uh which of the two is the 'egotistical' option that apparently doesn't affect the US, hunger or cancer
You're joking right?
Because sometimes there's nothing you can do. Some people get cancer spontaneously. The U.S., as well as the world as a whole, needs to put more focus on prevention rather than treatment, but ultimately the reason why people care about "curing" it is because the average person who isn't in the healthcare field doesn't think about cancer all that much, unless they or someone they know gets it. A focus on prevention is going to do fuck all at that point.
Sometimes there's nothing you can do, which is why rich people like biden who typically stand against spending more money on new programs to help people are all of a sudden excited for a super improbable moonshot to spend a ton of money on
I don't really see the food company connection there, but big pharma knows Biden's going to take very good care of them any way he can. Very likely that "cure cancer" means a huge public spending spree on research, with the results of which being handed off via exclusive licence rights that private companies profit off of. Same as litterally all other public spending on medical research.
Because cancer isn't a single disease it's hundreds. There's no one size fits all approach. Even within cancers affecting the same organs there's a huge variation, affecting which treatments are effective. Cancer isn't some invading pathogen, it's the host cells growing out of control so you have to kill the cancer cells without doing enough damage to kill the host. To cure cancer you have to detect it in the first place. Screening programs aren't perfect and false positives can cause more harm than good. Cancer may only present symptomatically in the late stages or when it's progressing too quickly to stop.
