What definition of confounding factors do you want to use?
"A confounding factor involves is a situation, in which the effects of two or more processes are not separated; the distortion of the apparent effect of an exposure on risk, brought about by the association with other factors that can influence the outcome."
or
"A relationship between the effects of two or more causal factors observed in a set of data, such that it is not logically possible to separate the contribution of any single causal factor to the observed effects."
From your second sentence you are talking about statistics. I suppose if you believe in random changes in genes causes cancer then you might think statistics is relevant.
I don't see that either definition has any relevance.
The processes can be separated. The actions of the stem cell to transform into cancer stem cells is not affected by immune cells but immune cells as well as stromal cells and others do communicate with tumor cells as far as proliferation rate and movement is concerned.
How on earth do you see that a regression to the mean has anything to do with placebo effect?
In statistics, regression toward (or to) the mean is the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement—and if it is extreme on its second measurement, it will tend to have been closer to the average on its first.
(definition from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean)
How does that have anything to do with placebo meaning. It becomes relevant in looking at a large number of people's placebo responses in a clinical trial.
You don't seem to understand what I am talking about.
A placebo effect is not something that would trigger something else, as for instance your suggestion of a beneficial immune response. There is no sense in talking about "an exposure on risk" or that there are any other associated factors. All this presupposes the official medical story of "physical causes", the smoking, pollution, UV rays, eating too much meat and all the other ridiculous risk factors that they talk about. NONE of them cause cancer.
A placebo effect is the body's reaction to a belief (an idea upheld with confidence or considered to be true or real). Even in faith healing a belief is still about something. It is not arbitrary.
ALSO the immune response is not the key factor. Certainly it is involved in removing any excess cells at the end of the process of spontaneous remission but this is only because there is excess cells.
It is erroneous to think of the immune system as having a beneficial as opposed to a null effect or "not working property" or co-opted garbage.
Certainly the immune system can identify harmful bacterial but in most cases it is signaled by a cell that has become infected. Sometimes that cell might be an immune cell but most commonly it is not an immune cell.
Even cells with damage or errors beyond repair signal the immune system. It is not that the immune system recognizes them without some signal from the damaged cell.
