Chemotherapy is less effective than a placebo

Despite the resolution only requiring me to show that chemotherapy is equally effective as a placebo, I will agree to debate that chemotherapy is more effective than a placebo. Chemotherapy is more effective than a placebo, because: 1. cytostatics (chemo's chemicals) have an explainable mechanism, impeding cell division, to indicate that cytotoxic is directly causing the treatment's success. 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. 3. several peer reviewed studies published by the National Library of Medicine have shown chemotherapy's treatment success as high as 60% rejecting this resolution even using Pro's arbitrary 30% number. 4. if a placebo were reliably 30% successful at treating cancer, it would no longer be a placebo, because it would be prescribed for a physiological effect, counter to its definition, and we could determine its mechanism of action and use it as an actual treatment. Explanations: 1. Cancer spreads because cancerous cells are able to rapidly cell divide and proliferate. Cytostatics like cytoxic stop cell division by targeting DNA and proteins needed by the cancerous cell, thus cancer cell growth stops/is reduced, and this leads to cancer cell death. "inhibition of protein synthesis is a key mode of action, and the compound functions by a cytostatic mechanism" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. In a study on prostate cancer, they gave some patients nilutamide, an antiandrogen, and they gave some patients a placebo. They found "objective regressions were higher in the nilutamide group (41%) than in the placebo group (24%)...bone pain, prostatic acid phosphatase, prostate specific antigen, alkaline phosphatase and bone scan isotope uptake." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Pro's film claims 30% effectiveness of placebo, but it never says that this number is for cancer...instead it's well known that this 30% is from only pain studies, and is on the higher end of those. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Go ahead, watch Pro's "film" at the link below and go to about 1:25 in...there they mention this 30% number without credibility. http://chemowillkillyou.ning.com... Notice the site is called "Chemo Will Kill You," so the bias is obvious. 3. A. In a study of the effectiveness of chemotherapy on bladder carcinomas: "The overall 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 65.6%." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... B. In a study of cervical cancer patients who received chemotherapy: "Overall 5-year and 10-year disease-free actual survival rates were 82.0% and 79.4%, respectively." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... C. In a study of adults with rhabdomyosarcoma who received chemotherapy: "Five-year survival rates for patients with tumors less than 5 cm were 60%." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... D. In a study of osteosarcoma patients who received chemotherapy: "Continuous disease-free survival [was] 58%." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... E. In a study where patients had lymphoma and received chemotherapy: "Complete remission...[and] partial remission..[were] a total...rate of 64%." http://jco.ascopubs.org... 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.