Fair enough. Injections are usually referred to as minimally invasive.

Um why am I incorrect?

>Believe it or not, cancer research is typically more advanced than just exposing cancer cells to caustic/toxic chemicals.

And how is this argument different from what I stated just prior?

> In vitro research is important, but it should always be followed up by in vivo studies and clinical trials.

Why is the bleach example a bad faith argument? I gave that as an example that promising in vitro results often fail to make it to the clinic. That statement is absolutely true.

You don't like bleach? Fine, if you put enough table salt into the dish, cancer cells die, but people who eat the same salt still get cancer all the time. Is that still a bad faith argument? Or how about the fact FCCP kills cancer cells in a dish but will likely also kill people if you give it to them?

In vitro research is important, but it should always be followed up by in vivo studies and clinical trials.

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying every that works in vitro also works in vivo?

It is also true so many things work in cell culture but not in actual patients. You can kill cancer cells if you put bleach into the dish. But if you put bleach in people you are not going to have a fun time.

I'm pretty sure chemos count as "non-invasive treatment", and it works pretty well for prostate cancer already.

Soap and dirt and bacteria are still there. Your car will smell and look like dog turd

You CANT use graywater to wash your car. Try using your shower water to wash your windows. It doesn't work. This is common sense.