Chemotherapy is less effective than a placebo

"in the heart in an effort to relieve the severe chest pains associated with angina. " [1]. I did miss that the treatment was designed to relieve pain. That doesn't' make me dishonest. Yes, I told a falsehood, but that doesn't make me a liar nor dishonest. Yet, this doesn't mean I'm wrong in other instances. For example "For instance, in one study, people were given a placebo and told it was a stimulant. After taking the pill, their pulse rate sped up, their blood pressure increased, and their reaction speeds improved. When people were given the same pill and told it was to help them get to sleep, they experienced the opposite effects."[2]. "by the anesthesiologist Henry K. Beecher (1904-1976). Beecher concluded that, across the 26 studies he analyzed, an average of 32% of patients responded to placebo. "[3] In this case 32% of patients responded to a placebo. "But studies since then have shown placebos working for certain conditions -- pain, depression, some heart ailments, gastric ulcers and other stomach complaints -- in closer to 50 or 60 percent of subjects, sometimes more. Indeed, it's not unheard of for placebo effects to exceed those attributed to the active drug. " [4] Rebuttal of Con's arguments: "I regarded Pro's funding argument as irrelevant, because we're arguing chemotherapy's effectiveness, not its studies' funding bias." Con The funding effect is relevant because we are debating the effectiveness of chemotherapy versus placebo. We are basing our claims of the effectiveness of chemo versus a placebo on these studies. If the studies that we receive this information are bias then then we must take the bias into account. "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." Con Alas, I've tried, but I found it incredibly difficult to figure who funds which study. "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." Con A good question, which I've already answered. Where is the money? Or follow the money. Is there more money and thus more room for corruption in free treatments like sunshine, fresh air, exercise, and meditation? Or in the expensive chemotherapy. You cannot underestimate the power of money to influence people's perception and judgement. I backed up this claim with the bible quote about money being the root of all kinds of evil. Here's some science to back up the claim. "The rich are more likely to: a) Cut off other drivers. b) Be disinterested in the welfare of others. c) Cheat on a test to get ahead. d) Give more to charities. e) All of the above." [5] ""The rich are more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people," Piff told New York magazine. "It makes them more likely to exhibit characteristic that we would stereotypically associate, with, say, a******."" [5] "Confirmed: rich people are mean, clueless" [6] "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!" Con "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.""[7] I don't see reference to man being given dominion over other man. Only man over beasts. I'm pretty sure it wasn't cool for the Egyptians to enslave the Hebrews. Last I remember Moses freed the Hebrews. "when a website is called Chemo_Will_Kill_You.com and doesn't provide sources" Con I never brought up Chemo_Will_You.com. How is this relevant to the discussion? I think I've proven that a placebo is at least as effective at 30%. I wonder if those high numbers Con quoted for chemotherapy were absolute or relative numbers? Let me explain lets say a chemo drug increasing odds from 1% to 1.5%. The absolute increase would be .5%. Now the relative increase would be 50%. That's a huge difference. "The article starts with a study that concluded that eating one serving of red meat per day increased your risk of death by 20%, while the author says that it is an increase of 0.2% increase in risk. The 20% is a relative risk while the 0.2% is the absolute risk. We may consider changing behavior with a 20% risk while we may not change for a 0.2% risk change."[7]. I contend that Pro is using absolute numbers and Con is using relative numbers. That's why from the same source and the same treatment vastly different numbers are being reported. Thank you for your time. http://www.webmd.com... http://www.webmd.com... http://www.medicinenet.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.examiner.com... http://biblehub.com... https://www.smartersolutions.com...