancer would help." My response: Showing that a placebo affects a condition other than cancer is as irrelevant as quoting the bible in a debate about chemotherapy's effectiveness on cancer. Even if a placebo were to show effectiveness in treating heart disease, not just pain from it, it would not amount to a hill of beans in demonstrating a placebo's effect on cancer treatment. Pro cites the bible to explain the problem with money for studies: "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.'" My response: Speaking of bias...Why should anyone consider the bible to be authoritative on matters of modern medical issues, or matters morality with respects to funding bias? I'm pretty sure the bible is cool with slavery, and irrelevant to this debate! Pro asked about his film mentioning 30% effectiveness of placebo on cancer treatment: "Did you see the long list of sources?" My response: Yeah, I did. So Pro, could you provide a link to the source from this "long list" that demonstrates the 30% number. The film did not specify which source belonged to which claim, so we are left in the dark on this. About the claim "Pro's film is highly biased" Pro says: "Bare assertion, you must elaborate. If you read about the funding effect you will see some scientific studies are bias." My response: Let me elaborate...when a website is called Chemo_Will_Kill_You.com and doesn't provide sources that prove the namesake of said website, we call this biased. Watching the film, you don't see any mention of my studies on cancer, rather, cherry picked information whose source is ambiguous and unexplained. Making conclusions from such is what we call a bias, because it assumes a detriment where none has been provided, and where one has been affirmed in the very website's namesake. Pro why should we consider "Chemo Will Kill You.ning.com" to be credible or unbiased? Pro posits: "Ask me what costs more money? A sugar pill or chemotherapy?" My response: Pro, does cost matter if you're dead? With a sugar pill, you are more likely to die from cancer than if you receive chemotherapy, so the differences in the cost of the two is outweighed by the effectiveness of prolonging the lives of cancer patients; if healthy living costs more than dying, I choose the former. Pro, please remove your dishonesty from this debate and directly contend my peer-reviewed studies on chemotherapy and its effectiveness. My studies show that your 30% number has been obliterated, and this should convince you that chemotherapy is in fact more effective in treating cancer than placebos. Pro, if you wanted to argue about the funding corruption of medical studies, then that should have been in the resolution. Chemotherapy is undoubtedly more effective at treating cancer than a placebo, because legit studies demonstrate such. I maintain my rejection of this particular resolution.