That germ theory is false

1- Why would doctors not want to understand the true cause of cancer? Is there not money to be made curing cancer? And is Pro alleging that "alternative theories" cannot be used to make money? This isn't true, obviously, because naturopaths do make money to the tune of about $74,000 a year in my state. [1]Calcium deposits? Pro is incorrect on identifying cancer. Cancer is typically found using Complete Blood Count tests that search for tumor markers secreted by the cancer. [2] That is, usually after a patient experiences cancer-like systems or finds a lesion of some sort.Pro is also incorrect on what cancer is. Cancer is a rather complex topic in and of itself, but the basics for the reader are the following. The cell cycle is essentially the life cycle of a cell. They grow, synthesize some DNA, grow some more, then go through mitosis (or cell division). What's keeping this from going totally out of control? Proto oncogenes. These genes regulate the cycle to keep it from going absolutely haywire, but like all genes, these can mutate. Cancer is a condition in which the tumor regulating genes of a cell mutate, allowing the cell cycle to run unchecked. The mutated genes get passed down through every cell division since mitosis creates two exact copies of the cell, and this keeps going until a tumor, or a mass of cancer cells, appears.Pro also asserts that reduced apoptosis is the result of lack of oxygen and iodine. This is also untrue. Apoptosis, or "programmed" cell death, is down regulated due to the mutation of tumor regulating genes. [3]However this entire racket is incredibly off topic. The point is: the germ theory does not encompass all disease. Cancer is not usually caused by pathogens, but it can be caused by pathogens.2, 3- Pro again insults my computer abilities despite having linked to a website that does not lend itself to credibility or safety while insisting that I search for a source that only he is supposed to provide.Both articles can be a subject for debate given their length and I will not examine them here as they are, again, irrelevant. Ironically enough, Pro proves my point by mentioning vaccines at all. If vaccines don't work at all, and people get infected in the first place.. what exactly is causing the disease?(And for the record, since this whole antivax thing started, the incidence of mumps and measles has skyrocketed.)4- Germ theory does not assert that germs come from the air. In fact, Pasteur proved that they did not come from the air when he disproved spontaneous generation. Germs give rise to more germs, just as humans give rise to more humans. The germ theory also states that many diseases are caused by microbes, but not all.Pro also fails to recognize the pathogenic activity of viruses, prions, fungi, and other parasites.Pro states that bacteria cause disease when they enter the bloodstream through the gut (which is the pathogenesis for sepsis, not literally any disease), but then turns around and says that bacteria is the result of disease. He may argue that the underlying disease was inflammation due to "GRAIN, DAIRY, AND SUGAR," but inflammation from the gut does not cause the far reaching problems he has mentioned such as "poor vision, chest pains, blocked nose, sore throat, poor hearing, [etc]." This is utterly illogical. Bacterial colonization may cause these disorders, but they did not, most likely, come from the gut.A question for my opponent: if germs are the result of disease, then why does their removal result in the organism becoming healthy again?5- I believe my opponent is referring to antibiotic resistant diseases and those infections that can be caused by doctors. Iatrogenic infections unfortunately can happen, however it is not as doctors and nurses do not understand what they're doing. An antibiotic, on the other hand, does not touch the hormonal system (excluding the link between tetrocyclines and birth control). These work on bacteria themselves, and are typically not given with general anaesthetics unless the client is in in-patient care.Pro states that because a medicine's formula includes a molecule or two of flourine, chlorine, or bromine it is inherently toxic. I would like a source for this, as general anaesthetics are not designed to work with the hormone system and instead work with the central nervous system to numb pain and induce sleep. As of right now only 3/5 current general (I believe Pro is referring to inhalational) anaesthetics include flourine. The others are nitrous oxide and xenon [4]. In fact, none of the currently used anaesthetics use bromine. [5-9]Pro insisted in round 2 that there is no connection between the endocrine and immune system. Does he ignore the immune system entirely, or does he acknowledge the link now?6- I understand Pro's frustration with the medical industry. It can be difficult to find the correct diagnosis and I am happy that he has found something that works for him.7- Pro has linked me to a source that provides over 35 years worth of studies. Again, instead of finding a source that backs up his claim, Pro is expecting me to do it instead. It is not my responsibility to do so, though Pro may blame this on "lack of computer skills." Skimming through some I have yet to find a study that claims that the Paleo diet is the panacea for all disease, and am still forced to come to the conclusion that it is not.[1] https://www.sokanu.com...[2] http://www.mayoclinic.org...[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] https://en.wikipedia.org...[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...