Yes this is true.Just started reading the book, 'Boomerang'. It's a fiction book. In the first 15 pages there was something that really made me stop and think. The book is/was high on the best seller list and I've only just begun it. But, in the book, the newly elected President discovers he has metastatic cancer that has spread into his pancreas, i.e., certain death penalty. One of the Staff informs him that there is a top secret, national security drug that CURES cancer 98% of the time. The incredulous new President asks the obvious question: why isn't it on the market?
The answer is that drug companies don't want to cure cancer or anything. They want to treat the problem and indefinitely prolong the sufferer's life so that they can continue to sell their drugs to prolong that life. Think of the economic devastation curing cancer would cause worldwide.
So...that got me to thinking. Is that truly what's going on? Certainly, drug companies would benefit more from treating symptoms and prolonging life than simply curing the affliction, right? I think there has been something like 90 years of research into curing cancer and no cure has been found. Better treatments, treatments that put the disease into remission (for some period of time), alleviates some symptoms, etc., yes. But, no CURE. Bear in mind, in 2024, the oncology drug market was >$145B and, according to Google search, is expected to top $400B in the next 10 years. Do pharmaceutical companies REALLY want to cure cancer?
Looking at all the evidence of the lies the government has told, the media has told (all stripes), Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc., is it so out of reality that this type of thing goes on all the time? I mean we hear so much about 'studies say...', 'tons of research...'. But, who is paying for that study and research? If a renewable energy company pays a lab or a university for research, isn't it in the best interests of the lab/university to conclude whatever they believe the funding company is looking for? If Big Pharma is paying research labs to study cancer or ALS or osteo, does the lab really want to find a CURE or do they want to develop an effective therapeutic that ensures patients need the Big Pharma drug for the rest of their life? The trans hysteria is supposedly backed up by 'research' and 'studies' - but who performed those studies, who paid for them and what did the lab understand the payor wanted out of their research? If something as obvious as two genders and only two genders can be questioned due to 'research' and 'studies', then it's not unreasonable to question who performed the studies and why. (And I say it's obvious because when an individual elects to have gender-reassignment surgery, there is only one choice to pick. You came in as 'X' and you want to leave as 'Y'. There is no menu of 32 genders to choose from. It's a simple 1 or a 0 question.) It appears that research can be fudged (as we seen in polling data and even the climate organizations who've skewed data so that the outcome is what they want). And it's across all industries, I would imagine. When there are 100s of billions of dollars at stake, what's easier than hiring a company to do research/a study that says your firm/industry is God's gift to mankind?
I know this sounds like tin foil hat stuff and it was prompted by a fictional book. But, that scene in the book really made me think. And, honestly, scared me a bit if even a tiny bit of the stuff I just wrote is true.
You should research vitamin B17. Go down that rabbit hole. You also should know that it's a proven fact that there are actually more cancer providers than there are patients.