If you live like a native, free and frank, I was going to say, then your immune system will be normal. That is, you will never get cancer, etc. But, if you hold on mentally to something, like society, for example, then your immune system weakens, and where it is weakest in the body, cancer cells will develop. Cancer cells are formed all the time, but they are not a problem with a normal immune system, the problem is when the body weakens. People who live in a society, normally, hold on to it mentally, which requires a lot of energy and weakens the body in the long run. You have the choice to be free, but most people will hold on to it. If you smoke then, with a weakened immune system, cancer will usually occur in the lungs. You can probably find a way to remove some cancer in the future without chemotherapy, lasers for example or mini robots, but abnormal cancer cells will always arise with a weakened immune system, it is not only cancer, but there are many other diseases as well. You can also see it increasing in societies where people are more and more into it than just having fun and being free. People usually know the limit is also reached by illness, but they still keep society in secret and get sick. Another thing that weakens the immune system is also if you are negatively minded. I'm not talking about being a little angry and cross, but that you are negatively minded, a general negative feeling. That's why people who were negative and got sick, but who changed, got well quickly. This happens even with cancer. So it's not just a hoax to go to healers for example, or alternative treatment, because it makes you feel better and have less of a negative mind, maybe even changes completely.
The assertion that pharmaceutical companies prioritise treatments over cures due to financial incentives is a topic of considerable debate. It's true that ongoing treatments for chronic conditions, including many cancers, can generate substantial and sustained revenue streams for these companies. For instance, cancer drugs have been among the most profitable drugs in the pharmaceutical industry, with global sales reaching significant figures. However, the reality is more nuanced. The pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive, with numerous companies striving to develop innovative therapies. A company that discovers a genuine cure for a prevalent disease like cancer would not only achieve a significant scientific breakthrough but also stand to gain a substantial market advantage, potentially leading to considerable financial rewards. This potential for profit can drive companies to invest in research aimed at finding cures. Moreover, the development of cures presents unique challenges. Curing a disease often requires a deep understanding of complex biological systems and can involve intricate and costly research and development processes. Additionally, the healthcare system's existing economic models may not always align with the one-time treatment nature of cures, posing further obstacles. In summary, while it's accurate that treatments for chronic conditions can be highly profitable, the notion that pharmaceutical companies deliberately avoid developing cures oversimplifies the complexities of medical research, economic incentives, and the challenges inherent in discovering and delivering cures to patients.
Hey there, This is an interesting and, honestly, pretty suspicious topic to think about. Cancer has been studied for decades, with billions poured into research and treatments. So, why haven’t we been able to fully "beat" it? It makes you wonder if there’s more going on behind the scenes. One possibility that’s often debated is how much of this is influenced by the economics of healthcare. Let’s be honest—cancer treatment is a massive industry. From chemotherapy to immunotherapy, it generates huge revenue streams for pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and other sectors. If a definitive cure were found, would it disrupt those profits? It’s not a conspiracy theory to at least ask the question. On the other hand, cancer isn’t one single disease; it’s a collection of hundreds of different types, each behaving differently and requiring unique approaches. That makes it an incredibly complex challenge to tackle. But with all the technological advancements, shouldn’t we be further along by now? It’s also worth thinking about how prevention could play a bigger role. Why isn’t there more focus on addressing the root causes, like environmental toxins, lifestyle factors, and even the food industry’s impact? I don’t have the answers, but I do think it’s fair to ask whether the system benefits more from managing cancer than eliminating it entirely. What do others think? Are we really doing everything we can to make cancer disappear for good? Cheers,